Intelligent Design?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Please, read his books.

In terms of Natural Selection, very little of what he believed has been disproven.

We've disproven his belief that blacks were lesser evolved humans, though.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

In terms of Natural Selection, very little of what he believed has been disproven.

We've disproven his belief that blacks were lesser evolved humans, though.

Actually, only the basic premise of what he believed about natural selection turned out to be true. His ideas on HOW natural selection took place have been disproven, and his ideas on HOW FAR natural selection can go have not been proven.

[Diamond Cross]

The 29 Evidences For Macro Evolution:

Part 1 Outline

1. The fundamental unity of life
2. A nested hierarchy of species
3. Independent determination of the historical phylogeny
   • Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
4. Intermediate and transitional forms
   • Reptile-birds
   • Reptile-mammals
   • Ape-humans
   • Legged whales
   • Legged seacows
5. Chronology of common ancestors

• References

Part 2 Outline

1. Anatomical vestigial structures
   • Answers to criticisms of vestigial structures
     1. Vestiges can have functions
     2. Positive evidence demonstrates lack of functionality
     3. Negative evidence is scientific when controlled
2. Atavisms
   • Living whales with hindlimbs
   • Newborn babies with tails
3. Molecular vestigial structures
4. Ontogeny and developmental biology
   • Mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
   • Pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
   • Snake and whale embryos and with legs
   • Embryonic human tail
   • Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
5. Present biogeography
6. Past biogeography
   • Marsupials
   • Horses
   • Apes and humans

• References

[up|dn]

I find it a bit ironic that creationists laud science when it debunks some of Darwin's ideas, but when it conflicts with something an ancient theological books says, well then science must be wrong.

Science*, by its very nature, is self-correcting. Science begins with facts and observations and comes up with reasonable answers. ID, on the other hand, begins with the answer and tries to make the facts fit that answer. Science has never been ashamed to come up with new theories, or admit that a theory was inadequate. ID doesn't have any of those built-in self-correcting ideals because it presumes to know exactly what happened and will only accept theories that fit an answer that is already "known"

*Obviously I realize that there are scientific communities that have a vested interest in keeping theories alive, but I'm talking about big-S Science.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trashing existing theories and coming up with new ones, as long as they fit the facts. What irritates me is "ID" parading as science when it doesn't have anything to do with science, but is just a way for people to pigeon-hole scientific sounding stuff so that it fits a religious view.

[imind]

Are you seriously comparing a water to dioxyribonucleic acid? You're comparing a "shape" to an entire computer program written with complex molecular chains? That's not even apples and oranges, dude.

when did i ever mention dioxyribonucleic acid? i merely asked how you are gauging complexity.

again, i ask, by what principle is it the the more complex something is, the less likely it is to have been created by random chance.

and, once again, please show what evidence there is for ID. try not to sidetrack the conversation this time.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Kytro

ID isn't valid science as it's not falsifiable

well, it is valid philosophy at least, so to me it's a valid source of gaining knowledge. Science can only yield emperical proofs which require physical senses to even validate it's data, and most scientists agree we have limitations and flaws with our senses....hence it's a bit limiting in my opinion to give science the 'end all of knowledge.'

If you read up on natural causes of complex information...from a purely materialistic stand-point, there is pathetically little data available on how complex INFORMATION (dna, technology, languages) arises from simple processes. All of these things DO have one thing in common though as there prime originator/source: INTELLIGENCE. (although I know DNA is debated like crazy, and anything else biological, for obvious reasons.)

Anyone who would deny intelligence as a creative force is just stupid in my opinion, even if that intelligence's favorite color isn't known or where it's from. (etc), even if the marks of that intelligence were only perceivable in hindsight by later examination (forensics anyone?) and the data was incomplete to some degree. I don't have to know the motivation of a murderer or his home town to know that so and so person killed someone. Arguing that any prior knowledge of God (or said intelligence) must be KNOWN to make intelligence a valid argument is fallacious in my opinion, even if it would help yield MORE knowledge.

[JSmythe]

Evolution is true. Period. This is accepted by pretty much the entirety of the scientific community. All the debate about evolution is about how the evolution takes place, punctuated equilibrium, the modern synthesis, etc.

There is just so much evidence confirming evolution, its hard to even try to deny. ID is just picking out the holes science hasn't filled in yet and calling that proof evolution is impossible, because we can't yet explain it. Its a logical fallacy.

[Rouger2]

Scientic law life does not come from non life. There is your proof.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by cleverest

well, it is valid philosophy at least, so to me it's a valid source of gaining knowledge. Science can only yield emperical proofs which require physical senses to even validate it's data, and most scientists agree we have limitations and flaws with our senses....hence it's a bit limiting in my opinion to give science the 'end all of knowledge.'

Philosophy should not be taught in science classes though. As for other methods of gaining knowledge, well what do you consider knowledge.

Originally Posted by cleverest

Anyone who would deny intelligence as a creative force is just stupid in my opinion, even if that intelligence's favorite color isn't known or where it's from. (etc), even if the marks of that intelligence were only perceivable in hindsight by later examination (forensics anyone?) and the data was incomplete to some degree. I don't have to know the motivation of a murderer or his home town to know that so and so person killed someone. Arguing that any prior knowledge of God (or said intelligence) must be KNOWN to make intelligence a valid argument is fallacious in my opinion, even if it would help yield MORE knowledge.

No one is arguing that intelligence isn't a creative force, at least as a perception. But logically, just because intelligence is has been present for some complexity, does not require it is for all.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Scientic law life does not come from non life. There is your proof.

Really what law is this?

[Rouger2]

There is a scientific law but you don't even have to know the law to know it is true, where has non life produced life. I know that science with all their knowledge and equipment have not even been able to produce one simple live cell.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

There is a scientific law but you don't even have to know the law to know it is true, where has non life produced life. I know that science with all their knowledge and equipment have not even been able to produce one simple live cell.

How long has science as we know it even existed when compared with the age of the universe? To think we could unravel all it's secrets already seems a little arrogant.

There is a great deal science does not know, and there are some theories as to ambiogenesis though I have not looked at them in enough details to acertain if I think they are plausible or not.

The idea that "it's obvious" does not prove anything. Even if you could discount life coming form non-life completely, that does not prove an intelligent creator is the source - all it would do is disprove life coming from non-life.

In any case ID cannot be science as it is not falsifiable, and hence should not be taught as an opposing science theory.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Evolution is true. Period.

Well that settles it!

but no seriously...evolution is true, but it has LIMITS, it's not the all powerful biological force moving toward building complex information and order possible in life that many make it out to be....and that's something many scientists don't want to accept. Where do YOU draw the line?

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Philosophy should not be taught in science classes though.

Agreed, as least as far as the theory has been developed so far, but I have no problem with it being presented as an alternate understanding of origins, even if it's labeled as a philosophical viewpoint...nobody except someone embracing scientism as a philosophy in the first place would have a problem with that. (but most scientist seem to do exactly that, so therein lies a problem)

Originally Posted by Kytro

As for other methods of gaining knowledge, well what do you consider knowledge.

Well that's a big question, with lots of answers. for instance dictionary.com says:

1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4.the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5.awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. 6.something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7.the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8.the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9.Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

Given these definitions as a whole I think it's safe to say that knowledge yields facts, truth, awareness and understanding and/or a sense of familiarity.

If you are really asking what constitutes VALID knowledge, then that's a way, way bigger question.

Originally Posted by Kytro

No one is arguing that intelligence isn't a creative force, at least as a perception. But logically, just because intelligence is has been present for some complexity, does not require it is for all.

Intelligence can clearly be seen to be the creative force for ALL examples of complexity that involve information. ALL. The only highly debated field appears to be information in biology (dna, etc..), and for obvious reasons, the implications are too high and because we cannot hope to understand the SOURCE, that is the intelligence behind it (to the satisfaction of scientists) we will probably never come to accept it as any sort of valid theory. It's probably designed that way, why would God want to make it easy...I mean...look at the world, things are not meant to be clearly understood, apparently....

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Well that settles it!

but no seriously...evolution is true, but it has LIMITS, it's not the all powerful biological force moving toward building complex information and order possible in life that many make it out to be....and that's something many scientists don't want to accept. Where do YOU draw the line?

Reality. Please show me any evidence at all for a supernatural phenomenon that gave life an extra "push", coincidentally, this force describes exactly what science can not explain at this moment in time. Any. Evidence. At all. (besides anecdotal)

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Intelligence can clearly be seen to be the creative force for ALL examples of complexity that involve information. ALL. The only highly debated field appears to be information in biology (dna, etc..), and for obvious reasons, the implications are too high and because we cannot hope to understand the SOURCE, that is the intelligence behind it (to the satisfaction of scientists) we will probably never come to accept it as any sort of valid theory. It's probably designed that way, why would God want to make it easy...I mean...look at the world, things are not meant to be clearly understood, apparently....

I think this is clearly the case of religious views clouding reason. Here is the thing. This theory, Intelligent Design, describes a supernatural phenomenon, that can not be explained by us. You use this as evidence for a God, and don't say you don't because any supernatural force that could and would create life would have to be some form of deity, with free will and intelligence. This is your evidence for a god, but by definition, your faith in god must be without any evidence. If you cite real life examples of god, it takes all the faith out of the belief. It becomes knowledge, in your mind, and this knowledge is what lets one life their life safe and sound in the "knowledge" they have a chance to go to heaven. Its religion grasping for straws.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Given these definitions as a whole I think it's safe to say that knowledge yields facts, truth, awareness and understanding and/or a sense of familiarity.

If you are really asking what constitutes VALID knowledge, then that's a way, way bigger question.

Well how would you validate knowledge? It depends on what you are seeking, I suppose - science is hands down the best of breed for getting useful knowledge for society as a whole to progress - I doubt anyone can deny the impact it has had.

If you want something more personal, perhaps some sort of inner understanding about something you have a number of options. You cannot expect others to take personal truths seriously though.

Originally Posted by cleverest

Intelligence can clearly be seen to be the creative force for ALL examples of complexity that involve information. ALL. The only highly debated field appears to be information in biology (dna, etc..), and for obvious reasons, the implications are too high and because we cannot hope to understand the SOURCE, that is the intelligence behind it (to the satisfaction of scientists) we will probably never come to accept it as any sort of valid theory. It's probably designed that way, why would God want to make it easy...I mean...look at the world, things are not meant to be clearly understood, apparently....

We have understood complexity that we know resulted from intelligence. In fact just about all complex things we understand fully have.

This means we naturally see complex things and assume intelligence. This isn't validation on a level that can help - at least from a usable knowledge perspective.

As for a God, who am I to question the behavior /motivations of such an entity.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

There is a scientific law but you don't even have to know the law to know it is true, where has non life produced life. I know that science with all their knowledge and equipment have not even been able to produce one simple live cell.

Has it ever occured to you our knowledge and technology is limited? And that trying to create what took nature BILLIONS of