Intelligent Design is a Religiously Motivated Attack on Science
The notion that the universe was created by God may have merit as a religious idea, but it has no merit as science. To some people, the phrase “intelligent design” evokes the belief that the universe, and especially human beings, were crafted by the guiding hand of a loving God. This is a belief shared by many people, including many scientists. NCSE takes no position on the merits of these religious beliefs, except to say that these are not scientific statements, and should not be presented as such. Nor should their denials.
But the political forces promoting intelligent design use that phrase to mean something much more specific than what the general public often takes it to mean. The Discovery Institute and other ID promoters insist that “intelligent design” is a scientific research program that aspires to detect phenomena in nature whose existence can only be explained by appealing to intentional design. From this, it would then be possible to infer the existence and actions of an unnamed designer – a being which intelligent design promoters identify variously as the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God.
Moreover, ID unabashedly rejects the methods and results of the well-established scientific discipline of evolutionary biology. While almost all religious traditions hold that the presence of order in the cosmos reflects in some sense an underlying purpose or “design,” many religious groups hold that God guides the course of evolution through the laws of nature, not through frequent overt miracles. This position has been adopted by the vast majority of Jewish rabbis, by the Pope, by mainline Protestant churches, by over 11,000 Christian clergy , and by a growing number of Evangelical Christians. As Steve Martin, an Evangelical and a scientist, observes , "Evolutionary creationism [the compatibility between biological evolution and an Evangelical expression of Christian faith] is no longer a radical fringe position within the Evangelical community. … The scholarly dialogue phase regarding the scientific merits of biological evolution within the mainstream evangelical scientific community may be practically complete; we are now in a phase where this community is communicating their (majority?) consensus to their Christian brothers and sisters who are less comfortable with scientific discussions." Other theological traditions adopt different ways of theologically accommodating evolution. And, of course, a sizable fraction of the population does not see any intelligence or purposive design in the universe at all. Scientific methods cannot resolve these disagreements.
In short, the basic idea that God created is central to many religious traditions. The religious merits of that idea do not imply that it is scientifically legitimate. It is of no service to people of faith to insist, as ID promoters do, that religious belief compels the rejection of well-established results from well-developed scientific fields like evolution. Intelligent design has no scientific merit, and ID promoters acknowledge that it would require a redefinition of science in order to fall within the realm of scientific inquiry. This religious idea should not be imposed on public school science classes.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"Intelligent design is a religiously motivated attack on science ."
What a load of tripe. Professors, biologists, astronomers, and academic leaders are losing their jobs for even mentioning intelligent design during their lectures in a country where freedom of education supposedly exists. And ID is the one attacking science? Yeah right.
Science is supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think, and starting a political witch hunt against people who find holes in the theory of evolution is petty and vindictive at best, and dangerous to our society at worst.
I'm sorry, but there is a huge need for scientists and educators alike to take a more critical stance on the theory of evolution. As a biologist, I acknowledge the ongoing adaptations of organisms over time, but as a chemist, I'm well aware that life cannot spawn from non-life. The theory of evolution is flawed in that it is incapable of explaining how life on Earth began. The accepted theory is that lightning struck primordial soup somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.6 billion years ago and a self-replicating cell just popped up.
The world's most brilliant scientists can't even figure out how to create a cell in a laboratory, so the chances of one just accidentally being created 5 billion years ago are incredibly slim. By "incredibly slim", I mean scientists have put the number in the area of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the third power . So, I have to question that piece of the theory of evolution.
From a physicists standpoint, ID explains the beginning of life better than Darwinism does. A quick read through Stephen Hawking's lectures on string theory will show that scientists are finding that time is not linear. The reason we shun the idea of something creating us is because we believe that the beginning of life started on this planet. Not only is that theory egocentric, it's not backed by the evidence. The more physicists understand the relativity of time, the more elusive the "beginning" and "end" of time become. Such starting and ending points are as unlikely as the existence of an edge to the universe. This is not religious psycho-babble - this is quantum physics.
So something that was alive before us that came here to create the first life on Earth is absolutely not out of the question. Call it an alien invasion or whatever you like, but even Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA and the double helix) wrote that this theory has more merit than the "lightning striking primordial soup" idea of the Darwinists.
Don't get me wrong, Darwin was a smart guy and all - but On the Origin of Species was written over 150 years ago and professors are still teaching it as if it is the end all and be all of evolution. They're halting scientific progress by claiming that any further explanation on the origins of man is false.
"The theory of evolution is flawed in that it is incapable of explaining how life on Earth began."
-Livvy
Except that the theory of Evolution has no bearing on the actual start of life. It only takes effect once life begins, describing how that life adapts to changing physical conditions
"The accepted theory is that lightning struck primordial soup somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.6 billion years ago and a self-replicating cell just popped up."
-Livvy
That in no way describes the current theories about how life began.
"The world's most brilliant scientists can't even figure out how to create a cell in a laboratory, so the chances of one just accidentally being created 5 billion years ago are incredibly slim."
-Livvy
So intelligent agents cannot create life under strict lab conditions? Seems more like an argument against ID, rather then for it... unless you are willing / able to demonstrate how an intelligent agent would be better at creating life then we are.
"The reason we shun the idea of something creating us is because we believe that the beginning of life started on this planet. Not only is that theory egocentric, it's not backed by the evidence. The more physicists understand the relativity of time, the more elusive the "beginning" and "end" of time become."
-Livvy
What does the the nature of time and string theory (which is in itself quite suspect) have to do with evolution vs. ID?
"So something that was alive before us that came here to create the first life on Earth is absolutely not out of the question. Call it an alien invasion or whatever you like, but even Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA and the double helix) wrote that this theory has more merit than the "lightning striking primordial soup" idea of the Darwinists."
-Livvy
Which only pushes the question of the origin of life somewhere else... while adding the burden of how did that life get to Terra in the first place.
What predictions does life being created elsewhere the being brought to Terra make, how could we test that theory and how could it be proven?
"That in no way describes the current theories about how life began."
So would you like to give a better explanation on what current OoL theories exist? This is definitely a subject in origins debate that interests me most.
"So intelligent agents cannot create life under strict lab conditions ? Seems more like an argument against ID, rather then for it..."
The fact that scientists who claim life can emerge without planning can't even execute the same processes on their own seems to show just how big a skillset the agency in question really is.
"unless you are willing / able to demonstrate how an intelligent agent would be better at creating life then we are."
My Mac is undesigned by that reasoning. I can't build one, and I don't know how it's possible for anyone to manufacture one.
"Which only pushes the question of the origin of life somewhere else... while adding the burden of how did that life get to Terra in the first place."
With respect to exogenesis and panspermia in general, you're right.
"So would you like to give a better explanation on what current OoL theories exist? This is definitely a subject in origins debate that interests me most."
instead of a 'bolt of lightning hitting a pool of chemicals and making a cell pop out' it was most likely a slow process taking place along the ancient shores. The surf stirring the chemicals providing the energy that fueled the early RNA / DNA reactions... over time these reactions became more complex, leading to proto-cellular structures.
"instead of a 'bolt of lightning hitting a pool of chemicals and making a cell pop out'"
Where did I say that???
"it was most likely a slow process taking place along the ancient shores."
Or convection currents, or towards the earth's core, or.... shoot, seems like anything is tried these days. I for one would like to know how such hypothesis could be falsified.
"The surf stirring the chemicals providing the energy that fueled the early RNA / DNA reactions... over time these reactions became more complex, leading to proto-cellular structures."
I think even the most uneducated person in this debate can look up the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster
From the above link:
"In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase[2]."
Doesn't sound hopeful to me, especially when the most ideal conditions require some "help:"
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/origin_of_life_researchers_int.html
And since you cannot synthesis all the necessary chemicals in the same place or get a replicating cycle started:
www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm
www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ribo171.htm
Looks like you have some explaining to do, especially when the most causally adequate explanation to date is intelligent intervention.
‘Where did I say that???’
It was Livvy that originally said it.
“Or convection currents, or towards the earth's core, or.... shoot, seems like anything is tried these days. I for one would like to know how such hypothesis could be falsified.”
By demonstrating an alternative process would be a good start. A comprehensive theory of how life began on earth has not yet been developed (though there is a great deal of promising research in that direction). Once experiments showing the very beginnings of life then a full and falsifiable theory can be developed, but we are still very much in the hypothesis stage. One could ask how a theory involving an intelligent designer could similarly be falsifiable.
“I think even the most uneducated person in this debate can look up the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster
From the above link:
"In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase[2]."”
That was over ten years ago… relating to one form of RNA. More recent research seems to imply otherwise (Powner MW, Gerland B, Sutherland JD (May 2009). "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions ". Nature 459 (7244): 239–42)
“Doesn't sound hopeful to me, especially when the most ideal conditions require some "help:"
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/origin_of_life_researchers_int.html
And since you cannot synthesis all the necessary chemicals in the same place or get a replicating cycle started:
www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm
www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ribo171.htm ”
Complete later
“Looks like you have some explaining to do, especially when the most causally adequate explanation to date is intelligent intervention.”
How is intelligent intervention adequate? It assumes the existence of something that has never been demonstrated to exists, where as the mechanisms behind evolution are observable today.
"the theory of Evolution has no bearing on the actual start of life."
So...you're saying Darwin's book "On the Origins of Man" actually has nothing to do with...the origins of man...? You're a sharp one. Man, you didn't even have to read the book - just the title.
My argument is not that ID explains everything. Or string theory. Or quantum physics. My argument is that Darwinists have no right to stand in the way of other theories that have scientific merit because they want to continue idealizing a concept that's full of holes.
How does the nature of time have anything to do with ID? If time isn't linear, then the concept of the "beginning" doesn't bear much significance, because then there's a possibility that life has always existed somewhere in the universe. I understand that this is a theory, but it has more merit than the idea that life just somehow came into being out of nothing. And by the way, the accepted idea that lightning struck some lifeless goo and bam! - life - is layman's term for exactly what Darwinists theorize as the probable beginning. I could have said that they believe a random catalyst associated complex molecules into organized aggregates and membranes which then converged to produce a primitive cell from which prokayotes derive, but lightning striking goo captures the idea just as well.
Instead of telling me what I already know - that ID is just a theory - why don't you actually make an intelligible counter-argument against it? Writing "Occam's razor" doesn't cut it.
How 'bout this - I'll go ahead and advocate for the progression of science into the 21st century and you can spout 14th century philosophy as an excuse for not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
"So...you're saying Darwin's book "On the Origins of Man" actually has nothing to do with...the origins of man...? You're a sharp one. Man, you didn't even have to read the book - just the title."
-Livvy
Are you referring to "The Decent of Man" which details Darwins studies on the origins of the human species as it evolved from earlier Homids or "The Origin of the Species" which put forth the idea that currently observed species are evolved from earlier species by means of natural selection? Neither of these two works deal with the very beginnings of life... just how life adapts to environmental stimulus .
"My argument is not that ID explains everything. Or string theory. Or quantum physics. My argument is that Darwinists have no right to stand in the way of other theories that have scientific merit because they want to continue idealizing a concept that's full of holes."
-Livvy
How are they standing in the way? Is research into ID banned? ID proponents are free to conduct as much research as they want, their proof has yet to reach the level or proof that Evolution has... and so it the theory of ID has yet to reach popular acceptance. And doesn't ID have it's own host of holes? What predictions can be made using the theory of ID? Can the designers next actions be determined?
"How does the nature of time have anything to do with ID? If time isn't linear, then the concept of the "beginning" doesn't bear much significance, because then there's a possibility that life has always existed somewhere in the universe."
-Livvy
So if life has always existed 'somewhere' in the universe then by what mechanism did it get to Terra? By what mechanism does it violate relativity to move through time in violation of causality?
"I understand that this is a theory, but it has more merit than the idea that life just somehow came into being out of nothing."
-Livvy
Really? Closed timelike curves and the use of energies that transcend the output of the sun makes more sense then a series of chemical reactions?
"I could have said that they believe a random catalyst associated complex molecules into organized aggregates and membranes which then converged to produce a primitive cell from which prokayotes derive, but lightning striking goo captures the idea just as well."
-Livvy
Except that that puts for the idea that it was a single moment that transform a lifeless puddle of goop into the first life. A much more accurate description is that a series of chemical reactions took place in the oceans of the world that led to the creation of increasingly complex chemical structures. This led to the appearance of the very first forms of life... which were vastly simpler then even the most basic of cells.
"Instead of telling me what I already know - that ID is just a theory - why don't you actually make an intelligible counter-argument against it? Writing "Occam's razor" doesn't cut it."
-Livvy
I didn't mention Occam's Razor anywhere else in my post, it was the title... with a ? mark at the end. Intelligible counter-arguments...
1) What predictions has ID made and have they so far proven true?
2) What is the nature of the Designer?
3) What is the mechanism that the Designer uses to manipulate life
4) What are the intentions / motivations of the Designer
5) How can the existence of the Designer be tested?
6) Is ID just a way of pointing at things that have yet to have shown a clear evolutionary path and claiming that that is ID?
7) Is there a demonstrative level of "Design" that is constant across all designed elements?
"How 'bout this - I'll go ahead and advocate for the progression of science into the 21st century and you can spout 14th century philosophy as an excuse for not knowing what the hell you're talking about."
-Livvy
Go right ahead... I look forward to seeing a fully developed theory of Intelligent Design (though I'm not going to hold my breath). However, Evolution (which does not deal with the absolute beginings of life) seems to do a good job of describing what we see around us, and can be used to make useful predictions. When ID reaches that level I'll give it further consideration.
"1) What predictions has ID made and have they so far proven true?"
See the above links.
"2) What is the nature of the Designer?"
Some kind of entity capable of guiding ends to means and pre-planning events or features before they happen or come into existence .
"3) What is the mechanism that the Designer uses to manipulate life"
What does this have to do with ID (which DETECTS existing design instead of determining how it got there)?
"4) What are the intentions / motivations of the Designer"
Gee, to design things maybe?
"5) How can the existence of the Designer be tested?"
By finding features more consistent with the existence of one.
"6) Is ID just a way of pointing at things that have yet to have shown a clear evolutionary path and claiming that that is ID? "
It is no more a " god -of-the-gaps" theory than coming across a book and concluding it had an author is an "author-of-the-gaps" fallacy.
"7) Is there a demonstrative level of "Design" that is constant across all designed elements?"
A complexity threshold of 500 bits of information is the typically used standard. Derived from the universe's event-generating resources (time, matter, and the speed that matter can change).
"Go right ahead... I look forward to seeing a fully developed theory of Intelligent Design (though I'm not going to hold my breath)."
That's taken care of, now what.
"However, Evolution (which does not deal with the absolute beginings of life) seems to do a good job of describing what we see around us, and can be used to make useful predictions."
Like what? Oh wait, you aren't referring to these ones are you?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_1.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_2.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_3.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_4.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_5.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_6.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_7.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_8.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_9.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_10.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_11.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_12.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_13.html
"When ID reaches that level I'll give it further consideration."
It already has.
"Some kind of entity capable of guiding ends to means and pre-planning events or features before they happen or come into existence ."
A non living entity? Because life is to complex to come about without a designer then by definition that designer cannot be alive. How does this designer guide 'ends to means' and how does it pre-plan events before they come into existence?
"What does this have to do with ID (which DETECTS existing design instead of determining how it got there)?"
But if there is a designer then that designer has to be using some method to create these changes? For a theory that explicitly states that there is a designer ID is remarkably quiet on the nature and methods of that designer.
"It is no more a " god -of-the-gaps" theory than coming across a book and concluding it had an author is an "author-of-the-gaps" fallacy."
The difference is that a book is demonstratively an artificial construct. I can got a printer and watch one being made, I can go to an author and ask why he wrote the book. Can I do the same thing with a bird or a lizard?
"A complexity threshold of 500 bits of information is the typically used standard. Derived from the universe's event-generating resources (time, matter, and the speed that matter can change)."
So something can, through a process of random mutation, accumulate 499 bits of information... but not more? What 500 bits of information are we talking about here? The complexity of dunes in the Sahara desert would have to be coded in more the 500 bits of information by any standard... is it designed by an intelligence?
"A non living entity?"
Possibly, though it depends on you definition. And what relevance does this have to the validity of ID?
"Because life is to complex to come about without a designer then by definition that designer cannot be alive."
By what definition?
"How does this designer guide 'ends to means' and how does it pre-plan events before they come into existence?"
How is this relevant to ID?
"But if there is a designer then that designer has to be using some method to create these changes?"
Sure, but this is not the focus of ID. Intelligent Design focuses on features of the natural world which are best explain as being the product of such a process, not on the source of the design or it's methods.
"For a theory that explicitly states that there is a designer ID is remarkably quiet on the nature and methods of that designer."
Pretty sure science cannot answer this question, and that this is independent to the question of whether a feature is designed or not.
"The difference is that a book is demonstratively an artificial construct. I can got a printer and watch one being made, I can go to an author and ask why he wrote the book."
Prove it. How do you know that book came about by the same process?
"Can I do the same thing with a bird or a lizard?"
We don't need to. See the above point.
"So something can, through a process of random mutation, accumulate 499 bits of information... but not more?"
I'm not talking about 500 bits of errors or mistakes in general (such as sand dunes). In no way do the attempts by people such as T. D. Schneider of letting 500 bits worth of just any kind of changes have any relevance to what Dembski refers to. Given all probabilistic resources (both replicational and specificational), you will not expect life on it's own without some kind of intervention to be able to produce an increase of 500 bits of new, useful, complexity that was not already there. At best all you'll see are steps back if a living systems genome changes, or merely duplications of what was already there.
"Possibly, though it depends on you definition. And what relevance does this have to the validity of ID?"
It's your definition. If only designers can create intelligent life then the designers cannot be alive (or they would need designers to create them).
"How is this relevant to ID?"
You say that something has been designed, isn't the question of how it was designed valid? Indeed isn't that a very crucial question...
"Prove it. How do you know that book came about by the same process?"
I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a book was designed. I can show you pictures of other books being made, I can take you to the printing shop where other copies of a given book are being printed, and if the author is still alive I can take you to meet her.
"We don't need to. See the above point."
So instead of a process of random mutation that we can see cause change on a small scale the assumption is that a group of designers (whose origins we cannot determine) used techniques (that we cannot detect) following a design pattern (that we cannot understand) modified all life on earth for billions of years and then suddenly stopped fifty thousand years ago?
"I'm not talking about 500 bits of errors or mistakes in general (such as sand dunes). In no way do the attempts by people such as T. D. Schneider of letting 500 bits worth of just any kind of changes have any relevance to what Dembski refers to. Given all probabilistic resources (both replicational and specificational), you will not expect life on it's own without some kind of intervention to be able to produce an increase of 500 bits of new, useful, complexity that was not already there. At best all you'll see are steps back if a living systems genome changes, or merely duplications of what was already there."
I'm still not clear on what constitutes a 'bit of new, useful, complexity'. The worlds oceans are a very complex and changing system, easily requiring more the 500 bits of information when it changes. Why are random processes capable of creating vastly complex structures randomly, but cannot do that with life?
Meant to get this you sooner.
"It's your definition. If only designers can create intelligent life then the designers cannot be alive (or they would need designers to create them)."
Why can't they be alive? And does it matter?
"You say that something has been designed, isn't the question of how it was designed valid? Indeed isn't that a very crucial question..."
I agree, but is it NECESSARY to know that information to infer design in something?
"I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a book was designed."
We can agree on that, but I think we disagree on the amount of knowledge needed to say so.
"I can show you pictures of other books being made, I can take you to the printing shop where other copies of a given book are being printed, and if the author is still alive I can take you to meet her."
So how do you know the book came about by the same process as the other books, and how do you know the author isn't lying?
"So instead of a process of random mutation that we can see cause change on a small scale the assumption is that a group of designers (whose origins we cannot determine)"
I don't know if the term "designer" or saying (for sure) that a group did it is quite accurate though it may be possible. Anything that fits the definition of an intelligence (which is usually something that guides ends to means to achieve a goal, has the capability of foresight, etc) can be a possibility. Whether this is a combination of teleological laws, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster is left to people's own imagination.
"used techniques (that we cannot detect)"
We can determine some form of techniques had to have been used on something, but you're right, we cannot determine (yet) specifically what they are.
"following a design pattern (that we cannot understand)"
By all means, I think we can understand the pattern(s) quite well. Otherwise no one would be claiming something came about by ANY process (whether this be Darwinian evolution , teleology, or something else altogether).
"modified all life on earth for billions of years and then suddenly stopped fifty thousand years ago?"
This is something that remains in question. While most people feel that there was some form of intervention over time, this may not have been the case if we're talking about full-scale front-loading. Whether 50K years ago was the end of it is another "?" that's left up to speculation.
"I'm still not clear on what constitutes a 'bit of new, useful, complexity'. The worlds oceans are a very complex and changing system, easily requiring more the 500 bits of information when it changes."
Indeed, any event in which other "outcomes" so to speak are eliminated can count as some kind of "information," but I'm referring to the new kind of information that would've taken a prokaryotic cell to something of much higher sophistication (such as a human). I think maybe this would be a time to discuss where we can reasonably conclude these limits are if you'd like, this may be an easier way to convey the argument.
"Why are random processes capable of creating vastly complex structures randomly, but cannot do that with life?"
It's true that random (or undirected) processes can generate complex features, but this isn't quite the discrepancy ID'ers have with them. Though processes (such as random mutation and selection) are in fact a mix of chance and necessity, life itself is not. This is more of an axiomatic argument but it basically stems to the idea that life itself is not just a random assemblage of constituents. Rather it contains many much needs parts and systems to function and thus we argue based on observed effects of the blind processes in question that they could not have produced certain aspects of life. From there the argument moves from design by elimination to design by comparison.
"Why can't they be alive? And does it matter?"
If life cannot exist without a designer then how did the designers come into being? If they are not alive then what are they?
"I agree, but is it NECESSARY to know that information to infer design in something?"
Given the strength of modern evolutionary theories, which has several mechanisms by which living things can change over time, then I'd say that yes it would have to provide a mechanism by which the changes are enacted.
"I don't know if the term "designer" or saying (for sure) that a group did it is quite accurate though it may be possible. Anything that fits the definition of an intelligence (which is usually something that guides ends to means to achieve a goal, has the capability of foresight, etc) can be a possibility. Whether this is a combination of teleological laws, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster is left to people's own imagination."
but it's not just a matter of imagination. The designer(s) are, according to ID, a real part of the universe... they have an objective existence. Scientifically speaking we cannot just leave it up to imagination.
"By all means, I think we can understand the pattern(s) quite well. Otherwise no one would be claiming something came about by ANY process (whether this be Darwinian evolution , teleology, or something else altogether). "
But you are stating that there is a specific design, an overall plan as it were, behind the life on this planet. Each species of bird that exists was chosen for a specific purpose, appearing on the planet at a chosen moment.
"This is something that remains in question. While most people feel that there was some form of intervention over time, this may not have been the case if we're talking about full-scale front-loading. Whether 50K years ago was the end of it is another "?" that's left up to speculation."
Why is it left up to speculation? Either the designer(s) stopped for some determined reason 50k years ago, or they are still active in the world. Both possibilities raise a whole host of questions.
"Indeed, any event in which other "outcomes" so to speak are eliminated can count as some kind of "information," but I'm referring to the new kind of information that would've taken a prokaryotic cell to something of much higher sophistication (such as a human). I think maybe this would be a time to discuss where we can reasonably conclude these limits are if you'd like, this may be an easier way to convey the argument."
a Prokaryotic cell does not just jump to a human being, it evolves into one through a multi-million year process... with each generation experiencing small changes. What is the difference between small changes in the genetic code and small changes in the oceans currents?
"If life cannot exist without a designer then how did the designers come into being? If they are not alive then what are they?"
No more relevant to ID than the origin of matter is to evolution .
"Given the strength of modern evolutionary theories, which has several mechanisms by which living things can change over time, then I'd say that yes it would have to provide a mechanism by which the changes are enacted."
But they can't reach far beyond multiple mutations in the context of generating new novel features:
http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
http://www.discovery.org/a/9611
http://www.discovery.org/a/3536
We honestly don't need to know a mechanism by which the designer creates any more then we need to know the mechanism behind gravity, magnetism, or quantum mechanics.
"but it's not just a matter of imagination. The designer(s) are, according to ID, a real part of the universe... they have an objective existence."
True, they do play a role in the natural world, though whether they are natural or not is undetermined.
"Scientifically speaking we cannot just leave it up to imagination."
Why not? What does it have to do with figuring out if a feature is designed or not?
"But you are stating that there is a specific design, an overall plan as it were, behind the life on this planet. Each species of bird that exists was chosen for a specific purpose, appearing on the planet at a chosen moment."
I'm afraid we're talking past each other on this one, what is the point you're trying to make?
"Why is it left up to speculation? Either the designer(s) stopped for some determined reason 50k years ago, or they are still active in the world."
Which we currently cannot tell, hence the speculation.
"Both possibilities raise a whole host of questions."
Part of what good science does.
"a Prokaryotic cell does not just jump to a human being, it evolves into one through a multi-million year process... with each generation experiencing small changes. What is the difference between small changes in the genetic code and small changes in the oceans currents?"
One affects the structure and function of a living thing while the other does little if anything to DIRECTLY affect the structure of a given system.
“No more relevant to ID than the origin of matter is to evolution ”
Except that evolution does not require any new processes to describe its action. The process of cellular mutation is well observed. ID proposes an entirely NEW mechanism by which the DNA of species is altered, as well as an entirely new driving ‘agent’.
“But they can't reach far beyond multiple mutations in the context of generating new novel features:
http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
http://www.discovery.org/a/9611
http://www.discovery.org/a/3536 “
The Discovery Institute? Do you have a link to anything other then an apologetics group? Something Peer Reviewed?
“We honestly don't need to know a mechanism by which the designer creates any more then we need to know the mechanism behind gravity, magnetism, or quantum mechanics.”
True, but gravity, magnetism, and quantum mechanics are undergoing investigation to determine their mechanisms. Also, all three of those things are observable phenomena… we may not fully understand gravity, but we can test it.
“True, they do play a role in the natural world, though whether they are natural or not is undetermined.”
In what ways could their existence be tested? What would constitute scientific proof of their supernatural origins? And then wouldn’t the designers be considered natural?
“Why not? What does it have to do with figuring out if a feature is designed or not?”
Because how can you say for sure that a features was designed if you cannot show how it was designed?
“I'm afraid we're talking past each other on this one, what is the point you're trying to make?”
What I am saying is that if there is a designer setting up species then there is a specific reason why a given species existed at a specific place at a specific time. The number of different small birds is not the result of undirected mutations in response to evolutionary pressures it is the result of deliberate design decisions.
“Which we currently cannot tell, hence the speculation.”
But how would you test that? If the designers have stopped 50k years ago then how do you explain the continued changes that we observe in the species around us?
“Part of what good science does.”
Very true, however what scientific tests do you propose to resolve those questions? And how do you reconcile those questions with the body of scientific observation?
“One affects the structure and function of a living thing while the other does little if anything to DIRECTLY affect the structure of a given system.”
You are stating that you can directly demonstrate that those changes can come about through the results of a designers action and not through random mutation coupled with environmental pressures?
These are gradual changes, taking place over the course of millions of years. Fins become legs not by popping out fully grown but by a gradual process that lengthens the base of the fin and brings the fin support bones closer together… I went into this a great deal in “Best Solutions” and “Best Solutions continued (which are on page two of my posting history at this point).
"How are they standing in the way? Is research into ID banned?"
Pretty much, especially if anyone who has publically known pro-ID views prior to getting tenure is bound to not get it.
"ID proponents are free to conduct as much research as they want,"
If that were true then why (as an example) was Robert J. Marks asked to return grant money the moment he started a lab related to ID?
"their proof has yet to reach the level or proof that Evolution has..."
Can you give me an overview of that proof please? I keep hearing of it, but no one seems willing to describe it.
"and so it the theory of ID has yet to reach popular acceptance."
So all I have to do is show that ID explains the workings of many features of the natural world and they'll be free to do their research?
"And doesn't ID have it's own host of holes?"
Name some.
"What predictions can be made using the theory of ID?"
This gives a good overview:
http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Main_Page
And here's some specifics:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/function_for_endogenous_retrov.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/another_intelligent_design_pre.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/wired_magazine_unashamedly_mix.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/darwinist_misrepresents_guille.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/biologists_report_important_ge.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/what_is_wrong_with_sobers_atta_1.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/followup_on_junkdna.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/murphys_law_any_objections_to_1.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/biologists_report_important_ge.html
If you'd like, I can also go into failed predictions from the current paradigm.
"Can the designers next actions be determined?"
We can detect them once they happen, which is all ID is claiming to be able to do in that respect.
"A much more accurate description is that a series of chemical reactions took place in the oceans of the world that led to the creation of increasingly complex chemical structures."
Probably weren't biologically relevant though (unless agency intervened).
"This led to the appearance of the very first forms of life... which were vastly simpler then even the most basic of cells."
Explain how you could have "life" that happens to be even simpler than the most basic of cells.
"Pretty much, especially if anyone who has publicly known pro-ID views prior to getting tenure is bound to not get it."
If the institution in question does not feel that ID is a valid line of inquiry then I don't see why it would give tenure to people who subscribe to the theory.
"If that were true then why (as an example) was Robert J. Marks asked to return grant money the moment he started a lab related to ID?"
Was he given that money to start and ID lab? If not then I imagine that his backers would have been upset when they found that he was using the money given to him for a different purpose.
"So all I have to do is show that ID explains the workings of many features of the natural world and they'll be free to do their research?"
In a scientifically demonstrable fashion yes.
"Name some."
The nature and origin of the designer, the purpose of the design, the current location of the designer, the mechanism by which the designer acted, the process by which design decisions were made and the reasons behind specific design choices.
"This gives a good overview:"
Talk about how purposes for what what was once though to be junk DNA... followed by arguments about how ID has been misrepresented.... I'm not sure what predictions it's making.
"We can detect them once they happen, which is all ID is claiming to be able to do in that respect."
By what mechanism does the designer make these changes? Why can't we look at past design decisions and then determine an overall pattern from which we can then determine the next design choice?
"Probably weren't biologically relevant though (unless agency intervened)"
Why did the agency intervene? Where did that agency originate? How did that agency create life?
"Explain how you could have "life" that happens to be even simpler than the most basic of cells."
long chains of self replicating proteins? proto-cells?
"If the institution in question does not feel that ID is a valid line of inquiry then I don't see why it would give tenure to people who subscribe to the theory."
So you've now retracted from the view that ID'ers are perfectly free to conduct research, publish papers, etc.
"Was he given that money to start and ID lab? If not then I imagine that his backers would have been upset when they found that he was using the money given to him for a different purpose."
Marks had started numerous other labs prior to that and he never had to ask permission to start any of them. Once he started one that was related to ID the pattern changed. Thus I think we can agree there is a strong anti-ID bias in academia.
"In a scientifically demonstrable fashion yes."
Define "scientifically demonstrable fashion" first please.
"The nature and origin of the designer, the purpose of the design, the current location of the designer, the mechanism by which the designer acted, the process by which design decisions were made and the reasons behind specific design choices."
None of which even have anything to do with ID. It would be like saying Evolution has plenty of holes because it cannot explain the origin of matter.
"Talk about how purposes for what what was once though to be junk DNA... followed by arguments about how ID has been misrepresented.... I'm not sure what predictions it's making."
It was spelled out pretty clear, but here's a shorter dumbed-down version just in case...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq /#nopred
"By what mechanism does the designer make these changes? Why can't we look at past design decisions and then determine an overall pattern from which we can then determine the next design choice?"
By what reasoning is this even relevant?
"Why did the agency intervene? Where did that agency originate? How did that agency create life?"
See the above point.
"long chains of self replicating proteins? proto-cells?"
I can recall back in my early high school biology class that life (generally speaking, since sterile animals could be a potential exception) had the following characteristics:
1. One cell 2. Growth stages 3. Need for nutrients 4. adaptability to environment 5. Reproductive capabilities.
Anything wrong with the above criteria?
“"By what mechanism does the designer make these changes? Why can't we look at past design decisions and then determine an overall pattern from which we can then determine the next design choice?"
By what reasoning is this even relevant?”
The mechanism by which the designer makes changes is not relevant? Evolution does not just say “mutation happens” there are theories describing the mechanism of mutation (DNA replication and mutation). And even before those theories came about people knew that species changed with each successive generation (it is readily observable).
The pattern generated by ID is important to making predictions (both as to the fossil record and to future behavior). We can use Evolution to make predictions, that over time species will adapt to fit their environment or die out. We can also look back in time and predict features of species in the fossil record (by looking at two related species then extrapolating changes that could lead from one to the other).
“See the above point.”
So how life came to be is not a relevant question? All that can be said is ‘it was designed’?
“I can recall back in my early high school biology class that life (generally speaking, since sterile animals could be a potential exception) had the following characteristics:
1. One cell 2. Growth stages 3. Need for nutrients 4. adaptability to environment 5. Reproductive capabilities.
Anything wrong with the above criteria?”
That is a fairly simplistic definition that does not deal with fringe cases like viruses or protein shards. The examples I cited of proto-life do fit all of those definitions except for the first one. They ‘grow’, need nutrients, change in response to environmental pressures, and reproduce… all they lack is a defined cell.
“So you've now retracted from the view that ID'ers are perfectly free to conduct research, publish papers, etc”
As perfectly free as any other scientist out there is. Every scientist who wants to run a lab or a study needs funding, and must explain to those funding them what the research is to be. If the prospective backers agree that the study is worthwhile then they will spend their money on it.
No major biological research group supports ID (which I, as very much the amateur find quite telling) and see no validity in that research… and thus are not willing to fund it; just as they are unwilling to fund other aspects of pseudoscience (dowsing, astrology, reiki, etc…)
If he can find someone to fund his research then he can run it without interference… other biologists are not going to come to his lab and wreck it.
“Marks had started numerous other labs prior to that and he never had to ask permission to start any of them. Once he started one that was related to ID the pattern changed. Thus I think we can agree there is a strong anti-ID bias in academia.”
So he could just walk around starting labs without any explanation of what he was doing? He did not have to submit any proposals as to what he was going to study? People just gave him money to do research without asking questions?
Is there a strong bias against ID? Certainly… just as there is against Geocentrism, theories of Aether, Expanding Earth theories, homeopathy, and other assorted woo.
As the old saying goes “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
“Define "scientifically demonstrable fashion" first please. “
Experiments with repeatable, independently verifiable, results would do it… or testable predictions (i.e. knowing that the designer made a change during a certain time span then going and finding fossils of that predicted change).
“None of which even have anything to do with ID. It would be like saying Evolution has plenty of holes because it cannot explain the origin of matter.”
Except that there are already theories relating to the origin of matter and the mutation mechanism behind evolution IS known. ID proposes an entirely new mechanism, the designer, but in no way indicates what that designer is or how it operates.
“"Talk about how purposes for what what was once though to be junk DNA... followed by arguments about how ID has been misrepresented.... I'm not sure what predictions it's making."
It was spelled out pretty clear, but here's a shorter dumbed-down version just in case...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq /#nopred”
So if every aspect of the DNA is absolutely useful then was does the removal of chunks still lead to viable organisms (Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nature 431: 988-993)?
I was referring to the Origin of Species. I don't know what the word "origin" means to you, but according to Webster it means "the beginning, starting-point, cause, or ultimate source, from which a thing is derived" so when you said "the theory of Evolution has no bearing on the actual start of life" it leads me to believe that you haven't been paying attention. Now, I know that Darwin didn't really put forth too much evidence for the beginning of life in any of his books - but the man lived 150 years ago. TODAY, one of the fundamental goals of scientists studying the theory of evolution is to figure out how life on Earth began.
Darwinists typically get in the way of any other theories explaining the beginning of life through academic and media routes. The media touts ID as creationism, while most universities do not support curriculum questioning the theory of evolution. In fact, since the fairly recent inception of ID, numerous teachers, professors, and academic officials have lost funding, or even their tenure, for teaching ID in their lectures. I see no sense to this, unless Darwinists are trying to cover up the fact that their theory is filled with holes. Which leads me to Occam's Razor.
A principle that states "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" is a flawed argument, because the Theory of Evolution does not completely explain what scientists are looking for.
"Evolution (which does not deal with the absolute beginings of life) seems to do a good job of describing what we see around us, and can be used to make useful predictions. When ID reaches that level I'll give it further consideration."
ID can't reach that level if it isn't even allowed to be considered among the scientific community.
Evolution doesn't do a good job at describing what we see around us. We've never seen any evidence that one species can change into a completely different species. In fact, we've seen evidence against it. When tigers and lions mate, when donkey's and horses mate, their offspring has always been 100% sterile this goes for all other attempted inter-special reproduction. So if species can't even transcend species, how are entire classes supposed to do that? I.E., how do dinosaurs (lizards) evolve into birds? Proponents of evolution always bring up archaeopteryx as the missing link - but really all it proves is that there used to be a feathered dinosaur crittering around the Earth that's now extinct. If even species and (in most cases) subspecies, could interbreed to make new species I might put a bit more stock into the whole "yeah...lizards took a really long time to evolve into birds" idea.
"TODAY, one of the fundamental goals of scientists studying the theory of evolution is to figure out how life on Earth began."
-Livvy
The origins of life are the focus of a great deal of study, but it focuses more on biochemistry then evolutionary biology, as there was nothing to evolve before the first cells existed.
"The media touts ID as creationism, while most universities do not support curriculum questioning the theory of evolution. In fact, since the fairly recent inception of ID, numerous teachers, professors, and academic officials have lost funding, or even their tenure, for teaching ID in their lectures."
-Livvy
The theory that a supernatural entity created life on Terra seems very close to creationism to me... and since the theory has so little backing I would not expect it to be taught as though it were an accepted theory.
"A principle that states "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" is a flawed argument, because the Theory of Evolution does not completely explain what scientists are looking for."
-Livvy
Scientists may not yet have built a perfect picture of how life evolved, but the theory accurately describes what we observer, and allows for predictions to be made regarding what will occur to a species over time. Every time a new fossil is discovered another hole fills in... do we really need to revise our entire world view on nothing more then some missing bones?
"Evolution doesn't do a good job at describing what we see around us. We've never seen any evidence that one species can change into a completely different species."
-Livvy
Except for in the fossil record, where transitional elements are quite prominent.
"When tigers and lions mate, when donkey's and horses mate, their offspring has always been 100% sterile this goes for all other attempted inter-special reproduction."
-Livvy
Interspecies mating? New species usually evolve from existing populations due to genetic changes over vast time scales, not from the mating of two separate species.
"Proponents of evolution always bring up archaeopteryx as the missing link - but really all it proves is that there used to be a feathered dinosaur crittering around the Earth that's now extinct."
-Livvy
Yet there are no birds before the archaeoperyx, and after the archaeoperyx the birds begin to appear.... how does ID explain that? What reason is given for the appearance of birds after the appearance of bird like dinosaurs (which were not lizards)?
"The origins of life are the focus of a great deal of study, but it focuses more on biochemistry then evolutionary biology , as there was nothing to evolve before the first cells existed."
I can agree with you on that, but I can't help but wonder how you would falsify the prospect of an undirected origin for life.
"The theory that a supernatural entity created life on Terra seems very close to creationism to me..."
Of course the supernatural is not something ID can address on it's own.
"...and since the theory has so little backing I would not expect it to be taught as though it were an accepted theory."
Shall we then dive into some of the evidence placed in it's favor and you can tell me what is so deficient about it?
"Scientists may not yet have built a perfect picture of how life evolved, but the theory accurately describes what we observer,"
See the list of failed predictions I linked to. I think a lot of people would disagree with you on this one.
"and allows for predictions to be made regarding what will occur to a species over time."
Examples???
"Every time a new fossil is discovered another hole fills in... do we really need to revise our entire world view on nothing more then some missing bones?"
Of course not, missing bones are just a small part of the picture. Can we look at the rest of what ID is paying close attention to, or do we have to argue about semantics first?
"Except for in the fossil record, where transitional elements are quite prominent."
One thing which I have found prominently amusing is what many have called the "retroactive ignorance" of many people in paleontological studies. You know, the whole "Well, there are no missing links, but each day we keep finding a new fossil which finally proves it!" If what you're saying is true then why is it that researchers keep finding a new "missing link" that finally settles the debate when prior to such a finding they insisting that no such thing even existed?
"Interspecies mating? New species usually evolve from existing populations due to genetic changes over vast time scales, not from the mating of two separate species."
I can agree on this one, but Livvy's main point seemed to show that too much variation between two maiting living things does not always lead to a new "hopeful monster" as some have called it.
"Yet there are no birds before the archaeoperyx, and after the archaeoperyx the birds begin to appear.... how does ID explain that?"
By taking existing structures and gradually reworking them. Kind of like the lineage between a model T and a Ford F-150.
"What reason is given for the appearance of birds after the appearance of bird like dinosaurs (which were not lizards)?"
See the above point.
"I can agree with you on that, but I can't help but wonder how you would falsify the prospect of an undirected origin for life."
If life cannot emerge without directions that that means that the designer is not alive. If the designer is not alive then what is it?
"See the list of failed predictions I linked to. I think a lot of people would disagree with you on this one. "
Read through the articles on junk DNA, it does not seem to refute Evolution... only show that some long held assumptions about DNA have been changed.
"Examples???"
The fossil record? Species A and Species B are separated by millions of years we can look for transitional species during that time period.
"Of course not, missing bones are just a small part of the picture. Can we look at the rest of what ID is paying close attention to, or do we have to argue about semantics first?"
True, but the lack of a perfect fossil record does not invalidate Evolution.
"One thing which I have found prominently amusing is what many have called the "retroactive ignorance" of many people in paleontological studies. You know, the whole "Well, there are no missing links, but each day we keep finding a new fossil which finally proves it!" If what you're saying is true then why is it that researchers keep finding a new "missing link" that finally settles the debate when prior to such a finding they insisting that no such thing even existed?"
Without a perfect fossil record then there will always be some room to debate which species are related to other species. I've never heard, from a serious scientific source, that a newly discovered fossil "Finally proved it"... that is more the realm of media sensationalism.
"By taking existing structures and gradually reworking them. Kind of like the lineage between a model T and a Ford F-150."
Yet the reasons for design changes between the model T and the F-150 are easy to understand. What are the reasons for the design changes between proto-birds and birds?
"If life cannot emerge without directions that that means that the designer is not alive. If the designer is not alive then what is it?"
Can you please rephrase and explain the logic behind this??? How is this a discussion about the designer's life status?
"Read through the articles on junk DNA, it does not seem to refute Evolution... only show that some long held assumptions about DNA have been changed."
I agree that by itself it does not "refute" evolution per se, but it does show that it leads to some pretty inaccurate assumptions about living systems while ID seems to predict things on a more accurate level.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq /#nopred
"The fossil record? Species A and Species B are separated by millions of years we can look for transitional species during that time period."
Sounds like something design can do just as well, though from the approach of a different question: "How many intermediate changes to living systems where made between species A and species B?"
"True, but the lack of a perfect fossil record does not invalidate Evolution."
I guess the truth about this claim depends on what you mean by "evolution" and how you would approach an imperfect fossil record. I think the least we can say is that from the fossil record by itself we may have to abandon the idea that it can progress in a manner anywhere near what Darwin or Gould initially assumed.
"Without a perfect fossil record then there will always be some room to debate which species are related to other species. I've never heard, from a serious scientific source, that a newly discovered fossil "Finally proved it"... that is more the realm of media sensationalism."
Looks like I need to stop trusting the panda's thumb then.
"Yet the reasons for design changes between the model T and the F-150 are easy to understand. What are the reasons for the design changes between proto-birds and birds?"
Same reasons for with the T to F-150.
"Can you please rephrase and explain the logic behind this??? How is this a discussion about the designer's life status?"
Life cannot exist without designers to create it
thus before the designers existed there can be no life
therefore the designers cannot be alive
Unless you want to argue that the designers designed themselves?
"Sounds like something design can do just as well, though from the approach of a different question: "How many intermediate changes to living systems where made between species A and species B?""
We can also ask why the designers went through those steps, what was their intention when they started creating a given chain of species, and what was their intended end point.
ID requires designers acting on plans that, by your own admission, we cannot understand using means that, by your own admission, we cannot detect to changed species. Evolution requires the observed process of genetic mutation acting in conjunction with observable (or at least predictable) environmental pressures to change species.
Both attempt to describe what we see around us... one uses processes that can be observed, and one does not...
"I guess the truth about this claim depends on what you mean by " evolution " and how you would approach an imperfect fossil record. I think the least we can say is that from the fossil record by itself we may have to abandon the idea that it can progress in a manner anywhere near what Darwin or Gould initially assumed."
Progress? That implies that there is a direction that evolution is taking, there isn't. Each species is changing due to genetic mutation, influenced by environmental pressures. The theory of evolution has continued to evolve over time. Darwin did not know about genetics, or the role that viruses played in changing the genetic code of living creatures.
"Looks like I need to stop trusting the panda's thumb then."
A useful website, but I would not write an academic paper using it's information alone.
"Same reasons for with the T to F-150."
So the designers knowledge is incomplete? The reason why there was a change between the Model T and the F-150 is that the technology behind the cars advanced as our knowledge increased. Ford himself could not have built a F-150 because he did not have the knowledge or the tools to do so.
Boy has there been a monster of events that have happened over the last couple months. I finally met Stephen C. Meyer in person and have now been offered a future....
But book signing events are something unrelated. Let's see if I can backtrack to where we were last at.
"Life cannot exist without designers to create it
thus before the designers existed there can be no life
therefore the designers cannot be alive"
....The term "life" can refer strictly to life on earth, thus there can be "life" in some other form elsewhere, therefore the "designer" (if that's how we want to refer to it) can in fact be alive.
But this is irrelevant to whether such a force exists or not. I'm pretty much okay with either scenario including one in which the telic force is not "alive." That too could be a possibility.
"Unless you want to argue that the designers designed themselves?"
See previous point.
"We can also ask why the designers went through those steps, what was their intention when they started creating a given chain of species, and what was their intended end point."
True, though we don't need to in order to conclude a given feature was designed or not.
"ID requires designers acting on plans that, by your own admission, we cannot understand using means that, by your own admission, we cannot detect to changed species."
That's not what I said at all.
I claim that we could not see the events in action but that doesn't mean we could not detect whether they happened or not.
"Evolution requires the observed process of genetic mutation acting in conjunction with observable (or at least predictable) environmental pressures to change species."
So would you like to dive into just what changes those environmental pressures have led to? And by the way...
"Both attempt to describe what we see around us... one uses processes that can be observed, and one does not..."
...I'm sure you would agree that we don't need to actually OBSERVE life for billions of years to confirm what exactly happened, correct? And I'm sure you also agree that we can observe what the source of information tends to be in our everyday lives as well, right?
"Progress? That implies that there is a direction that evolution is taking, there isn't."
So you DON'T claim that it lead to the complexity and diversity of life we see today?
"Each species is changing due to genetic mutation, influenced by environmental pressures. The theory of evolution has continued to evolve over time. Darwin did not know about genetics, or the role that viruses played in changing the genetic code of living creatures."
I can definitely agree on this one (to an extent). I can also understand why Evo-Devo has gotten so much emphasis considering just how much malaria and HIV have managed to achieved over the past several decades.
"A useful website, but I would not write an academic paper using it's information alone."
I can agree with this point too.
"So the designers knowledge is incomplete? The reason why there was a change between the Model T and the F-150 is that the technology behind the cars advanced as our knowledge increased. Ford himself could not have built a F-150 because he did not have the knowledge or the tools to do so."
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Though you seem to be taking my analogy at face value and seeing only one characteristic out of it, none of this changes the fact that we can infer design independent of any knowledge regarding the causal story of the event in question. Drawing a distinction between assessing causal adequacy and finding a causal story is necessary in this discussion.
Shall we move onto something else? (cough: Edge of Evolution)
For evidence of a designer have you looked into Chaos Theory?
Chaos Theory? The branch of mathematics that deals with the evolution of complex systems over time where small changes in the initial conditions create vastly complicated systems over successive iterations?
How does that imply the presence of a designer? It would seem to imply the opposite, with very complex systems coming from simple equations... and slight changes to those initial conditions leading to vastly different results when projected over time.
What you are describing is an artificial intelligence.
“What you are describing is an artificial intelligence. “
Where does AI come into this? A very basic chaotic system would be a double pendulum system (imagine a long pendulum with another pendulum attached to the end). Chaotic systems are still deterministic, giving the same output when presented with the same input, they are very sensitive to their initial conditions … even a small change can create vastly different results
Everything living or non-living down to the smallest atom creates vibrations. Every vibration creates patterns across the chaotic system. These patterns communicate information. Everything is interconnected.
That may sound nice... but do you have any physical evidence to back it up? What exactly is 'vibrating' and what makes the 'vibration' of the carbon atoms in a flower different from the 'vibration' of the carbon atoms in my sock?
What is 'the chaotic system'? Are you referring to the Universe as a whole, because quantum mechanics would seem to indicate otherwise.
What do you mean by 'patterns communicate information'?
How is 'everything interconnected'?
First are you telling me that the electrons and protons in an atom don't create waves, ripples, vibrations? Are the vibrations of a carbon atom in a flower any different then the carbon atom in your sock? No! But both are made up of a lot more then carbon.
Now if you are trying to say that quantum mechanics contradicts chaos theory, or energy doesn't connect the universe together you are really going to have to explain.
Chaos theory studies patterns. Anything (objects, energy, thoughts) moving through a system changes the pattern.
"First are you telling me that the electrons and protons in an atom don't create waves, ripples, vibrations?"
What I am saying is that that alone is largely a meaningless statement... waves and ripples are really the same thing (wave being the Scientific term), and vibration at an atomic level is something that happens in solids, not other states of matter.
"Now if you are trying to say that quantum mechanics contradicts chaos theory, or energy doesn't connect the universe together you are really going to have to explain."
Classical chaos theory does not involve quantum mechanics, there is a branch called Quantum Chaos that attempts to deal with quantum mechanics.
"Chaos theory studies patterns. Anything (objects, energy, thoughts) moving through a system changes the pattern. "
The Wikipedia definition of Chaos theory is as follows...
"Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics which studies the behavior of certain dynamical systems that may be highly sensitive to initial conditions . "
Further given is a definition of a Chaotic system:
"
1. it must be sensitive to initial conditions,
2. it must be topologically mixing, and
3. its periodic orbits must be dense.
"
So please clarify your statements.
This same thought process about how chaos and/or string theory could prove "God" in a different way. Granted I was high on acid. I know a bit of what you're saying, but it isn't right to put "God" in scientific discoveries it goes back to the origin of religion . To prove what couldn't be explained. These theories of everything are just that. I can see how you could find "God" in it.
I've changed from these ideas and moved on to finding heaven and hell as my state of mind here on earth.
You don't believe in God. The origin of religion has been an attempt to explain what people couldn't explain. Slowly over time more and more was explained by science . What is wrong with using string theory to explain ID? Could the theory of everything explain why some prayers are answered and others aren't?
There is a book called "The Secret" that I think you would like if you haven't already read it.
It goes into what you're saying.
But you are evading the question.Could string theory be used to explain God?
A thinking force that created everything. It doesn't prove that.
After my last post I found a link to The Secret and yes I think they are on the right track.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8
But I have been thinking about another idea. What if God evolves along with the universe?
The greatest secret of 'The Secret' is that it has no basis in physical reality. By thinking about something we do not make it happen.
Like I said before none of this proves or even hints at a thinking god that created the universe in 7 days and everything. String theory is actually against God. One of them is right not both. You know what I mean?
God as he is usually understood has been anthropomorphized. I'm thinking more along the lines that all those vibrating strings work like a computer, and that computer has been learning and evolving since the beginning of the universe. Something more then The Secret. Something weird. Sometimes the universe responds in a way that I can't quite put my finger on it, but you feel something is there responding back.
The universe is an amazing place. There's as much inside of you(the really small) as there is out in the planets, stars, and everything else. The Universe can be what ever you want it to be. With parallel universes and not just our 3-D, but 8,9, 10+ -D. It's all to complicated for me to understand.
"to complicated to understand" But not so complicated that there couldn't be something that most people have called God? Do you believe in life after death?
no life after death. I don't mind people calling that God, but God isn't just what can't be explained. It's a figure and an idol for worship. It has progressed through time from a way to explain what couldn't be to a way to control the public and business. The politicians use God as a way to get votes from the people that don't read and know about their politics .
The more interesting question about so many is, is there life before death? I cannot fathom an intelligent designer and what such would be. The incredible universe(es) and life itself are the mysteries, the wonderful myteries. I have no need of certainty about any of it - ambiguity works for me. We all would be wise to be filled with awe and gratitude for our unique life. If we could use all of our 5 senses and then THINK clearly about how brief and really unlikely our own existence is, then we might not need to think of a 'heaven' or a life after death or a place or existence that is more glorious than the one we are experiencing. Such hoping is escapist and wastes time. Death will arrive much too soon for all of us, so live before you die. Hopefully when we die we leave behind us some work, thoughts and/or actions that will be remembered as good an that will assist life yet to be in a positive manner. That is a form of real immortality that counts for something good. Seriously, I do not believe that the beautiful flower that dies in the Fall is the same one that blooms in the Spring.
"I do not believe that the beautiful flower that dies in the Fall is the same one that blooms in the Spring."
I'm not quite sure I follow you there... Yes the flowering part dies and falls off the plant in the fall, and regrows in the spring... but the underlying plant is the same plant.