[undotwa]

Originally Posted by lurkalot

BTW Who are the we in: "rather merely the mechanism in which we developed."?

Sorry, I didn't see this part. 'we' refers to not merely the human race, but all species in general.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No, the meaning doesn't change. The title seeks to explain 'the origin of species' by explaining the process of natural selection. Darwin only explains the mechanism without ever discussing the 'origin'.

Um no, he does discuss the origin. His theory is that survival of the fittest drives the process of speciation. Birds on one island are genetically separated from birds on another and so, over time, evolve into different species. In other words, new species originate from the process of evolution.

[BRussell]

I think the title is referring to the origin of species in a less ultimate way, how different species are formed, rather than the origin of life.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No, the meaning doesn't change. The title seeks to explain 'the origin of species' by explaining the process of natural selection. Darwin only explains the mechanism without ever discussing the 'origin'.

He does discuss the origin though. Hs whole theory is that when populations of a single species are separated from one another they adapt to their new surroundings. Over time those adaptation lead to them becoming separate species. For example the galapagos iguanas that have evolved to be strong swimmers and have a uniquely (for an iguana) shaped head adapted to eating plant-life off rocks, a new species that originated due to evolutionary forces. Hence, evolution is the origin of species.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No, the meaning doesn't change. The title seeks to explain 'the origin of species' by explaining the process of natural selection. Darwin only explains the mechanism without ever discussing the 'origin'.

He does discuss the origin though. Hs whole theory is that when populations of a single species are separated from one another they adapt to their new surroundings. Over time those adaptation lead to them becoming separate species. For example the galapagos iguanas that have evolved to be strong swimmers and have a uniquely (for an iguana) shaped head adapted to eating plant-life off rocks, a new species that originated due to evolutionary forces. Hence, evolution is the origin of species.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No, the meaning doesn't change. The title seeks to explain 'the origin of species' by explaining the process of natural selection. Darwin only explains the mechanism without ever discussing the 'origin'.

He does discuss the origin though. Hs whole theory is that when populations of a single species are separated from one another they adapt to their new surroundings. Over time those adaptation lead to them becoming separate species. For example the galapagos iguanas that have evolved to be strong swimmers and have a uniquely (for an iguana) shaped head adapted to eating plant-life off rocks, a new species that originated due to evolutionary forces. Hence, evolution is the origin of species.

[undotwa]

Are these forums working properly? I'm getting notice of new posts in email but they don't appear on this page.

[Stradlater]

dp.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, they simply took what Hawking has said and read it as it was intended to be read. Those subscribing to ID may however, note the fact that the very language science uses proposes design; information, genetic code, blueprint, strategy, hardware, software, etc... This I give you.

You give nothing. Language is arbitrary. Design mimics what is, potentially, completely natural and without creator.

I also didn't realize you were so buddy-buddy with Hawking that you can speak for him. Oh wait, you can't?

Exactly. The philosophy of Naturalism. It is most unfortunate.

A ridiculous assessment of the situation. I expect better arguments from you, ebuddy.

Please:
A. Explain how scientific theory is actually not scientific theory and a philosophy.
B. Explain how I.D. is not pseudoscience and actually has verifiable/reproducible theory.

But they aren't mutually exclusive. Of course they're not bound together, one admittedly addresses origins whereas the former does not.

If one so chooses, he may exclude I.D. from his affirmation of evolution; in fact he should. Even the man that philosophizes about an original designer and also, intellectually, accepts evolution is working with 2 mutually-exclusive concepts.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think the title is referring to the origin of species in a less ultimate way, how different species are formed, rather than the origin of life.

I realise that. I only mentioned this as an anecdote. Strictly speaking, if one refers to the 'origin'. one typically refers to the ultimate origin.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

He does discuss the origin though. Hs whole theory is that when populations of a single species are separated from one another they adapt to their new surroundings. Over time those adaptation lead to them becoming separate species. For example the galapagos iguanas that have evolved to be strong swimmers and have a uniquely (for an iguana) shaped head adapted to eating plant-life off rocks, a new species that originated due to evolutionary forces. Hence, evolution is the origin of species.

But when you speak about the 'origin' you beg the question - where do the species come from? To argue that, you must talk about pre-evolution and the formation of the first microscopic organisms.

[lurkalot]

Personally I think the meaning of the title of Darwin's book does change when it is altered and abbreviated in the way you did. I also think Darwin adequately explains the scope of the book and amply justifies the full title. He indicates throughout that the origin of species -not the essence or origin of life- is the subject of his abstract published by necessity prematurely in book form under the title "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" in 1859.

As I understand it his abstract was published as a reply of sorts to the then prevalent assertion that species as we see them around us came about fully formed in their present "shapes". They do not. The evidence he -and some notable contemporaries and predecessors- gathered and on which generations of scientists have further expanded and continue to expand, clearly refutes that. He explains the natural "reason" behind the diversity of life forms we call species. As others have already clarified, the mechanism is the origin.

By rearranging the words and by taking them individually out of context in your anecdote you pose an additional question. It is not implicit in the title nor in the contents of his book. He wasn't speaking strictly. He was speaking in a specific well understood context. The explanation why we find so many different forms of life around us.

Let's look at an other example of slightly altered sentences.

“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.” Source (PDF)

Do you think two different "theories" are defined here? Does the meaning change of each sentence by substituting creation for intelligent design? For the purpose of this discussion would you care to explain the difference between proposing a creator or proposing a designer?

These definitions come from the same book published in slightly altered editions. (Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins.) This book is promoted by I.D. proponents for use in public schools. It is to serve as an introduction to I.D..

I for one can not escape the impression that by promoting this book these I.D. proponents are once again attempting to insert creationism into the public school science curriculum. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Has the word creation truly evolved as the testimony of these gentlemen would have us believe?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

You give nothing. Language is arbitrary. Design mimics what is, potentially, completely natural and without creator.

Yet, if Evolution does not address origins, how can it necessarily preclude Creation or a Creator??? Yet in almost all other facets of thought, you'd posit a seemingly designed element is just that, designed. Evolution seems to be the only place where common sense must be suspended in favor of dogma as evidenced perfectly by your statement above.

I also didn't realize you were so buddy-buddy with Hawking that you can speak for him. Oh wait, you can't?

Why are you getting emotional Stradlater? There are times when you appear more emotionally invested than those who've made this their life's work. I'd expect someone like you to be a little less emotional. This does not mix well with logic and conclusion.

A ridiculous assessment of the situation. I expect better arguments from you, ebuddy.

Again, I don't understand why you're getting emotional about this. I guess we're both a little surprised in this. Regardless of what you expect, perhaps you should first ask yourself how, if you believe my assessment is ridiculous, we've created a solid foundation for discourse? i.e. why bother???

Please:
A. Explain how scientific theory is actually not scientific theory and a philosophy.

organisms have been identified, observed, and found to have adapted within their species to environmental circumstance as it's needs are then manifest in the characteristics of that organism. To then say, using 'adaptaton' that all life has arose from single ancestory is not only philosophical, but mythological. It is not empiracally testable nor falsifiable. One can make the assumption, but when examined more closely with clear understanding you begin to realize that data has been made to fit the just-so story and not the other way around. A perfect example of this; Those hoping to connect dinosaurs to birds quickly published "findings" on the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. Fossils were discovered that seemed to have the body of a primitive bird with the teeth and tail of a small, terrestrial dinosaur or dromaeosaur. I can understand their excitement. Afterall, this definitely fit the criteria of the type of fossil that evolutionists would hope to find to fill in some of the gaps in one of their more dominant “dinosaur-to-bird” scenarios because it showed the long, bony tail of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs, but with the shoulders and chest of birds. The AP was all over this brother, frothing at the mouth at what had been found. One of the scientists was quick to make the seemingly irrefutable claim; “We’re looking at the first dinosaur that was capable of flying”. Were they though? Dr. Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, railed against the editor and publisher of National Geographic for nothing more than what he called sensationalist. The fossil was found later to have been completely contrived. A fake. The retracted story gained little attention and many are still left believing nonsense not because it's fact, but because they want so desparately to make data fit theory and not theory to fit data. There's a host of examples like this one in which our "greatest minds" have been duped by the right-brained, skilled imaginations and artisans of the past. Haeckel hired a couple to illustrate ridiculous embryonic similarities lending creedence to recapitulation theories still taught in some capacity today. Data made to fit a theory and not the other way around. We don't have gill slits, never did. This is fact.

B. Explain how I.D. is not pseudoscience and actually has verifiable/reproducible theory.

We see elements of design all around us. From the science of forensics through the SETI project in sifting through random signals in an effort to find the one organized "intelligible" signal. If you refuse to detect design, there are many useful sciences you'd have to abandon.
Archeology, Anthropology, again- Forensics and SETI. These are all sciences based on detecting design and their merit is irrefutable. Realizing of course, the SETI project could fail yesterday and I would be no worse for wear. The problem with ID is that it first must address the improbability of "chance" and other wholly naturalistic phenomena. This puts ID squarely in the path of the EVO zealot out of the gate. It's no wonder the reaction is fervent. I'll address this more in a bit.

If one so chooses, he may exclude I.D. from his affirmation of evolution; in fact he should.

Right, in the interest of complete scientific objectivity right?

Even the man that philosophizes about an original designer and also, intellectually, accepts evolution is working with 2 mutually-exclusive concepts.

Okay, semantics. I'll give this to you. They are mutually exclusive because one admittedly attempts to address orgins, whereas the other admittedly does not. Fair enough.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yet, if Evolution does not address origins, how can it necessarily preclude Creation or a Creator??? Yet in almost all other facets of thought, you'd posit a seemingly designed element is just that, designed. Evolution seems to be the only place where common sense must be suspended in favor of dogma as evidenced perfectly by your statement above.

The game of chess does not have to address its origins. It works anyway.

Why are you getting emotional Stradlater? There are times when you appear more emotionally invested than those who've made this their life's work. I'd expect someone like you to be a little less emotional. This does not mix well with logic and conclusion.

I didn't realize you were so adept at reading the emotions of words—a lesser man would say, "you're projecting." But I'll stand back and consider that maybe you're just avoiding a true argument. For some reason I remember you making more compelling arguments in the past.

Back to it: you cannot speak for Hawking.

Again, I don't understand why you're getting emotional about this. I guess we're both a little surprised in this. Regardless of what you expect, perhaps you should first ask yourself how, if you believe my assessment is ridiculous, we've created a solid foundation for discourse? i.e. why bother???

This is a public forum; why let the ignorant imbibe in ignorance without counterpoint?

organisms have been identified, observed, and found to have adapted within their species to environmental circumstance as it's needs are then manifest in the characteristics of that organism. To then say, using 'adaptaton' that all life has arose from single ancestory is not only philosophical, but mythological. It is not empiracally testable nor falsifiable.

1stly, "single ancestry" usually stems more in the sense from the evidences that all creatures with a certain kind of structure (ex. the backboned)—evolution doesn't claim to know the origin of all species, but it does—using evidences (yes, tests that could have resulted in falsification)—show how commonly-structured species branched from a single ancestry. 2ndly, a wider variety of species is postulated to have arisen from the same ancestry than you're probably willing to believe.

One can make the assumption, but when examined more closely with clear understanding you begin to realize that data has been made to fit the just-so story and not the other way around.

A theory develops based on initial evidence. More evidence is searched for to fit the theory. This is how a lot of science works. Other scientists, believing a theory dubious, however, maybe search for evidence that discredits the theory.

You're narrowing the focus here a bit too much; it's wider than you give it credit, but your point really doesn't create an argument anyhow.

A perfect example of this; Those hoping to connect dinosaurs to birds quickly published "findings" on the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. Fossils were discovered that seemed to have the body of a primitive bird with the teeth and tail of a small, terrestrial dinosaur or dromaeosaur. I can understand their excitement. Afterall, this definitely fit the criteria of the type of fossil that evolutionists would hope to find to fill in some of the gaps in one of their more dominant “dinosaur-to-bird” scenarios because it showed the long, bony tail of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs, but with the shoulders and chest of birds. The AP was all over this brother, frothing at the mouth at what had been found. One of the scientists was quick to make the seemingly irrefutable claim; “We’re looking at the first dinosaur that was capable of flying”. Were they though? Dr. Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, railed against the editor and publisher of National Geographic for nothing more than what he called sensationalist. The fossil was found later to have been completely contrived. A fake. The retracted story gained little attention and many are still left believing nonsense not because it's fact, but because they want so desparately to make data fit theory and not theory to fit data. There's a host of examples like this one in which our "greatest minds" have been duped by the right-brained, skilled imaginations and artisans of the past.

A "perfect" example of what? There have been hundreds of hoaxes throughout paleontological and archaeological history; the discrediting of a hoax does not discredit the theory it seemed to work within.

Haeckel hired a couple to illustrate ridiculous embryonic similarities lending creedence to recapitulation theories still taught in some capacity today. Data made to fit a theory and not the other way around. We don't have gill slits, never did. This is fact.

Just because someone is quick to relate prenatal development of rudimentary gill-like structures to an evolutionary link to fish doesn't mean that evolution is discredited.

This is how science works, ebuddy.

Evidences are presented, scrutinized sooner or later, and if they are not discredited, they remain working in the current model.

We see elements of design all around us. From the science of forensics through the SETI project in sifting through random signals in an effort to find the one organized "intelligible" signal. If you refuse to detect design, there are many useful sciences you'd have to abandon.

Just as we can analyze rocks in archaeological sites and determine whether or not they're artifacts, tools, or nothing at all.

Archeology, Anthropology, again- Forensics and SETI. These are all sciences based on detecting design and their merit is irrefutable. Realizing of course, the SETI project could fail yesterday and I would be no worse for wear. The problem with ID is that it first must address the improbability of "chance" and other wholly naturalistic phenomena. This puts ID squarely in the path of the EVO zealot out of the gate. It's no wonder the reaction is fervent. I'll address this more in a bit.

Yes, there are scientific methods of taking objects and determining whether or not humans created them or modified them—we know that humans design things, and we can know the difference between natural things and things that have been changed by ourselves.

These scientists work with the difference of an existing creature's design methods and nature.
I.D. people don't work—but they still claim that they can find a completely-unknown and possibly-unexisting designer's design methods in nature.

Right, in the interest of complete scientific objectivity right?

Because of their exclusivity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yet, if Evolution does not address origins, how can it necessarily preclude Creation or a Creator??? Yet in almost all other facets of thought, you'd posit a seemingly designed element is just that, designed. Evolution seems to be the only place where common sense must be suspended

I don't believe that's true (either of these points).

First of all, evolution doesn't preclude creation, that's why no one is clamoring to interject evolution into religious or philosophy classes. Evolution is only in contention with creationism in as much as creationism attempts to explain the sub-set of pre-history which evolution covers (the part after life began reproducing).

As for the second part, I don't think there are any other "seemingly designed" elements. Anything I can think of that seems designed, we actually know the designer, and it was us (or beavers). What "seemingly designed" elements do we not know the designer of, but assume his existence (besides the one currently under discussion)?

[Athens]

The only part I agree with is this

The Dover school board instructs its teachers to read a statement to 14-to-15-year-old students before classes on evolution, saying that Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact", and that there are "gaps in the theory".

its only a theroy and it does have gaps. Beyond that I think the school is way out on a limb and should reconsider.

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by Athens

The only part I agree with is this its only a theroy and it does have gaps. Beyond that I think the school is way out on a limb and should reconsider.

If the way the school board's witnesses are testifying -and declining to do so- is any indication I believe the decision to reconsider will be made for them in the not so distant future. From reading the transcripts -and the commentary on the testimony at blogs and in the regular news I -and many others- get the impression that they're sawing off the limb on which they are sitting.

Some blog entries here and here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

The game of chess does not have to address its origins. It works anyway.

Game of chess? It seems the theory has a lot of pawns at it's disposal.

I didn't realize you were so adept at reading the emotions of words—a lesser man would say, "you're projecting."

Why, thank you.

But I'll stand back and consider that maybe you're just avoiding a true argument.

So, we're arguing on what Hawking said? I've simply used his delivery and pointed to some ironic verbiage. I'm not supposing to know Hawking, or being "buddy-buddy". This was not projecting Stradlater, this was just straight emotional.

For some reason I remember you making more compelling arguments in the past.

I appreciate that as well Stradlater, but in your memory you'd recall that we would generally get about this far with one another. This is probably why you and I have usually gotten beyond name-calling. You've not yet called me a Flat-earth Creationist, Bible thumping fundamentalist Christian. You seem to be aware that these are all smoke-screens to avoid addressing arguments. To sum up; no I don't know Hawking. I'm not buddy-buddy with Hawking, but I can read. What I've personally noted are the words used to describe a completely natural phenomena-using simply the best words to describe what we see. Design.

Back to it: you cannot speak for Hawking.

I never tried. I did however find it interesting that you seem to defend him with the ferver of a High Priest's apprentice.

This is a public forum; why let the ignorant imbibe in ignorance without counterpoint?

Bring on the counterpoints then. I've not seen one. You imply ID is not scientific because it's neither testable nor falsifiable. There are aspects of Evolution that are also neither testable nor falsifiable. Perhaps it's these aspects of Evolution that belong in philosophy class.

1stly, "single ancestry" usually stems more in the sense from the evidences that all creatures with a certain kind of structure (ex. the backboned)—evolution doesn't claim to know the origin of all species, but it does—using evidences (yes, tests that could have resulted in falsification)—show how commonly-structured species branched from a single ancestry.

Yet they can't use the model and duplicate the process. They've not witnessed it in action. Adaptation has been found to pulsate within limitations, not continue in any form of succession and certainly not in the creation of a new species entirely. Darwin's pigeons, the Galapagos finches, et al. They adapt mildly to need, then back to original state. Bacteria multiply hundreds of thousands of generations a month yet ironically hold remarkable similarity to bacteria throughout history.

2ndly, a wider variety of species is postulated to have arisen from the same ancestry than you're probably willing to believe.

Or more species exist than your willing to believe.

A theory develops based on initial evidence.

Evidence from the Cambrian explosion for example? You'll need a stronger foundation than that. Why is it referred to as an "explosion" again? Punctuated Equillibrium? Bring on the test results. Bring on the model to explain and illustrate this process. Codivergence I suppose?

More evidence is searched for to fit the theory.

Right, and any "anomaly" no matter how severe, is discarded because it was probably offered by some Christian zealot. Again, I say to you that scientists themselves are not generally this vocal. They understand that what they have learned and what they know gives them a foundation for discourse with one another. They are far-less optimistic in their conclusions than the average adherent on MacNN or the average National Geographic subscriber.

This is how a lot of science works. Other scientists, believing a theory dubious, however, maybe search for evidence that discredits the theory.

Correct. How willing are we to publish their findings? This will change over time and personally I'm looking forward to seeing more of it. There's also a small matter of research grants and funding. A project being funded to establish the link between bird and dinosaur will have little time for anomalies that do not help the desired end nor fit the pre-supposed model. If you believe those in the community of science are somehow incapable of the same fallacies of humankind that we are all subject to, you're being naive. This is not an insult. It's simply to illustrate that many are capable of adhering to an ideal because it is simply not personally fruitful to fight it nor is their field of interest a capacity in which they must refute evolution theories.

You're narrowing the focus here a bit too much; it's wider than you give it credit, but your point really doesn't create an argument anyhow.

Yet, this is another counterpoint no doubt??? It's wide alright. A mile wide, with lots of mud throughout, and quite shallow when measured.

A "perfect" example of what? There have been hundreds of hoaxes throughout paleontological and archaeological history; the discrediting of a hoax does not discredit the theory it seemed to work within.

I never claimed it discredited evolution. It's an example of science morphing into philosophy with equal veracity as the Sunday morning Gospel Hour preacher man.

Just because someone is quick to relate prenatal development of rudimentary gill-like structures to an evolutionary link to fish doesn't mean that evolution is discredited.

Well, in knowing that the slits are not actually slits at all, rather folds. Flexionic folds that comprise tissue in forming the para-thyroid, thymus, and inner ear canals we know them as tissue folds. Take your index finger and close it up entirely. Eureka! You have gill slits right there on your index finger. While they aren't actually slits at all, and while they perform no respiratory function, and you'll notice they disappear as your finger is extended-they represent a striking similarity to the flexionic folds of a human embryo, not an aquatic past. In our wildest imaginations, we'd want them to be gill slits, but they simply are not. Yet, ask around at how many are still taught that this is an illustration of our aquatic past in Biology. The very teachers themselves have been duped, and the lie is propogated throughout classrooms every day. There are zealots on both sides of the fence. That's all I've ever tried to say. You can deny that, but there are simply too many examples of science being muddied by evo-zealots. You're concerned about philosophy mingling with science and so am I. You're only concerned about one particular philosophy whereas I'm a little more open-minded at looking them all over with scrutiny.

This is how science works, ebuddy.

Right. This is how science tries to work and will continue trying. You've formulated some conclusions that I'm not willing to jump to.

Evidences are presented, scrutinized sooner or later, and if they are not discredited, they remain working in the current model.

I look forward to more published works in discrediting the theory.

Just as we can analyze rocks in archaeological sites and determine whether or not they're artifacts, tools, or nothing at all.

Yes, there are scientific methods of taking objects and determining whether or not humans created them or modified them—we know that humans design things, and we can know the difference between natural things and things that have been changed by ourselves.

Right. Design detection. It's a useful scientific exercise.

These scientists work with the difference of an existing creature's design methods and nature.
I.D. people don't work—but they still claim that they can find a completely-unknown and possibly-unexisting designer's design methods in nature.

ID people don't work? You mean scientists that also believe in God and believe our environment shows elements of design? I'm not sure you're qualified to belittle them, but then I don't expect you to stop. This is the single biggest assett someone like you would be expected to have. A large bag full of insults. I don't think you've read anything of them. In fact, if you'll allow me to project here; I don't think you'd even bring yourself to try and read them. You've formed an opinion and this is all you need. There are a great many scientists doing a great many things that have nothing to do with disproving evolution and more to do with using it as part of a model to fill their gaps and in filling the gaps of evolution using design detection methodology.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Game of chess? It seems the theory has a lot of pawns at it's disposal.

You brought up evolution and the fact that it doesn't address the origins of all species. I tried to simplify counterpoint through analogy, and you avoid it (albeit elegantly).

The fact remains: the rules of chess are one thing while the history is quite another. The theory of evolution is one thing while abiogenesis is quite another.

A man can watch a game of chess (or several disconnected steps of a game) and begin to understand the rules; this does not mean he has to address who invented the game, which is wholly separate. The observer doesn't even need to know which player brought the board or pieces—the rules of the game and the game's process is what he's interested in, and those external points are irrelevant.

So, we're arguing on what Hawking said? I've simply used his delivery and pointed to some ironic verbiage. I'm not supposing to know Hawking, or being "buddy-buddy". This was not projecting Stradlater, this was just straight emotional. [...] To sum up; no I don't know Hawking. I'm not buddy-buddy with Hawking, but I can read. What I've personally noted are the words used to describe a completely natural phenomena-using simply the best words to describe what we see. Design.

Thanks for more clarity. I wasn't arguing on what Hawking said, I'm merely pointing out that though you may find something in his words, they're you're feelings and though by proximity it seems you're trying to bring Hawking over to the I.D. side of things, this isn't what's happening.

People can find symbolism where they choose, regardless of if it's there or not.

You know, ebuddy, I'm also a fan of words, but they are arbitrary beings, and though you can formulate them into arguments, you cannot use them for arguments.

I never tried. I did however find it interesting that you seem to defend him with the ferver of a High Priest's apprentice.

Not directly; I'm just pointing out what others may have misinferred. The problem with words, ebuddy, is that they're powerful and the ignorant may be swayed by them if they're used in such a way. Your personal, emotional reading of Hawking's words could have been mistaken for, by others, as you discussing what Hawking really believed. I was merely pointing out that this is not the case.

It's not that I believe we have a large audience for this argument; it's simple litigation. (May the one or two MacNN readers of our argumentation note...)

Bring on the counterpoints then. I've not seen one. You imply ID is not scientific because it's neither testable nor falsifiable. There are aspects of Evolution that are also neither testable nor falsifiable. Perhaps it's these aspects of Evolution that belong in philosophy class.

Counterpoints so far (for those who are counting): chess analogy, Hawking clarification of relation.

Yet they can't use the model and duplicate the process. They've not witnessed it in action. Adaptation has been found to pulsate within limitations, not continue in any form of succession and certainly not in the creation of a new species entirely. Darwin's pigeons, the Galapagos finches, et al. They adapt mildly to need, then back to original state. Bacteria multiply hundreds of thousands of generations a month yet ironically hold remarkable similarity to bacteria throughout history.

It's hard to duplicate a natural process that takes so much time, but not impossible, and speciation has been done in the laboratory setting; what has I.D. done in the lab?

The "limitations" you refer to are those evolutions that haven't yet occurred and those steps we were not there to see. Evolutionary theory hasn't been around long enough to satisfy you; and you probably won't be around long enough to be satisfied by that grand a change through evolutions.

And bacteria asexually reproduces; genetic variation is much slower. And yet, there are indeed fossils of bacteria from when earth's conditions were different that vary remarkably from our bacteria today (the former died out long ago).

Or more species exist than your willing to believe.

I don't believe so—a very large number could exist without surprising me. What do you mean? I merely stated that evolution is used to explain larger differences between species than you believe is possible through such a process (probably those same differences that I.D. has tried to argue with throughout its short history).

Evidence from the Cambrian explosion for example? You'll need a stronger foundation than that. Why is it referred to as an "explosion" again? Punctuated Equillibrium? Bring on the test results. Bring on the model to explain and illustrate this process. Codivergence I suppose?

I'm not sure if you're purposefully skirting the intention. What I was trying to imply:

A theory begins with an observation of evidence—in this case, the famous observation of the differences of various finches by Darwin.

Right, and any "anomaly" no matter how severe, is discarded because it was probably offered by some Christian zealot. Again, I say to you that scientists themselves are not generally this vocal. They understand that what they have learned and what they know gives them a foundation for discourse with one another. They are far-less optimistic in their conclusions than the average adherent on MacNN or the average National Geographic subscriber.

There are some select scientists that may ignore the anomalies or demand more, but anomalies are usually scrutinized as well as supporting evidences.

And what scientists do you know that aren't optimistic about their works? Scientists are surprisingly optimistic about little lab successes that would bore even the MacNN/NatGeo subscriber.

It appears that these anomalies you continue to be worked-up over are not ones that discredit anything of evolution, but rather, are things that receive premature attention from the media.

Correct. How willing are we to publish their findings? This will change over time and personally I'm looking forward to seeing more of it. There's also a small matter of research grants and funding. A project being funded to establish the link between bird and dinosaur will have little time for anomalies that do not help the desired end nor fit the pre-supposed model. If you believe those in the community of science are somehow incapable of the same fallacies of humankind that we are all subject to, you're being naive. This is not an insult. It's simply to illustrate that many are capable of adhering to an ideal because it is simply not personally fruitful to fight it nor is their field of interest a capacity in which they must refute evolution theories.

More willing than you think. NatGeo and other Popular publications may not pick it up, but it will be made available to the masses—at the very least—through PubMed (have you ever found any I.D.-related studies here?).

Yet, this is another counterpoint no doubt??? It's wide alright. A mile wide, with lots of mud throughout, and quite shallow when measured. I never claimed it discredited evolution. It's an example of science morphing into philosophy with equal veracity as the Sunday morning Gospel Hour preacher man. Well, in knowing that the slits are not actually slits at all, rather folds. Flexionic folds that comprise tissue in forming the para-thyroid, thymus, and inner ear canals we know them as tissue folds. Take your index finger and close it up entirely. Eureka! You have gill slits right there on your index finger. While they aren't actually slits at all, and while they perform no respiratory function, and you'll notice they disappear as your finger is extended-they represent a striking similarity to the flexionic folds of a human embryo, not an aquatic past. In our wildest imaginations, we'd want them to be gill slits, but they simply are not. Yet, ask around at how many are still taught that this is an illustration of our aquatic past in Biology. The very teachers themselves have been duped, and the lie is propogated throughout classrooms every day. There are zealots on both sides of the fence. That's all I've ever tried to say. You can deny that, but there are simply too many examples of science being muddied by evo-zealots. You're concerned about philosophy mingling with science and so am I. You're only concerned about one particular philosophy whereas I'm a little more open-minded at looking them all over with scrutiny.

There's no use nitpicking here. We both agree that evolution isn't discredited. We both agree that popular news is, a lot of the time, utter trash (to utter dismay). Hopefully the misinterpreted pharyngeal folds will only continue so far.

Right. This is how science tries to work and will continue trying. You've formulated some conclusions that I'm not willing to jump to. I look forward to more published works in discrediting the theory.

"More" works? Care to point me in the direction of some existent lab work that has discredited the theory?

ID people don't work? You mean scientists that also believe in God and believe our environment shows elements of design? I'm not sure you're qualified to belittle them, but then I don't expect you to stop. This is the single biggest assett someone like you would be expected to have. A large bag full of insults. I don't think you've read anything of them. In fact, if you'll allow me to project here; I don't think you'd even bring yourself to try and read them. You've formed an opinion and this is all you need. There are a great many scientists doing a great many things that have nothing to do with disproving evolution and more to do with using it as part of a model to fill their gaps and in filling the gaps of evolution using design detection methodology.

The amusement stems in that you're wrong. I've read both sides. Point-counterpoint-counterpoint-etc. I even read your True.Origins. My opinion is malleable by convincing hammers.

However, where scientists work in the lab, I.D.-ers don't. Where archaeologists work in the field to find human-based design, I.D.-ers make less-founded claims about unknown-based design.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by undotwa

But when you speak about the 'origin' you beg the question - where do the species come from? To argue that, you must talk about pre-evolution and the formation of the first microscopic organisms.

But that's not within the scope of evolution. Evolutions looks to explain how, given at least one already existing form of life, other forms of life can arise.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by undotwa

But when you speak about the 'origin' you beg the question - where do the species come from? To argue that, you must talk about pre-evolution and the formation of the first microscopic organisms.

But that's not within the scope of evolution. Evolutions looks to explain how, given at least one already existing form of life, other forms of life can arise.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

You brought up evolution and the fact that it doesn't address the origins of all species. I tried to simplify counterpoint through analogy, and you avoid it (albeit elegantly).

The fact remains: the rules of chess are one thing while the history is quite another. The theory of evolution is one thing while abiogenesis is quite another.

A man can watch a game of chess (or several disconnected steps of a game) and begin to understand the rules; this does not mean he has to address who invented the game, which is wholly separate. The observer doesn't even need to know which player brought the board or pieces—the rules of the game and the game's process is what he's interested in, and those external points are irrelevant.

Yet, we're not compelled to know more about who it was that invented chess? Google it, there are many interested in more than just it's rules, but it's inception and history. One attempts to examine the moves, and the other seeks to examine the players. Researchers can tell by the placement of the peices that there was actual deliberation, that they did not arbitrarily pop on to the board by natural phenomena. I believe research of both facets of chess are necessary and one does not necessarily hinder the work of the other. Let me put it this way; if you find a pawn toward the opposing side of the board and it is apparent that few other moves had been made, one could say this particular player was aggressive. If someone else steps in and says; "but we know this player is historically much more timid, this aggression is not consistent with his nature." and begins to show examples of why it's possible this individual was not a participant in the game we're examining-the other researchers will return to the investigation and seek to affirm their findings with more data. This is not counter-productive. It seems there are efforts to silence a relatively small community of scientists for having "fringe" ideals, when it's these types that have historically broken the most important ground. Hell, Darwin himself and many others were little more than hobbyists, this does not render their work useless obviously.

Thanks for more clarity. I wasn't arguing on what Hawking said, I'm merely pointing out that though you may find something in his words, they're you're feelings and though by proximity it seems you're trying to bring Hawking over to the I.D. side of things, this isn't what's happening.

Absolutely not and in writing the intitial post was concerned some would believe that to be my M.O. Understand that i've engaged these debates before and am sensitive to the fact that many know I'm Christian and will leap to the gross generalizations rather quickly. This is unfortunate and for whatever reason; "...while not a deist..." was not enough clarification for someone even has level-headed as you.

People can find symbolism where they choose, regardless of if it's there or not.

You call it symbolic, I call it illustrative.

You know, ebuddy, I'm also a fan of words, but they are arbitrary beings, and though you can formulate them into arguments, you cannot use them for arguments.

I wasn't aware that we were adhering to a strict rule of argumentation here. As you know, our arguments will only go so far. Some of the pleasure I glean from these forums is not only reading the personal interjections of others, but in making them myself. I've simply stated that I think it's more than ironic that in describing purely natural phenomena in the most succinct way possible, design is implied. I find it interesting that there's almost no way around this.

Not directly; I'm just pointing out what others may have misinferred. The problem with words, ebuddy, is that they're powerful and the ignorant may be swayed by them if they're used in such a way. Your personal, emotional reading of Hawking's words could have been mistaken for, by others, as you discussing what Hawking really believed. I was merely pointing out that this is not the case.

Again, it's unfortunate that my clarification that Hawking is not a deist didn't suffice. I agree that many have a problem with personal, emotional reading. I'm not entirely sure I'd be more quilty than them or you in this and in need of correction or rebuke. i.e. make sure you're not guilty of this first. I might be more receptive to the advice.

It's hard to duplicate a natural process that takes so much time, but not impossible, and speciation has been done in the laboratory setting; what has I.D. done in the lab?

While I grant you "wet" time is limited by several factors up to and including grant focus, this is changing and more time is needed. i.e. I concede this point. I'm as optimistic of this as you are in supposing that the evolutionary "limitations" we see are nothing more than "yet-to-occur" evolution.

The "limitations" you refer to are those evolutions that haven't yet occurred and those steps we were not there to see. Evolutionary theory hasn't been around long enough to satisfy you; and you probably won't be around long enough to be satisfied by that grand a change through evolutions.

I don't question the validity of their life's work. I question the bastardization of it regardless of it's intended purpose. The outcome is obvious and it starts with classrooms propogating nonsense based on emotional and I believe "religious" tendancies. I mean, either we're opposed to this activity or not. If we lend too much time to the Creationist whacko (who has yet to get beyond "evolution should be critically analyzed") and not enough time on the problems with debunked curriculum already in place, we're doing ourselves injustice out of the gate.

And bacteria asexually reproduces; genetic variation is much slower. And yet, there are indeed fossils of bacteria from when earth's conditions were different that vary remarkably from our bacteria today (the former died out long ago).

This is not a disingenuous request Stradlater, I'd like to know more about the extent and scope of these variations. Please elaborate if you would. You should know by now that if you provide information, I will read it.

I don't believe so—a very large number could exist without surprising me. What do you mean? I merely stated that evolution is used to explain larger differences between species than you believe is possible through such a process (probably those same differences that I.D. has tried to argue with throughout its short history).

ID is not as concerned about arguing speciation as you might think. ID is more focused on IC. Understanding characteristics of IC, may (and should technically) lead to a more thorough understanding of what other organisms display these same characteristics.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully skirting the intention. What I was trying to imply:

A theory begins with an observation of evidence—in this case, the famous observation of the differences of various finches by Darwin.

right, just as observations have been made to imply design. ID is still a "just-so" story until I see sufficient evidence with more compelling conclusions. I'm not as 'zealous' as you might think, but I am possibly a little more open-minded. Specifically because I do not see where the work of ID hinders the progress of science. Not in the least bit. Let 'em all scramble to affirm their conclusions. I look forward to it.

And what scientists do you know that aren't optimistic about their works? Scientists are surprisingly optimistic about little lab successes that would bore even the MacNN/NatGeo subscriber.

Agreed and I may have misstated the point here. Where a scientist may begin; "we've taken a bacteria commonly found in waste ponds and extracted a toxin gene...", National Geographic may say; "NEW BACTERIA CREATED!!!"

It appears that these anomalies you continue to be worked-up over are not ones that discredit anything of evolution,

Evolution is not to be discredited, it needs more accreditation in general. IMHO. *as an aside, I'm actually not as "worked up" as you might believe.

but rather, are things that receive premature attention from the media.

I'm glad we agree on this.

More willing than you think. NatGeo and other Popular publications may not pick it up, but it will be made available to the masses—at the very least—through PubMed (have you ever found any I.D.-related studies here?).

This is a very common argument and one that I suspect you'll be running from within the next five years. Let me give you a couple of examples of a fundamental problem with peer review and publication in general;

At the Smithsonian Institution, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, the editor of a respected biology journal, faced retaliation by Smithsonian executives after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. Federal investigators concluded last month that "it is ... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]... out of the [Smithsonian]."

At the Mississippi University for Women, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell points out that "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory," but he adds that "some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view."

The above are copy-pastes from a site you'll no doubt have many problems with. I appreciate your resourcefulness and welcome you to refute the above "human-nature". Look, this stuff is bombshell to many in the community. The scope of "push-back" in this is not surprising and nor should it be to you.

The amusement stems in that you're wrong. I've read both sides. Point-counterpoint-counterpoint-etc. I even read your True.Origins. My opinion is malleable by convincing hammers.

MY True Origins? Fair enough, I've also read your Talk Origins.

[Monique]

Why are you so scared of the evolution theory? Why can't it be God's design if so desired?

[Y3a]

The ID crowd has already eliminated itself from serious science with their notion of the earths age being on the order of 4-6000 years old.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I love this. An indictment against the Christian believing in ID lodged by the agnostic/atheist who believes in all aspects of evolution... by faith. The number of articles and amount of movement in your camp is almost compelling enough in itself to give ID another glance.

I don't believe in all aspects of evolution, that would be stupid. We discover new things all the time, new evidence that points to new theories and discounts hypothesis. We alo have to give some leway to probability and uncertainty (which includes "acts of god.")

It's not faith, but deduction. I require evidence and direct observation, faith requires neither. I want proof, or at least enough evidence by direct observation to support a reasonable hypothesis. Whatever we're trying to accomplish, it needs to be tested and retested by scientifc method.

Any "argument" or "logic" you could possibly barf up in regards to Intelligent Design can also be equally applied to any super power that may exist in the uinverse. Even Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The ID crowd has already eliminated itself from serious science with their notion of the earths age being on the order of 4-6000 years old.

I'm sorry, but the I.D. crowd does not share the belief of young earth creationists; young earth creationists may wrongfully latch onto the general idea of I.D. as an alternative to evolution, but most of I.D.'s public voices admit freely that the world is not that young.

I'm just being objective here. I.D. fails to fall under scientific theory for other reasons.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

[...]

I'll have to respond in a few days; no time to, at length, now!

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why are you so scared of the evolution theory? Why can't it be God's design if so desired?

That is the whole point of Intelligent Design!

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why are you so scared of the evolution theory? Why can't it be God's design if so desired?

If it were God's design, then a lot of these folks won't get to Heaven. And it pisses them off.

simply put.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Why are you so scared of the evolution theory? Why can't it be God's design if so desired?

Where did I claim to be afraid of Evolution? There's absolutely nothing to be afraid of. I share many of the same concerns as Stradlater and others in that I don't like to see misinformation propogated by emotional adherents interested less in sound science, and more in dogma. I gave several examples of this as it manifests itself among popular media as well as school curriculum. Please address the points made in my post. Otherwise, I'd have to assume there is something much more fearsome about questioning aspects of Evolution.

i.e. what is it about critical analysis of the theory that scares you so much???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The ID crowd has already eliminated itself from serious science with their notion of the earths age being on the order of 4-6000 years old.

First of all, the "ID crowd" is comprised of many people with notable scholastic credentials including, but not limited to; biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

i.e. These are all folks who know a great deal more than you. Not only about ID, but Evolution as well.

Secondly and even more ironic; "you've already eliminated yourself from serious" discourse with your false notions of ID. This is exactly the type of dogma I've been implying all along. I thank you Y3a for helping establish this as probably the most effective example of what I'm saying. You have no clue what you're talking about in this, but for whatever reason are compelled to respond anyway.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there are faithful ones in both camps that's for sure!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

*snip*

Sigh. OK, one more time::

YOU CAN'T TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!! PERIOD!!!

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT CAN TEST GOD(S) OR ITS MOTIVATION! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

IT IS NOT A SCIENCE IF YOU CAN NOT TEST IT! I DON'T CARE IF YOU'R THE F*CKING EMPORER OF THE UNIVERSE AND HAVE 50,000 CREDENTIALS.

Hope that helps.

[Uncle Skeleton]

They're just trying to stay afloat until they find the microscopic "copyright, God, 4000 BC" labels that are hidden on babies' bottoms.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Sigh. OK, one more time::

YOU CAN'T TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!! PERIOD!!!

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT CAN TEST GOD(S) OR ITS MOTIVATION! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

IT IS NOT A SCIENCE IF YOU CAN NOT TEST IT! I DON'T CARE IF YOU'R THE F*CKING EMPORER OF THE UNIVERSE AND HAVE 50,000 CREDENTIALS.

Hope that helps.

You can't really test evolution by natural selection either (which I reaffirm - ID doesn't deny). It is merely a theory based upon observations in the way species are distributed and have seemingly adapted to their environments and moreover the conclusive proof of micro-evolution.

ID doesn't try and explain God's motivation. All it merely tries to do is suggest that Providence has had a hand in the evolutionary process, since evolution by natural selection on its own fails to explain sufficiently why life has developed into such complex organisms amongst other things. OK, you cannot empirically prove ID and it is not science in the strictest sense of the word. But to me science should never be taught in isolation but in light of theology and philosophy. ID shouldn't ever be taught as fact, but as a plausible theistic theory which helps explain the universe in the context of religious belief. To teach kids about Intelligent Design as a part of the state curriculum, whether it is termed 'science' or not, is important as it aids in developing our kids as individuals. Kids need to be presented with all the options to be able to make informed decisions about the way they live their faith or 'philosophy of life'.

[Nicko]

IMO there are two types of people in the world.

There are those who can handle the truth, and thereby seek it out.

And there are those who can't.

Its as simple as that. The whole ID thing (which is purely an american religious-right phenomenon) is just another manifestation of that basic idea.

So really, what is the point of arguing about it? Well, besides the nutcases who want this tripe forced into every young impressionable american mind.

Inside every born-again is a scared little child who doesn't want to face the music.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Sigh. OK, one more time::



Hope that helps.

Wow. This makes you perhaps the most outspoken congregant of our new Church OlePigeon, but I'm afraid that any points you were trying to make have gotten lost in bold, all caps, and exclamation-infested banter.

Let's take a brief look at the scientific term; testability. Afterall, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense slobbering on one's self for nothing more than to give our bibs a purpose. Let's learn something today shall we? Testability can fall generally under some very specific ideals. It must be subject to revision or refutation as new evidence is presented. ID is certainly testable using this ideal. If Darwin could test Paley's supposition of design, in the interest of scientific objectivity (something about all bolds, caps, and exclamation points makes me skeptical that this could ever be possible) Darwin is also subject to testability under this same ideal. But is he?

Another ideal is understood to have originated from Karl Popper's ideal of; falsifiability. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. Falsifiability is an actual continuum of data compilation and conclusion albeit a slow process at times. i.e. not for those with A.D.D. Well, bring on the tests then. Let's begin falsification!

ID's primary focus is on irreducible complexity and specified complexity. The theory holds that these are characteristics of intelligent agency. It should be noted that no god is mentioned or even implied. It is not centered on the Genesis account of Creation, nor purple spaghetti monsters. Who the designer is, is not within the scope of empirical science and certainly cannot be testable nor falsifiable. For all ID enthusiasts know, it could be a bug-eyed green alien from scientology using us as some mind-model in a petri dish. It just doesn't matter in the realm of science. If the Darwinian model could provide evidence that our most complex and specifically complex biological systems arose in some form of natural succession or graduation, ID would be falsified or rather, an intelligent agency would be unnecessary. It would then be subject to revision or refutation as the new evidence was presented.

However, in falsifying Darwin's theory, you must suppose that there was absolutely no Darwinian pathway that led to a biological system. So far, with regard to those systems currently posited by ID to have been irreducibly complex, there has been no reconstruction of the system's history and no Darwinian path has been concluded to have led to some system's existence. It has been admitted by "Darwinian faithfuls" that there is no guarantee we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway, but even so, it's irreducible complexity cannot count against it's gradual evolution." Well then, that was easy now wasn't it? It seems one is falsifiable and the other is not, but it doesn't matter because the god BOYA (billions of years ago) said so???

Moths evolving a variant wing color contingent upon environment is wholly different than the existence of an array of various insects to begin with. One model is supposed (optimistically and imaginatively IMHO) using narrow aspects of evidence and applied to all of life. I ask you, how is Darwinism testable or even falsifiable on this scale? It's not you say? Well then in the interest of yelling at one another like a couple of school children fighting over a basketball;

YOU CAN'T TEST EVOLUTION!!! PERIOD!!!

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT CAN TEST BOYA OR ITS MOTIVATION! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

IT IS NOT A SCIENCE IF YOU CAN NOT TEST IT! I DON'T CARE IF YOU'R THE F*CKING EMPORER OF THE UNIVERSE AND HAVE 50,000 CREDENTIALS.
BTW; I'll remember your lack of concern over credentials the next time you try to suppose that ID proponents lack peer review, collegiate credentials, and are outranked by the number of those vocal EVO geniuses.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko

IMO there are two types of people in the world.

There are those who can handle the truth, and thereby seek it out.

And there are those who can't.

Its as simple as that. The whole ID thing (which is purely an american religious-right phenomenon) is just another manifestation of that basic idea.

You have no idea what you're talking about young EVO padiwan. The Discovery Institute (vocally interested in aspects of ID and arguably their strongest proponent) is comprised of agnostics, Jews, Muslims, etc... The head of the organization is Orthodox Jew. So, unless you're willing to include Judaism and the jew (traditionally and statistically quite liberal and "left" at the polls), your argument fails. But then, this wouldn't be the first time someone with a Christianophobic chip on their shoulder slobbered on themselves in this forum.

So really, what is the point of arguing about it?

In order for you to hate people like me all the more and to watch you stub your toe on your upper lip. Why else?

Well, besides the nutcases who want this tripe forced into every young impressionable american mind.

By critically examing the theory in the interest of scientific objectivity??? I love this reasoning. Evolution is falsifiable, just don't get caught ever trying. You'll be stripped of your job, your funding, your reputation, your tenure, and your lab.

Inside the mouth of every ignorant Christianophobe is a foot.

*fixed.

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Kids need to be presented with all the options...

Then why are they only presented with two?

/Game over.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

ID doesn't try and explain God's motivation. All it merely tries to do is suggest that Providence has had a hand in the evolutionary process, since evolution by natural selection on its own fails to explain sufficiently why life has developed into such complex organisms amongst other things.

OK, you cannot empirically prove ID and it is not science in the strictest sense of the word. But to me science should never be taught in isolation but in light of theology and philosophy.
TEACH SCIENCE IN THE SCIENCE CLASS, TEACH ID IN THE THEOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY CLASS
ID shouldn't ever be taught as fact, but as a plausible theistic theory which helps explain the universe in the context of religious belief.
TEACH SCIENCE IN THE SCIENCE CLASS, TEACH ID IN THE THEOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY CLASS
To teach kids about Intelligent Design as a part of the state curriculum, whether it is termed 'science' or not, is important as it aids in developing our kids as individuals.
TEACH SCIENCE IN THE SCIENCE CLASS, TEACH ID IN THE THEOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY CLASS
Kids need to be presented with all the options to be able to make informed decisions about the way they live their faith or 'philosophy of life'.

Can I make this any clearer?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You have no idea what you're talking about young EVO padiwan. The Discovery Institute (vocally interested in aspects of ID and arguably their strongest proponent) is comprised of agnostics, Jews, Muslims, etc... The head of the organization is Orthodox Jew. So, unless you're willing to include Judaism and the jew (traditionally and statistically quite liberal and "left" at the polls), your argument fails. But then, this wouldn't be the first time someone with a Christianophobic chip on their shoulder slobbered on themselves in this forum.


In order for you to hate people like me all the more and to watch you stub your toe on your upper lip. Why else?


By critically examing the theory in the interest of scientific objectivity??? I love this reasoning. Evolution is falsifiable, just don't get caught ever trying. You'll be stripped of your job, your funding, your reputation, your tenure, and your lab.


*fixed.

Jews and Christians share the same holy books and the same creation story. It's no surprise that some Jews would, as some Christians do, support ID. Especially Orthodox Jews who are, despite your claims to the contrary, generally quite conservative.

But the actions of one Jew or even a millions Jews does not necessarily reflect upon the ideals of all Jews.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Can I make this any clearer?

I never realised in American schools philosophy and theology were part of the curriculum. (And I don't just mean religion).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

there has been no reconstruction of the system's history and no Darwinian path has been concluded to have led to some system's existence. It has been admitted by "Darwinian faithfuls" that there is no guarantee we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway, but even so, it's irreducible complexity cannot count against it's gradual evolution." Well then, that was easy now wasn't it?

One model is supposed (optimistically and imaginatively IMHO) using narrow aspects of evidence and applied to all of life.

Here's your problem. You have theory A, that is suggested by a certain amount of evidence, and has no evidence refuting it. Let's give that a 9 out of 10 on the credibility meter. But theory A has gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving, so let's knock it back to a 5 for that.

Then you have theory B, that has no evidence for or against it. So it starts out at 0 on the credibility meter. But it also has certain gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving (I don't know if that puts it at negative numbers or not).

So ok, there may be some things that can only be postulated but not directly proven (yet) by theory A. That in no way validates theory B, when theory B has no evidence of its own. Until theory B has some actual evidence to prop it up, instead of just circumstances that may or may not chip away at theory A, theory B can't be taken seriously as an alternative.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I never realised in American schools philosophy and theology were part of the curriculum. (And I don't just mean religion).

In almost all public schools they are not. But if they are going to be added to the curriculum, and I have no problem whatsoever with that idea, then they should be taught in their appropriate subject area class, not in science class.

My problem with this issue is not the teaching of ID in schools. My problem is with the teaching of ID in a science class when it is a concept based on philosophical ideas not empirical (scientific) ideas.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Here's your problem. You have theory A, that is suggested by a certain amount of evidence, and has no evidence refuting it. Let's give that a 9 out of 10 on the credibility meter. But theory A has gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving, so let's knock it back to a 5 for that.

Then you have theory B, that has no evidence for or against it. So it starts out at 0 on the credibility meter. But it also has certain gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving (I don't know if that puts it at negative numbers or not).

So ok, there may be some things that can only be postulated but not directly proven (yet) by theory A. That in no way validates theory B, when theory B has no evidence of its own. Until theory B has some actual evidence to prop it up, instead of just circumstances that may or may not chip away at theory A, theory B can't be taken seriously as an alternative.

We have a WINNAR!!!11!!!!11

Excellent, succinct description of the difference between the two.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Here's your problem. You have theory A, that is suggested by a certain amount of evidence, and has no evidence refuting it. Let's give that a 9 out of 10 on the credibility meter. But theory A has gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving, so let's knock it back to a 5 for that.

I don't mean to burst your 'highly scientific' bubble here. I mean, it seems you may have spent a considerable amount of time compiling facts and presenting substantive data for us to really sink our teeth into... I understand you believe the above so I'll be succinct in response.

There are two facets of Theory A. We'll call them 1 and 2. You touched on this a little though I'm not sure you even realized it.

1. suggested by ample amounts of evidence and really has little to no evidence to refute it. It stands strong like many theories before it. I like your "credibility meter" though. Kind of reminds me of the BOZO-PUTER on the Bozo the clown show on WGN growing up.

2. Highly improbable, statistically impossible and argued by many scientists in the field as philosophical, dogmatic, unsubstantiated, and borderline religious in it's practice. Not only is this facet not falsifiable or testable in any way, but no adequate model has even surpassed being a 'just-so' story in reconstructing it's alleged history. Among the adherents are those that would hijack grounds gained on facet 1 by convoluting it with their religion in propogating facet 2. This includes the bird fossil Archaeoraptor with the dromeaosaur's tail glued to it as reported and craftily recanted by the faithfuls at National Geographic, debunked artist depictions of various embryos in bolstering recapitulation theories in an attempt to connect humans with our supposed aquatic past, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and countless other now-known fakes. There will be more published in the future and more recants, make no mistake. While you seem certain and resolved in your faith, the rest of us would beg your pardon in allowing us to maintain a healthy level of skepticism.

Then you have theory B, that has no evidence for or against it.

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence for it. It's the very evidence that is starting to make folks like you squirm in your dogmatic seats as evidenced by your reaction in this.

So it starts out at 0 on the credibility meter.

Really? How does it start out at zero? Do you have any information to offer or have you been sent by BOYA to save the ignorant here??? Apparently, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, disagrees with you. He found some credibility in it and faced retaliation by Smithsonian executives after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. Federal investigators concluded last month that "it is ... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]... out of the [Smithsonian]."

Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson may also have a couple of things to say as she was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

In fact, as long as we're throwing around examples of lacking credibility; National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell points out that "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory," but he adds that "some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view."

But it also has certain gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving (I don't know if that puts it at negative numbers or not).

Link? Info? Informed opinion of any kind at all or is it just an opinion alone?

So ok, there may be some things that can only be postulated but not directly proven (yet) by theory A.

How would you go about proving anything at all regarding Theory A's 2nd facet??? You can't. It's not empirically scientific, it's imaginative and has welcomed itself among many a philosophy, but it is little more than this. It's not falsifiable, it's not scientific.

That in no way validates theory B,

Theory B stands squarely in the path of Theory A by citing examples of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Theory A posits these things generally not possible and has created no test, no model, and no mechanism to understand the history of their "process". Are you saying Theory A is falsifiable, but how dare you try??? I'm just trying to understand how zealous you are. This little audit could save me a lot of wasted time on you.

when theory B has no evidence of its own.

You've not shown me that you're qualified to even speak on these things. You've given no reason for me to believe you even understand what ID is. If you don't care, you don't care, but to simply throw opinions around as if you know what you're talking about is highly audacious and only serves to illustrate intellectual laziness. There should be no shame in joining the ranks of the others I've silenced in this thread because you'd be in good company. I was hoping to hear back from Y3a, Monique, Nicko, and Ole Pigeon, but I guess it's not my lucky day.

Until theory B has some actual evidence to prop it up, instead of just circumstances that may or may not chip away at theory A, theory B can't be taken seriously as an alternative.

Theory B is not concerned with Theory A. Theory B is concerned with examples of irreducible complexity and specified complexity using the same disciplines as the scientists you've somehow pinned against them. Because of the suppositions made by Theory B, by it's nature it does stand squarely in the path of Theory A, but not by design. This is not a boxing ring as you'd like to fashion it. This is science. It's what scientists do. If you can't handle the more challenging aspects of science, perhaps you should join the others in a game of Mario-Kart.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Here's your problem. You have theory A, that is suggested by a certain amount of evidence, and has no evidence refuting it. Let's give that a 9 out of 10 on the credibility meter. But theory A has gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving, so let's knock it back to a 5 for that.

I don't mean to burst your 'highly scientific' bubble here. I mean, it seems you may have spent a considerable amount of time compiling facts and presenting substantive data for us to really sink our teeth into... I understand you believe the above so I'll be succinct in response.

There are two facets of Theory A. We'll call them 1 and 2. You touched on this a little though I'm not sure you even realized it.

1. suggested by ample amounts of evidence and really has little to no evidence to refute it. It stands strong like many theories before it. I like your "credibility meter" though. Kind of reminds me of the BOZO-PUTER on the Bozo the clown show on WGN growing up.

2. Highly improbable, statistically impossible and argued by many scientists in the field as philosophical, dogmatic, unsubstantiated, and borderline religious in it's practice. Not only is this facet not falsifiable or testable in any way, but no adequate model has even surpassed being a 'just-so' story in reconstructing it's alleged history. Among the adherents are those that would hijack grounds gained on facet 1 by convoluting it with their religion in propogating facet 2. This includes the bird fossil Archaeoraptor with the dromeaosaur's tail glued to it as reported and craftily recanted by the faithfuls at National Geographic, debunked artist depictions of various embryos in bolstering recapitulation theories in an attempt to connect humans with our supposed aquatic past, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and countless other now-known fakes. There will be more published in the future and more recants, make no mistake. While you seem certain and resolved in your faith, the rest of us would beg your pardon in allowing us to maintain a healthy level of skepticism.

Then you have theory B, that has no evidence for or against it.

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence for it. It's the very evidence that is starting to make folks like you squirm in your dogmatic seats as evidenced by your reaction in this.

So it starts out at 0 on the credibility meter.

Really? How does it start out at zero? Do you have any information to offer or have you been sent by BOYA to save the ignorant here??? Apparently, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, disagrees with you. He found some credibility in it and faced retaliation by Smithsonian executives after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. Federal investigators concluded last month that "it is ... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]... out of the [Smithsonian]."

Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson may also have a couple of things to say as she was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

In fact, as long as we're throwing around examples of lacking credibility; National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell points out that "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory," but he adds that "some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view."

But it also has certain gaps that can't be filled without hand-waving (I don't know if that puts it at negative numbers or not).

Link? Info? Informed opinion of any kind at all or is it just an opinion alone?

So ok, there may be some things that can only be postulated but not directly proven (yet) by theory A.

How would you go about proving anything at all regarding Theory A's 2nd facet??? You can't. It's not empirically scientific, it's imaginative and has welcomed itself among many a philosophy, but it is little more than this. It's not falsifiable, it's not scientific.

That in no way validates theory B,

Theory B stands squarely in the path of Theory A by citing examples of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Theory A posits these things generally not possible and has created no test, no model, and no mechanism to understand the history of their "process". Are you saying Theory A is falsifiable, but how dare you try??? I'm just trying to understand how zealous you are. This little audit could save me a lot of wasted time on you.

when theory B has no evidence of its own.

You've not shown me that you're qualified to even speak on these things. You've given no reason for me to believe you even understand what ID is. If you don't care, you don't care, but to simply throw opinions around as if you know what you're talking about is highly audacious and only serves to illustrate intellectual laziness. There should be no shame in joining the ranks of the others I've silenced in this thread because you'd be in good company. I was hoping to hear back from Y3a, Monique, Nicko, and Ole Pigeon, but I guess it's not my lucky day.

Until theory B has some actual evidence to prop it up, instead of just circumstances that may or may not chip away at theory A, theory B can't be taken seriously as an alternative.

Theory B is not concerned with Theory A. Theory B is concerned with examples of irreducible complexity and specified complexity using the same disciplines as the scientists you've somehow pinned against them. Because of the suppositions made by Theory B, by it's nature it does stand squarely in the path of Theory A, but not by design. This is not a boxing ring as you'd like to fashion it. This is science. It's what scientists do. If you can't handle the more challenging aspects of science, perhaps you should join the others in a game of Mario-Kart.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok, I have 3 things to show.
i) there is evidence for evolution.
ii) there is no evidence for ID, because
iii) a piece of evidence being against evolution does not make it evidence supporting ID

Secondary points that I hope I don't have to explain but warrant comment
iv) anecdotes about scientists are not evidence. What scientists announce is often evidence, but stories about them saying it never are.
v) hoaxes created for personal rewards are not evidence.

Let's get started

There are two facets, 1 and 2. 1 really has little to no evidence to refute it. It stands strong.
2 Highly improbable, statistically impossible and argued

But 2 is nothing more than an extrapolation of 1. I know you agree, because you just said it yesterday: "using narrow aspects of evidence and applied to all of life." You believe the evidence is not sufficient to justify the degree of extrapolation, but you agree that it is evidence. Correct?

Before we continue, by facet 2 do you mean speciation or do you mean the appearance of life from non-life?

(that's (i), we'll get back to (ii) after we take care of (iii))

specified complexity and irreducible complexity.

To clarify these (and for the benefit of those following along), irreducible complexity basically says that if we can't come up with an evolutionary path for a protein, which consists of intermediaries that have useful functions, then such a path must not exist, which invalidates evolution. I've never heard of specified complexity before, but google seems to think it means that the chances of something being as complex and as specific as modern organisms are too remote to be explained by evolution in the time frame assumed. Do I have them right?

Now, even assuming either of those hypotheses is valid, they don't mention ID do they? All they do is attack evolution. This is classic (iii). If this is the only evidence for ID, there is no evidence for ID.

This kind of leads into (ii) afterall I guess. The only other discussion of it would be some other evidence I haven't heard about (for ID), or some revelation about why the above two things point to ID that I haven't noticed.



[edit] on second thought, maybe I should say something about (iv):
You mention that some researchers are reprimanded for showing flaws in evolution. That I would agree is wrong. But you have to be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff in tales of ID discrimination. If the researcher was submitting an article that contains no actual experiments, it's quite possible that the researcher was being reprimanded for trying to be sensational with a hot-button issue without performing good science, and that would be perfectly valid grounds for reprimand. Furthermore, if the researcher is trying to imply that some evidence (valid or otherwise) against evolution somehow bolsters ID, simply because they see ID as the default after evolution, then that would also be bad science. There's nothing wrong with reprimanding scientists for doing bad science. [/edit]

on to (v):

This includes the bird fossil Archaeoraptor with the dromeaosaur's tail glued to it

I remember reading about this (actually I only ever heard about the debunking, in New Scientist I think). What happened was archeologists offered a bounty on fossils in China, and some poor but entrepreneurial farmer created this apparently astounding treasure so he could be sure to make money. To say that farmer was overzealous in proving evolution is ridiculous.

Archeological treasures generate money. People out to cheat the system for gain or glory is not a proof against the theory.

There will be more published in the future and more recants, make no mistake.

People haven't stopped being greedy. But consider this. If the scientific community were motivated solely to uphold evolution, they wouldn't even recognize the recants, would they? The fact that they work to uncover hoaxes argues against your claim that the theory is more important than the data.

Are you saying Theory A is falsifiable, but how dare you try???

You know I'm not. I even put evolution at a mere 5 on the credibility meter
I'm only here to show you (and anyone who takes you seriously) that ID is not a valid alternative, because it has no evidence. Specifically:

This is not a boxing ring as you'd like to fashion it.

You're the only one who would put it thus, by saying the likes of "both sides should be heard." ID is not a side, not until it has some evidence for it. In your analogy, ID wouldn't be in the boxing ring, it would be in the audience along with the other creation myths. You need evidence (for you) in order to be in the ring.

[gadster]

Intelligent design?

Tsunamis, earthquakes, innocent kids killed by lightning, etc etc etc: now that's intelligence.

Good job, arsewipe. Not to mention the THEORY of relativity, which gave us such useful devices as, the nuke.

God is seriously ****ed-up in the head.

Can we elect a new one?

Please.

Why so much misery, god. Were you having a bad week?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yet, we're not compelled to know more about who it was that invented chess? Google it, there are many interested in more than just it's rules, but it's inception and history. One attempts to examine the moves, and the other seeks to examine the players.

An evolutionary biologist may be interested in learning about theories on abiogenesis, but this does not bring abiogenesis into evolutionary theory in its current practice. The man watching the chess game may be interested in learning about where the game comes from (was it Persia? China?), but again: the history of the game still has nothing to do with the rules of the game. You're taking things too far on the diachronic scale when the synchronic is just as important.

Researchers can tell by the placement of the peices that there was actual deliberation, that they did not arbitrarily pop on to the board by natural phenomena. I believe research of both facets of chess are necessary and one does not necessarily hinder the work of the other.

Chess is artificial; I've granted that archaeologists, etc., can tell when humans have modified the natural into the artificial, but this differentiation between artificial and natural is exactly why I.D. fails -- there is no differentiation. There's no postulation as to what kind of design a designer would follow; there's nothing that is more natural to which an I.D. person can compare what has been designed.

Let me put it this way; if you find a pawn toward the opposing side of the board and it is apparent that few other moves had been made, one could say this particular player was aggressive. If someone else steps in and says; "but we know this player is historically much more timid, this aggression is not consistent with his nature." and begins to show examples of why it's possible this individual was not a participant in the game we're examining-the other researchers will return to the investigation and seek to affirm their findings with more data. This is not counter-productive. It seems there are efforts to silence a relatively small community of scientists for having "fringe" ideals, when it's these types that have historically broken the most important ground. Hell, Darwin himself and many others were little more than hobbyists, this does not render their work useless obviously.

In this analogy I can only see the two observers as evolutionary biologists. An I.D. proponent wouldn't be bringing evidence, he would instead point out a lack of evidence.

Let's abandon this analogy, though, for it's modeled around an artificial game, and I don't want it to become a mistaken attempt to affirm I.D. in a microcosmic manner.

Absolutely not and in writing the intitial post was concerned some would believe that to be my M.O. Understand that i've engaged these debates before and am sensitive to the fact that many know I'm Christian and will leap to the gross generalizations rather quickly. This is unfortunate and for whatever reason; "...while not a deist..." was not enough clarification for someone even has level-headed as you.

Again, I was merely clarifying.

You call it symbolic, I call it illustrative.

I agree, it's interesting how humans can find connections in the arbitrary or unrelated -- it can make for beautiful poetry and platitudinous late-night revelations, but it can't make for a scientific argument.

I wasn't aware that we were adhering to a strict rule of argumentation here. As you know, our arguments will only go so far. Some of the pleasure I glean from these forums is not only reading the personal interjections of others, but in making them myself. I've simply stated that I think it's more than ironic that in describing purely natural phenomena in the most succinct way possible, design is implied. I find it interesting that there's almost no way around this.

I still fail to see where "design is implied." I find it interesting that so many humans must apply design where it may not exist.

Again, it's unfortunate that my clarification that Hawking is not a deist didn't suffice. I agree that many have a problem with personal, emotional reading. I'm not entirely sure I'd be more quilty than them or you in this and in need of correction or rebuke. i.e. make sure you're not guilty of this first. I might be more receptive to the advice.

When I'm guilty, point it out. The specific argument will be nullified, the grander argument can continue more objectively.

While I grant you "wet" time is limited by several factors up to and including grant focus, this is changing and more time is needed. i.e. I concede this point. I'm as optimistic of this as you are in supposing that the evolutionary "limitations" we see are nothing more than "yet-to-occur" evolution.

I don't question the validity of their life's work. I question the bastardization of it regardless of it's intended purpose. The outcome is obvious and it starts with classrooms propogating nonsense based on emotional and I believe "religious" tendancies. I mean, either we're opposed to this activity or not. If we lend too much time to the Creationist whacko (who has yet to get beyond "evolution should be critically analyzed") and not enough time on the problems with debunked curriculum already in place, we're doing ourselves injustice out of the gate.

Agreeable enough.

This is not a disingenuous request Stradlater, I'd like to know more about the extent and scope of these variations. Please elaborate if you would. You should know by now that if you provide information, I will read it.

I'll look into this. It's been years since I came across the images of the fossilized bacteria, and Google isn't always helpful when so many different articulations exist and so many unrelated sites exist with similar language.

ID is not as concerned about arguing speciation as you might think. ID is more focused on IC. Understanding characteristics of IC, may (and should technically) lead to a more thorough understanding of what other organisms display these same characteristics.

What continues to be a problem with I.C. is that it points to lack of evidence and is not evidence in itself. When evolution provides evidence to fill this gap, I.C. moves onto the next thing until it is shown how the next evolution could have occurred sans design.

right, just as observations have been made to imply design. ID is still a "just-so" story until I see sufficient evidence with more compelling conclusions. I'm not as 'zealous' as you might think, but I am possibly a little more open-minded. Specifically because I do not see where the work of ID hinders the progress of science. Not in the least bit. Let 'em all scramble to affirm their conclusions. I look forward to it.

And this is where we divert. Where you are hopeful and find evidence where there is a lack (again: I.C. is lack of evidence, not evidence itself, while S.C. makes grand claims based on probabilities when probabilities are only part of the story), I am more skeptical and await actual evidence, actual I.D.-based lab work (will it come? probably not).

Agreed and I may have misstated the point here. Where a scientist may begin; "we've taken a bacteria commonly found in waste ponds and extracted a toxin gene...", National Geographic may say; "NEW BACTERIA CREATED!!!"

We agree here, but this does nothing to support I.D. nor discredit evolution. It's just more spin, and I hate spin.

Evolution is not to be discredited, it needs more accreditation in general. IMHO. *as an aside, I'm actually not as "worked up" as you might believe.

I'm glad we agree on this.

Agreeable enough.

This is a very common argument and one that I suspect you'll be running from within the next five years. Let me give you a couple of examples of a fundamental problem with peer review and publication in general;

At the Smithsonian Institution, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, the editor of a respected biology journal, faced retaliation by Smithsonian executives after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. Federal investigators concluded last month that "it is ... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]... out of the [Smithsonian]."

At the Mississippi University for Women, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell points out that "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory," but he adds that "some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view."

The above are copy-pastes from a site you'll no doubt have many problems with. I appreciate your resourcefulness and welcome you to refute the above "human-nature". Look, this stuff is bombshell to many in the community. The scope of "push-back" in this is not surprising and nor should it be to you.

I'd be interested in the whole stories. It's easy to resound information in a biased manner.

I'd also be interested in what peer-reviewed I.D. article this was. Was it actual experimentation? Or just more Behe vagaries that are discredited before Behe backtracks and says, "oh, I didn't mean that, I meant this."

MY True Origins? Fair enough, I've also read your Talk Origins.

Convincing enough? They answer emails monthly, you should write in and see if they respond.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by undotwa

You can't really test evolution by natural selection either (which I reaffirm - ID doesn't deny). It is merely a theory based upon observations in the way species are distributed and have seemingly adapted to their environments and moreover the conclusive proof of micro-evolution.

Testing often involves direct observation with support of known facts and theory, such as using mathematics to explain stellar phenomena (Cosomology and Astronomy.) You can test evolution and natural selection through direct observeration, progression, dating, probabilty with biological mathematics, and comparison with current popular anthropological and paleontological theory. Studying short lived organism and how they change, mutate, reproduce, and evolve in different environments. Small aquatic animals are very popular in testing adaptation given changes in natural environments. Some species of frogs are especially resilliant.

Even humans! A genetic mutation in some bubonic plague victims also allows them to be immune to HIV. If everyone contracted HIV, then AIDS, then malaria, who would be left? Only the people with the specific genetic traits that allowed them to resist HIV. They would propogate, pass on that genetic mutation, and there you have it! Evolution by natural selection! Those with the best traits suited for survival live to pass those trates on to future generations. In the words of Bill Neye, "IT'S SCIENCE!!!"

And please stop saying "merely a theory." People are throwing that word around like it doesn't mean anything. A theory implies support by direct observation and facts. Since you can't provide any facts that directly show that a god, gods, super alien, or flying spaghetti monsters directly interviened with the development of life on Earth, it can not be a theory. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory.

Originally Posted by undotwa

*snip* ID shouldn't ever be taught as fact, but as a plausible theistic theory which helps explain the universe in the context of religious belief.

You can't have a theistic theory. That's contradictory.

Originally Posted by undotwa

To teach kids about Intelligent Design as a part of the state curriculum, whether it is termed 'science' or not, is important as it aids in developing our kids as individuals. Kids need to be presented with all the options to be able to make informed decisions about the way they live their faith or 'philosophy of life'.

Well, you just underlined my argument. Hey, I'm all for Intelligent Design and whatever else they want to throw in there. Expand kids minds, make them think! It's the "what if..." questions that help us discover and learn. For anyone who'd like to explore the idea of super beings helping to create people, make a theological or philosophical class and do it. It sounds like fun! But don't put it in the science class and teach it next to physics and cosmology; don't call it a theory, and don't call it a science, because it isn't.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Hey, I'm all for Intelligent Design and whatever else they want to throw in there. Expand kids minds, make them think! It's the "what if..." questions that help us discover and learn. For anyone who'd like to explore the idea of super beings helping to create people, make a theological or philosophical class and do it. It sounds like fun! But don't put it in the science class and teach it next to physics and cosmology; don't call it a theory, and don't call it a science, because it isn't.

I've been saying the same thing to undotwa but you said it much better than I have done.

By all means, teach ID in public schools, teach creationism in public schools. But teach them in a religious studies or philosophy class. DON'T teach them in a science class where they don't belong.

When someone comes out with evidence for the idea of ID (HA!) that was obtained using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry--test, verify, evaluate, re-test, re-evaluate--and there are articles and books written on ID within the framework of the scientific method, then I would re-consider my stance against ID being taught in science class. But until then, keep it with the philosophy classes or religious studies classes.

ID is a very plausible idea--you could even say theory--that should be discussed in public schools. But it is NOT a scientific theory within the framework of the specific definition of that term as used in the empirical sciences. As such, it should not be taught in science class.