[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This is silly. The goal of the ID pushers is simply to have a debate...so that ID appears to be on par with Evolution. There is no theory. Its a smokescreen.

I agree, it is a silly debate, because no matter what is right, the evolution-theory, that claims that every life is in a constant change, although a slow and therefore difficult to observe change, therefore arguing that all animals and the human have developed to this stage from some one-cell-life-form...

or the creationists, who claim that God has created every animal and the humans from scratch into the present form, ie no change whatsoever...

Both ideas/theories are compatible with a God as director, in the case the evolution-theory is right, God enables evolution and controls, directs and creates the changes constantly and forever, therefore then God is someone that is constantly creating, interacting with life and never stopping, if the creationist-theory is right, then so be it, it's also God that creates, in that case only at one time and then let it be.

We muslims can't say for sure what theory is more right since the parts of the Quran that deal with the creation can be interpreted either way.

Have fun.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Why is it that all this argumentation about I.D. is done around life's complexity when the subatomic level is already complex enough to be used in its argumentation in this thread?

Good point. In general, I believe the argument should remain "Is there such a thing as irreducible complexity?" While I admit bias, from what I've seen and read, it is apparent to me that IC is not a ridiculous, dogmatic, uneducated concept nor is it intended to refute Darwinism just like Darwinism doesn't attempt to refute any other alternate theory, it is simply interested in providing one of it's own. ID is an alternate theory (you could even say a "just-so story begging hypothesis) using the same scientific principle we employ in many different aspects of our lives. Behe focuses on the flagella because it is essentially a motor comprised of three parts all necessary for the effective function of the motor. Unfortunately, the arguments too often degrade into conflicts between two people of differing world-views. I try (and sometimes fail) to remember there's no need to be defensive. The scientists themselves bicker like member nations of an EU conference and we'd want it no other way, but what popular media does with conclusions is often different. Then, using populist thought instead of critical analysis, we begin defending our "positions".

Life is already quite explainable with basic Chemistry and Physics. Adding God to that equation is overdoing it, i.e. God is not necessary to explain the Creation of Life.

I don't necessarily disagree with this on the surface Simplelife, but some things are more explainable than others. In nature, we have examples of incredibly complex "machinery" that is arguably not "quite explainable" using current theory. Enter, alternative theory or again in fairness; "just-so stories". I know that most believe ID is "god" theory or "Christianity attempting to mask itself in the cloak of a science it knows nothing about", but the problem is some of the arguments presented by Behe and others (some of which who do not subscribe to ID in the least bit) are very good arguments. We can't simply dismiss a just-so story because of what it "smells like" to some. No one is saying "God" and no one (actively involved in science) is citing the Genesis account.

However, when we try to understand Quantum Mechanics, things get dicier and it is an area where God is more useful because the limits of Human Knowledge are clearer there (at this time anyway).

Again though, it's not about a "god" and we cannot employ ideals like ID or any other to simply avoid or attempt to explain something that seems dicey. Aspects of a story need to have some foundation of data to test for in order to form a hypothesis for more testing and so on to a plausible theory.

So why waisting God's time on a self-organizing process that stems from the darker and more elusive mysteries of the Planck level scale Universe?

Not knowing for certain whether or not God or "a god" operates within the principles of time as we understand it, I also can't know for certain whether or not we are wasting his/her time. However, much of our own time may have been wasted.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Take your attack on ID here. It's evolutionists that have been attacking ID for years.
The IDers just want equal time. The evolutionists wont have it!

The unfortunate matter is that it doesn't deserve equal time because it isn't a true scientific movement. Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and regular science?

I have done a lot of reading Strad. I am no youngling. I do know this. Secular knowledge cannot and will not ever disprove ID. By definition, it is not possible.

And you said you knew what a "scientific theory"was

There is no doubt in my mind that you believe this.

I'm just using past knowledge to form a theory; until this theory is truly disproven, I will continue to believe this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

"Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity." I'm sorry, but could you repeat what you're trying to mean here. As for the rest of this, let's focus on actual scientific data, not little constructions you make.

Sorry, I meant "often referred to as an Intelligent agency in that it exhibits irreducible complexity."

In the end, have I.D. people actually made a claim and provided proof about how many proteins an irreducibly complex flagellum contains? Right now it seems that it's a number in the 20s or 30s...but I haven't stumbled across anything concrete. So would it be true, then, that I.D.ers don't know how many proteins are necessary for flagella to function, but they know the system is irreducibly complex?

According to a portion of this link you provided; http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html#IC claims; "But the jury is still out - perhaps a bacteria will be found with even fewer proteins. I say let's wait until the dust settles a bit and see where we stand. Yes, I would readily admit that there is STILL the problem of the evolution of the "minimal flagellum" - but in fact many of these proteins are similar enough to each other (and/or genes for other functions) that a simple series of gene duplication events could explain their origins."
Even though this article does admit a jury still being out and says; "lets allow the dust to settle" it makes the statement; "that a simple series of gene duplication events could explain their origins." I think this article is too optimistic when it makes the claim "simple series". I believe the current figure is 33 proteins to answer your question in short. Damn! I'll get back to you...

*personal aside; I just received test results establishing me as the father of a 15 year old boy. I'm befuttled, flummoxed, confounded and very distracted. While this is good news and gives me closure on an ambiguity the mother would not allow me to resolve, it is now in the process of resolution. I'm balancing business with pleasure and now work is calling yet again which supercedes all!

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I do, but I am talking about your "Once everyone forgets about ID it will be a better place" mentality. You sound like an evangelist.

Once everyone forgets about the flat earth movement, this spherous place would be better, also.

Indeed, which is supernatural. By definition the supernatural isn't grounded by natural laws.
But has never happened under our watch...

Your original statement was purposefully vague; all I did was respond to it with a quotation. You can make fancy statements that sound like they make more sense than they actually do, that is if you really want to.

Well biogenesis claims it can ONLY happen this way.

However, for biogenesis to be true, there has to be something that started it all that has always existed.

If biogenesis requires a deity, then it's far from "scientifically backed up." We know that, basically, all life that we've examined -- in current existence -- came from life. Asexual, sexual reproduction. We also basically know that life hasn't been around on Earth forever. Both strict biogenesis (which implies a creator and thus is untestable and unfalsifiable) and Aristotelian abiogenesis have been far from proven or have much science to back up the claims. Primordial archebiosis, however, is a better hypothesis that might eventually be testable (if the early conditions of the earth can be simulated).

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by christ

I have no interest in Intelligent Design, not in its supporters.

I also, however, don't believe that evolution can entirely explain the origins of an eye, or of a slime mold.

I would like to encourage scientists to examine all possibilities, and to prove/ disprove theories, and they should have the freedom to perform this examination.

Shrill witch hunts by either side does science no favours. I regularly get depressed with creationists who rant about evolution being just a theory because, in microcosm it is evidently accurate - longer beaks/ necks etc. giving benefit, and survival of the fittest, but equally I tire of people that use the fact that birds can evolve longer beaks to justify the evolution of eyes from - what - light sensitive skin?

Scientists always tend to try and hold the moral high ground against those religious zealots that 'just believe', but in this instance scientists are the ones doing the 'just believe' ing.

If, as Strad says at the beginning, "ID should not be part of any school's curriculum", then neither should Newton, Einstein, or any other unproven 'theory'.

Grow up, and allow debate and scientific investigation.

Though you claim to have no interest in Intelligent Design and you appear -- with the knowledge you presented -- to have little interest in Evolution, I encourage you to learn about them before making such a decision.

I encourage you to learn the difference between what "theory" means colloquially and what it means in math and science. I encourage you to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience (or junk science).

I encourage you to read arguments on both sides and decide for yourself. ID and Evolution are hardly comparable.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

According to a portion of this link you provided; http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html#IC claims; "But the jury is still out - perhaps a bacteria will be found with even fewer proteins. I say let's wait until the dust settles a bit and see where we stand. Yes, I would readily admit that there is STILL the problem of the evolution of the "minimal flagellum" - but in fact many of these proteins are similar enough to each other (and/or genes for other functions) that a simple series of gene duplication events could explain their origins."
Even though this article does admit a jury still being out and says; "lets allow the dust to settle" it makes the statement; "that a simple series of gene duplication events could explain their origins." I think this article is too optimistic when it makes the claim "simple series". I believe the current figure is 33 proteins to answer your question in short. Damn! I'll get back to you...

And with the recent jumps in genetics and molecular evolution, as we can explain what more and more proteins do and compare them with one another, hopefully evolutionary biologists will provide more satisfying details in the near future. I'd be interested in the current I.D. details on the matter, though, since most of the Behe and Behe-supporters I've come across are several years old.

*personal aside; I just received test results establishing me as the father of a 15 year old boy. I'm befuttled, flummoxed, confounded and very distracted. While this is good news and gives me closure on an ambiguity the mother would not allow me to resolve, it is now in the process of resolution. I'm balancing business with pleasure and now work is calling yet again which supercedes all!

Good luck with everything!

[christ]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

... I encourage you to learn about them before making such a decision.

Decision? What decision? You have made all the decisions in this thread, I have made, or implied, none.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I encourage you to learn the difference between what "theory" means colloquially and what it means in math and science. I encourage you to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience (or junk science).

I encourage you to less pomposity.

For all of your anti-ID rhetoric, you are the one that is showing the closed mind, you are the nearer to the flat-earthers that you deride, as you have decided that anything that disagrees with your cherished evolution (in particular ID) is "pseudo-science".

I don't support ID. I don't support religious creationism. I don't, however, think that evolution is proven. I think that various theories need to be explored, disproved and discarded in the search for scientific truth. I think that you show all the signs of a man that is frightened of the potential for being wrong, that therefore discourages opposition (rather like the Pope that excommunicated Galileo), instead of the man that is confident in his pet theory's correctness, and so welcomes the investigation of alternates.

And attempting to discredit others' scholarliness does nothing but discredit your arrogance.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by christ

Decision? What decision? You have made all the decisions in this thread, I have made, or implied, none.

The decision to have such beliefs about them. To make statements like "If, as Strad says at the beginning, 'ID should not be part of any school's curriculum', then neither should Newton, Einstein, or any other unproven 'theory'. It's obvious that you still don't really know what you're talking about.

I encourage you to less pomposity.

For all of your anti-ID rhetoric, you are the one that is showing the closed mind, you are the nearer to the flat-earthers that you deride, as you have decided that anything that disagrees with your cherished evolution (in particular ID) is "pseudo-science".

No, if true science comes along and manages to bring up some falsifiable evidence against evolution -- something that falsifies evolutionary theory, then my mind is open to the new theory. I.D., however, doesn't work this way, because it is pseudoscience. I still encourage you to get familiar with the way science works, because you seem to be unfamiliar with basic aspects (as many people are), such as what constitutes "theory" (vs. hypothesis).

I don't support ID. I don't support religious creationism. I don't, however, think that evolution is proven. I think that various theories need to be explored, disproved and discarded in the search for scientific truth. I think that you show all the signs of a man that is frightened of the potential for being wrong, that therefore discourages opposition (rather like the Pope that excommunicated Galileo), instead of the man that is confident in his pet theory's correctness, and so welcomes the investigation of alternates.

And attempting to discredit others' scholarliness does nothing but discredit your arrogance.

As far as scientific truth goes: right now, there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. And this evidence grows daily. You keep hanging onto this colloquial definition of "theory."

I'm not sure why you're making your claims, but all I can assume is that you're unfamiliar with not only I.D. and Evolution, but science in general (I'm waiting, waiting, waiting for you to learn about what "theory" means).

If something comes along that is actually a scientifically convincing argument against Evolutionary Theory, then I'll be interested. But I.D. is not science.

Here's some more pomposity:

• Learn what "science" is;
• Learn what "theory" means;
• Learn about Evolution;
• Learn about I.D.;
• Then make claims based on actual information.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by christ

I don't, however, think that evolution is proven. I think that various theories need to be explored, disproved and discarded in the search for scientific truth.

Ordinarily, I cringe when people trot out the "learn what 'theory' means" line, but sadly I have to be that person today. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said above; the problem is that it doesn't apply to Intelligent Design, because ID is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

I just pulled this from dictionary.com and it agrees with my understanding of the word "theory" in this context:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

ID is not (and cannot be) tested, cannot make predictions, and is not about natural phenomena (rather, supernatural). This doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it, but it does mean we shouldn't consider it science. That is the current debate. Not whether to silence discussion of ID, but whether to call ID science. It's not.

Of course we should teach alternative scientific theories besides evolution (in science classes). Unfortunately there aren't any.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Ordinarily, I cringe when people trot out the "learn what 'theory' means" line, but sadly I have to be that person today. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said above; the problem is that it doesn't apply to Intelligent Design, because ID is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

I just pulled this from dictionary.com and it agrees with my understanding of the word "theory" in this context:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

ID is not (and cannot be) tested, cannot make predictions, and is not about natural phenomena (rather, supernatural). This doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it, but it does mean we shouldn't consider it science. That is the current debate. Not whether to silence discussion of ID, but whether to call ID science. It's not.

Of course we should teach alternative scientific theories besides evolution (in science classes). Unfortunately there aren't any.

Eloquently put

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by christ

Shrill witch hunts by either side does science no favours. I regularly get depressed with creationists who rant about evolution being just a theory because, in microcosm it is evidently accurate - longer beaks/ necks etc. giving benefit, and survival of the fittest, but equally I tire of people that use the fact that birds can evolve longer beaks to justify the evolution of eyes from - what - light sensitive skin?

Scientists always tend to try and hold the moral high ground against those religious zealots that 'just believe', but in this instance scientists are the ones doing the 'just believe' ing.

If, as Strad says at the beginning, "ID should not be part of any school's curriculum", then neither should Newton, Einstein, or any other unproven 'theory'.

Grow up, and allow debate and scientific investigation.

I agree 100%.

I don't rule-out any of it. I personally believe it's a little bit of both.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

The unfortunate matter is that it doesn't deserve equal time because it isn't a true scientific movement. Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and regular science?

There are a lot of things in the classroom that are taught that isn't a Scientific movement.

And you said you knew what a "scientific theory"was

Yes, yes I do. And that has nothing to do with theory.

I'm just using past knowledge to form a theory; until this theory is truly disproven, I will continue to believe this.

And again, I am sure you believe this.

I've never once ran with "my tail between my legs"

Once everyone forgets about the flat earth movement, this spherous place would be better, also.

Again, you sound like a evangelist.

Wont happen BTW, religion isn't going anywhere. For good reason.

If biogenesis requires a deity, then it's far from "scientifically backed up."

The fact that something living is required to make something else living has been proven. Nothing has came from nothing that we have seen.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

There are a lot of things in the classroom that are taught that isn't a Scientific movement.

I.D., as it is taught in those districts, is taught in direct opposition of evolution; it's taught as an alternative. Evolution and I.D., however, are not at odds with one another because they're different. One is science; one is philosophy. The idea of a creator is fine, and I don't disagree with the fact that it may be a possibility. However, when I.D. starts to claim that it is on the same level as evolution (and when it oftentimes argues against evolution), that's when I start having problems with it. When it proponents call it "science" and say that there's "proof" and "evidence," that's when the problems fester.

Yes, yes I do. And that has nothing to do with theory.

Great; so we agree then. I.D. has nothing to do with theory.

And again, I am sure you believe this.

I've never once ran with "my tail between my legs"

I was mostly joking. A lot of MacNN arguments run together, maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

Again, you sound like a evangelist.

Wont happen BTW, religion isn't going anywhere. For good reason.

No comment. I've already stated my thoughts. If this comes off as "evangelism," you could at least explain why.

The fact that something living is required to make something else living has been proven. Nothing has came from nothing that we have seen.

Again:

We know that, basically, all life that we've examined -- in current existence -- came from life. Asexual, and sexual reproduction. BUT we also basically know that life hasn't been around on Earth forever. Both strict biogenesis (which implies a creator and thus is untestable and unfalsifiable) and Aristotelian abiogenesis have been far from proven or have much science to back up the claims. Primordial archebiosis, however, is a better hypothesis that might eventually be testable (if the early conditions of the earth can be simulated).

[ebuddy]

In the end, have I.D. people actually made a claim and provided proof about how many proteins an irreducibly complex flagellum contains? Right now it seems that it's a number in the 20s or 30s...but I haven't stumbled across anything concrete. So would it be true, then, that I.D.ers don't know how many proteins are necessary for flagella to function, but they know the system is irreducibly complex?

First of all, they don't have to know the system is irreducibly complex. They can offer a hypothesis, then begin to knock out proteins to determine what remains and the fitness or functionality of the system at each stage. There is still much to be learned and IC is falsifiable using the above. In fact, it's already underway. We're not done yet right? You may recall the debate began years ago with the supposition that there were potentially hundreds of proteins required for the functionality of flagellum, down to approximately 50 for some time, now down to the low 30's. You may say; "See? I told you so!", but I'm in favor of continued study in irreducible complexity and specified complexity. There is no damage here as some would say. That said; I've never been one that says this should be taught in elementary schools as I suspect few would understand what it is they're teaching. This is part of my problem with the way evolution is taught in schools also. Let's say for example you happen to have a closet Christian teaching evolution and makes the claim that "it's only a theory". We agree on this being dangerous no? But what of the proponent of evolution making bloated and overly optimistic claims about the Darwinian development of these same systems. I believe this is dangerous too though I grant you confusion on "theory" is much more problematic, I take issues with the problems on both sides. * as an interesting aside; the biproduct of all this bickering is bolstering a desire for continued research. Where some things may have otherwise been assumed using a plausible "just so story" once they are challenged, more is understood of the story, leading to hypothesis in fitting the theory right? These are good things in my view and might at least offer some thrust to the development and perfection of nano-technology so hey, it's at least worth a lot of debate IMHO.

There are a lot of things about them that are quite reducible; some reading:
http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/...e_flagella.htm
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html#IC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmy...t.html#swimsys

Aside from the fact that you've posted studies conducted in 1986, this in and of itself is not a problem, but we've learned a great deal of flagellum since this time and as it turns out, more of it's complexity than of it's simplicity IMHO, but on one of these links I read; "If you look at bacterial flagella, you find that some are indeed quite complicated, but others are more simple. For example, the basal body can vary with species - in E. coli there are four rings, in Bacillus subtilis two rings, and in Caulobacter crescentus five rings. I can easily imagine a scenario where a "primitive bacterium" might have one ring, and then you have a flagellum with two rings, then three, and so on. This is a "gradual, step-by-step" evolution, which is the antithesis of Behe's argument. Furthermore, this could easily happen through such well documented events as gene duplication, or a simple mutation in the DNA sequence which would then code for a different amino acid, perhaps allowing two copies of the same protein to dimerize together.
Again, I find "proponents" to be more optimistic than the scientists themselves. Because something appears "simple" and "easy" in one system does not necessarily mean it's indicative of a "simple, gradual step-by-step" progressive evolution in another. First of all, it's the aforementioned lingo that confuses people on evolution in the first place as it is not even necessarily gradual as we've discussed in the past. I'm not the first to criticize this misunderstanding though we can't refute at times evolution is gradual. In short, there is absolutely nothing simple about something for which we have not yet concluded. I'm not saying there's a problem with this, I'm inviting more information and waiting just like you. Let 'em keep bickering! It will either disprove Behe's suppositions or advance our understanding of the process whether direct or indirect, that created the flagellum right? Win-win.

Perhaps you're talking about the irreducible complexity of the functioning parts? The microtubules, undulipodia...etc?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

These links are definitely more relevant to Behe's research. It's not so much the flagellum itself as it is the parts that comprise the flagellum and I appreciate the reading. I would like to say though, the identification of subsystems that could perform some function on their own is not enough evidence for an indirect Darwinian pathway leading to the system. Wouldn't we be looking for a seamless Darwinian account that's testable of how subsystems co-opting or coevolving could transform into a seemingly irreducibly complex system?

And if complex systems evolve slowly through a process, the genetic instructions would be layered. This still doesn't change the fact that not all steps are required for a functioning flagella. I.D. really needs to offer some hard data on the subject.

You're right, not all steps are required for a functioning flagella, but to date, several are. Let me know what you think;
http://www.idthink.net/biot/eflag2/

"Of course"? Source?

I guess I'd have to let Behe's resume' speak for itself in this. There's really nothing a shlep like me could say that would automatically give you more respect for his contribution to biology.

I still have yet to see how it's more highly speculative than I.D. proposals.

ID proposes examples of IC as being evidence of ID. The problem here is that if something can be established to the best of the field's knowledge as being irreducibly complex, there is no adequate model of evolution of this system. This is why it's stirred so much vitriol in my view, but I say don't bash the little guy. Often times in science the little guy can create a big ruckus which is a good thing IMHO. I don't care if ID is "on par" with evolution personally. I don't need it to be taught in schools. I do however, want to support the research and discovery. You can outright say Behe is a quack if you want, it's nothing personal to me, but what is beyond debate (judging by the wealth of material launched against his ideal) is that he has stirred an increased interest in these systems, notably the flagellum. Can we at least agree on this?

And where's your sufficient evidence for the fact you claim: that "[s]ubsequent evolution does not build on future "addition" nor function."

Because as far as I know, there is no "crystal-ball" supposition being worked out. You know this Stradlater, where we disagree is whether or not there is a perfectly natural explanation for the formation of the flagellum. I hope we're not disagreeing on whether or not selectibility is based on current or future function here.

And what, pray tell, takes I.D. outside of the realm of speculation? I.D. seems to wait for science to catch up with its claims, before it adopts new claims that are, at the time, untestable. Hopefully, time will catch up with I.D. and it will cease to be.

Because of it's falsifiability, this may turn out to be the case. I don't see this as a bad thing Stradlater. Since when is "waiting on science to catch up" such a bad thing? Especially when you consider that few of these folks are "waiting for science to catch up" as much as they are thrusting science forward in catching up.

At least the scientific speculation offers up some suggestions to be tested in the future.
I.D. speculation seems to deny possibilities

Because of the proponents' lack of imagination no doubt. Look, at the end of the day the only "faith" that science should have is faith in nothing.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

First of all...

I think we've narrowed things down pretty well, ebuddy, and I think we've maintained a fairly civil conversation. It's been enjoyable.

I basically agree with most of your statements, and you seem to more or less agree with a lot of what I've said (as far as the differences between I.D. and evolution go). I.D. does provide evolutionists with motivation to figure out certain things, and this is good. I just think most people, that is the masses—especially those who are determining certain school curriculums—don't know enough about either, and make assumptions about them, and group them together.

I.D. and evolution are two different systems that overlap in some instances. The primary belief of I.D. isn't necessarily untrue (it's not falsifiable, in fact), and evolution doesn't primarily seek to disprove that there is a creator (though some people believe otherwise). Evolution has definitely proven true in the history of life on this planet, and in the mean time, evolutionary biologists may continue to make the gaps smaller and smaller through research. In the mean time, both the deist philosophy and evolution can live together in relative peace; people just need to let them.

I.D. is still less of a "science" and more of a philosophy (which is why I consider it "pseudoscience" in light of those who declare I.D. as an alternative to the science of evolution); evolution is something that's tested in the lab, while I.D. is something that's speculated over, which in turn may provide evolutionists with more things to look into.

While the idea of an intelligent designer is fine, I just don't think that it can ever be proven, with science, one way or the other (I.C. is an interesting hypothesis, but it's not truly testable—I can't think of anything supernatural that is completely testable or falsifiable).

I guess I just still disagree with you that I.D. can be completely falsified (I.D. can survive by moving onto the next system if all the gaps of one system are ever filled in—and the fact remains that there are always gaps in science, we can just get a better idea of the picture once more pieces of the puzzle are positioned correctly). Aspects of evolution are observable and testable. I.D. remains speculative (which is not a bad thing, but it does make I.D. different than evolution).

Anyways, if you have more to add or want to discuss something I've said, please do. I'm exhausted right now and I just hope I've made myself somewhat clear.

Let me know what you think;
http://www.idthink.net/biot/eflag2/

No time to read this right now, but thanks for the link. I'll check it out soon.

Because as far as I know, there is no "crystal-ball" supposition being worked out. You know this Stradlater, where we disagree is whether or not there is a perfectly natural explanation for the formation of the flagellum. I hope we're not disagreeing on whether or not selectibility is based on current or future function here.

As far as this point goes, I still think Orr's GPS example is valid. GPS was first instituted because it helped the driver of the car determine where they were more easily, but GPS could eventually allow the car to run on its own, without the driver's direct control needed. In this case, the latter function was not necessarily the reason that GPS was first introduced, but it is the eventual result.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I think we've narrowed things down pretty well, ebuddy, and I think we've maintained a fairly civil conversation. It's been enjoyable.

We've maintained a very civil conversation. Look, I've had similar issue with the people I know from chuch. I hear them say things regarding evolution at times that make me cringe. Sometimes I don't even want to get into it for probably the same reasons why you might not. It can get mundane and really I'm not even sure if they are as interested in this as I am so I feel like I'm either wasting their time or my own. There are few that can BS about such things so in that it's been very enjoyable. No matter how hard I try to bring others in, it seems most bail out of these discussions. It's not rocket science, but it can be tedious.

I basically agree with most of your statements, and you seem to more or less agree with a lot of what I've said (as far as the differences between I.D. and evolution go). I.D. does provide evolutionists with motivation to figure out certain things, and this is good. I just think most people, that is the masses—especially those who are determining certain school curriculums—don't know enough about either, and make assumptions about them, and group them together.

I do agree. The only thing I'd add is the point that they exist in both camps. Someone says; "look ebuddy you're a moron these things are fact and irrefutable." Often times when I challenge them on their indictments I'm dissappointed by their lack of substantive input. I'm not trying to be intellectual, I'm a communications engineer shlep in the midwest who is simply interested in many different things. I'm no embryo-biologist, but I'm interested in some aspects of embryo-biology. I like to know more about how things work that's all. If someone has a view that either affirms or challenges conventional wisdom, I'm interested as long as they are. In short, when someone calls you a moron I think they're required to back the indictment with some credential or knowledge of their own otherwise they are nothing more than what they claim I am ya know what I'm sayin'? I'm also not the typical Christian in this sense. I wear an earring and drink alcohol moderately and listen to some rock and roll and tell the occasional lude joke etc... I don't like ad hominem attacks about me when they really know nothing about me. I'm not a Hovindite who is interested in being the new Christian adversary to science, I just want to know and BS on the nuts and bolts of this stuff void of any dogma, in either direction. What happens as you know is it becomes a fight between people of differing world views and philosophies and that's when it gets annoying.

I.D. and evolution are two different systems that overlap in some instances. The primary belief of I.D. isn't necessarily untrue (it's not falsifiable, in fact), and evolution doesn't primarily seek to disprove that there is a creator (though some people believe otherwise). Evolution has definitely proven true in the history of life on this planet, and in the mean time, evolutionary biologists may continue to make the gaps smaller and smaller through research. In the mean time, both the deist philosophy and evolution can live together in relative peace; people just need to let them.

This also means letting them bicker though. I mean, I'm thinking of Galileo against the Catholic Church and it's view on planetary movement. They hung him out to dry. He was a fundamentalist Christian against the "establishment" and was touted as a quack etc..., but without the occasional check and balance, anything can run amuck.

I.D. is still less of a "science" and more of a philosophy (which is why I consider it "pseudoscience" in light of those who declare I.D. as an alternative to the science of evolution); evolution is something that's tested in the lab, while I.D. is something that's speculated over, which in turn may provide evolutionists with more things to look into.

ID itself is philosophical I agree, but there are aspects of it that are testable. Now, if I'm reading you right here it seems you feel that all science stops at ID. In other words, all you have to say is it's a designed thing and POOF, no more research needed. I agree that this would be problematic, but this is not the case with most. A scientist still wants to know how. Behe is a Christian. He has a world view or philosophy, but he's tapping into aspects of biology that few sharing his philosophy have been willing to do. He's a little guy causing a big ruckus and the only result that can come of this is more knowledge in general. I believe science needs this.

While the idea of an intelligent designer is fine, I just don't think that it can ever be proven, with science, one way or the other (I.C. is an interesting hypothesis, but it's not truly testable—I can't think of anything supernatural that is completely testable or falsifiable).

I would disagree that IC is testable and is in fact, being tested. Where that ends up is another story. i.e. How conclusive can it be?

I guess I just still disagree with you that I.D. can be completely falsified (I.D. can survive by moving onto the next system if all the gaps of one system are ever filled in—and the fact remains that there are always gaps in science, we can just get a better idea of the picture once more pieces of the puzzle are positioned correctly). Aspects of evolution are observable and testable. I.D. remains speculative (which is not a bad thing, but it does make I.D. different than evolution).

I agree that we cannot simply say; "ohp, we don't know, must've been God." The good news is the ones to be taken seriously are not doing this. They simply see a designed system. They make hypothesis (IC) and begin testing for conclusion using scientific method already employed in various aspects of our day to day lives. Some things appear to be irreducibly complex. This is interesting and should be explored. It's no more destructive than just saying; "co-option" did it. When someone challenges co-option, conclusion is required which continues the drive to answers. I mean, that's all we want no matter what the answer is.

Anyways, if you have more to add or want to discuss something I've said, please do. I'm exhausted right now and I just hope I've made myself somewhat clear.

You've made yourself very clear stradlater and I always enjoy our discussions. This is one of several we've had and they are always worth the time to me.

No time to read this right now, but thanks for the link. I'll check it out soon.

I might be able to save you some time. It just breaks down some of the proteins in question. The ones that comprise Complex A and B of flagella. A trucks matter out, B trucks matter in. It breaks down each IFT and what it does and why it's necessary.

As far as this point goes, I still think Orr's GPS example is valid. GPS was first instituted because it helped the driver of the car determine where they were more easily, but GPS could eventually allow the car to run on its own, without the driver's direct control needed. In this case, the latter function was not necessarily the reason that GPS was first introduced, but it is the eventual result.

I would lodge the tired argument that he's using a clearly designed thing to argue a natural evolution of matter. I understand his point in context of how current functions aren't necessary for future function etc..., but this does not key in on what we're discussing adequately enough for me. The debates between Orr and Behe are extremely entertaining and I assure you they are not done. I believe a publication is do out in 2006 and I'll wait for it's claims and whether or not it's just a rehash of prior discussions on the issue.