SCI/TECH: Darwinism vs Intelligent Design - US Scientists Battle, Education Row Developing

maybe I am wrong, but don't we have some critters running around in labs that were "intellegently designed"?
do they say who the intelligence was behind evolution....God, aliens, the super intelligent dinosaurs of our prehistoric past?

I don't know, but it seems that the further we go into delving into the restructuring, and splicing of genes, well, the more serious we have to consider that maybe there was some intelligent designer behind our own developement, independant of religous views.

It should be optional. It still isn't clear. In intelligent design are they referring to a "god" from a religious perspective or aliens being the creators. I believe Darwinism and other teachings of evolution shouldn't be taught in school. Aliens did create us and evolution is a mishap in education.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
If we could tell peope from 1000 years ago that in the 20th century we would be flying through the air, traveling through space, be able to communicate with someone on the other side of the world (no the Earth is NOT flat! ) their response would likely be "impossible is impossible"

Originally posted by Nygdan
But their statement of immposibility would merely be based on personal incredulity, not on a rational study of the facts. The setup of science itself prevents, for ever, any answers to metaphysical questions such as this. The supernatural is a matter of faith, not rational thinking."

Based on your response it looks like anything that we can't currently understand should be labeled as "supernatural". That is irrational. Just because it seems "supernatural" now doesn't mean it won't be one day in the future. In any case, I don't think science and technology for the cause of understanding, what/who God really is, should be abandoned (beyond simply faith).

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

this is just another step in increasing ignorance. As long as they keep people from understanding even the rudimentary aspects of DNA and how species are differentiated, as well as scienctific process in general, they can feed even more ambiguous data down people's throats.

With the apparent death of curiosity in students, most will not question what they are fed. Conform, either to the school rules, or to the media and the "youth culture". Neither profit from a child learning.

Even with my limited understanding I can see how evolution seems as proveable as anything can be without direct witness. Shared amino acid combinations, among other things, shows such a strong relationship it's undeniable. Scientists have set up experiments for decades that said essentially,"if there is such a thing as evolution, then X will be discovered in Y's genome". As advances in analysis and observation are made, time and again the hypothesis are improved.

Religion, and creationsism, says "This is how it *is*. There can be no doubt. Accept the truth, or you are flawed and will experience Divine Punishment".

Science, and evolution, says "This is how we think it is. We guessed that if it were so, a certain result would occur. We observed that result. We're still not convinced, so come up with another experiment and predict a result, so we all can try it."

For faith, there is a Church. For science, there is a School. To make them both one entity is dangerous.

For the Left, control of religion allows control of the people by the Elite, forcing them to accept the State as Mother, Father and God.

For the Right, control of religion allows manipulation of a faithful following-quote the Scripture and they'll get in line.

Great post Phuge!

Originally posted by Nygdan

Those 'studies', however, are what is flawed. 'Evolutuion' does not say that these things came about thru random chance,

What part of random mutation is not random?

Evolution via natural selection talks about small changes accumulating over time.

yes but the changes are random and it is these random changes producing complexity and order that has been shown to be impossible.

but evolution is not random.

If evolution does not rely on random mutation then you are referring to some other theory than the one that Darwin proposed.

These studies that calculate the probability of all the atoms needed for, say, a haemoglobin molecule to 'spontaneously' jump in a single step from a truly random asortment into the haemoglobin molecule, are fataly flawed, because they are entirely unrealistic.

It is not flawed to require that the steps of evolution be shown to be attainable across species boundaries. It must be demostrated that a random mutation can produce an viable increase in the complexity of an organism via manipulation of the genetic code and the establishment of biosystems that did not previously exist. Further, since evolution is the only theory taught that hints at a source of life it is reasonable to point out the flawed supposition that life is able to randomly occur via mixing of proper materials by natural forces.

Any study, realistically, that merely shows something is 'immprobable, based on what we know', is, at the very least, a very weak structure to support the massive weight of the entire 'intelligent design' theo-science structure.

Good thing it doesn't have to support the ID structure. Since evolution is the only explanation given in most curriculum for how life began it is reasonable to attack it as a theory of biogenesis or how life came to be. Purist will try to claim that evolution is not a theory of biogenesis yet by teaching the subject as the only theory of origins it is assigned that role and hence needs to be critiqued on this basis. It has been demostrated that random biogenesis is impossible and this fact needs to be part of the teaching of the theory of evolution so as to counter the implied assumption that evolution explains how life came to be.

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet

Religion, and creationsism, says "This is how it *is*. There can be no doubt. Accept the truth, or you are flawed and will experience Divine Punishment".

This is a repugnantly bigotted statement. You have no concept of what real religion is. Some of the greatest thinker of all time have been deeply religious. A belief in God does not trump a curious and inquisitive mind. Neither does it make one inherently more close minded than an atheist. In fact if you place an athiest next to a theist it is the athiest who is close minded since he denies that there could be a God. Whereas the theist simply has to search the cosmos for who God is. One is a negative that precludes exploration. The other is the beginning of a search for definition to the universe. IF the athiest is wrong then he will have missed out on the nature of the universe. If the theist is wrong he will likely still make great discoveries on his journey to define what he believes to be God.

The Christian God even invites man to explore science and implies that in doing so in an honest fashion He(God) will be revealed. "all of creation declares the glory of God. " Hence those who honestly seek the Christian God will seek scientific as well as Spiritual truth. Christians need not fear the honest study of evolution since it will inevitably reveal God if studied honestly and with an eye for understanding.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Based on your response it looks like anything that we can't currently understand should be labeled as "supernatural".

I have not said that. I don't think its unreasonable to say that god at least is superatural.

That is irrational.

That would be irrational yes. I have not advocated anything like it.
Just because it seems "supernatural" now doesn't mean it won't be one day in the future.
God, by definition, is supernatural, and is thus unreachable by science, which can only deal with nature.

I don't think science and technology for the cause of understanding, what/who God really is, should be abandoned (beyond simply faith).

There is no scientific research into the nature of god that is being conductied, so there is nothing to be abandoned.

Originally posted by Johannmon
What part of random mutation is not random?

Evolution is not just random mutation. Mutations are the 'source' of new variation. Evolution is thought to occur thru a mechanism of natural selection, which acts on organisms which have a range of variation, some of whcih is the result of random mutation.

yes but the changes[that make up natural selection and evolution] are random

No, the changes are not random. The 'direction' of what mutations happen to occur is of course random, bu the adaptive changes are not random. A proto-giraffe isn't said to just randomly give birth to a long necked child. These studies are actually studying the chance of a collection of un-bonded atoms in a jar suddenly and spontaneously turning into a particular animals genome in one step. That is not what anyone thinks happened, and thus these studies are meaningless.

It is not flawed to require that the steps of evolution be shown to be attainable across species boundaries.

That is not what these statisical studies have been looking at. And it is unreasonable to say that, because we don't know precisely what happened in one particular instance or another, that therefore evolution, which has been shown to occur in nature, for some reason can't have occured in these other instances.

It must be demostrated that a random mutation can produce an viable increase in the complexity of an organism via manipulation of the genetic code and the establishment of biosystems that did not previously exist.

There is no need to demonstrate an 'increase in complexity'. All that needs to be shown is that populations of organisms can change thru time. No rational person disputes that this does indeed occur. For Darwin, the evidence seemed to indicate that this chang was occuring thru a mechanism of natural selection, ie, in beneficial adaptive steps. Most biologists today, over a hundred years later, agree that this is not allways the case (indeed, darwin himself didn't actually argue that it was allways the case, just that it was predominantly the case).

Good thing it doesn't have to support the ID structure.

Actually, I'd say that it does have to support it. In science, theories are replaced with other, better theories. IF one could somehow demonstrate that natural selection doesn't indeed occur at all, then we'd have a 'nothing'. We'd have a 'good theory' that was nevertheless refuted, and intelligent design, a non-theory.

It has been demostrated that random biogenesis is impossible

Indeed, it has not been demonstrated that its immpossible.
Tell me, do you actually think that its been shown to be immpossible, but that everyone is, well what exactly, ignoring this because they 'like darwinism' better?

and this fact needs to be part of the teaching of the theory of evolution so as to counter the implied assumption that evolution explains how life came to be

Why would one teach evolution at all if it were proven to be immpossible as you are saying?

Also, intelligent design is not only concerned with abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-life. In fact, Intelligent Design can say absolutely nothing about the origins of life, because the methodology of intelligent design is to take a known and talk about its statistics. They can take the bacterial flagellum, and say 'look, its irreducibly complex'. But they cannot say, 'here is the original organism, its irreducibly complex'. So Intelligent Design can say nothing about origins. Science can theorize as to how it happened, and darwinism can explain the history of life that followed.

Though I would caution that something like natural selection can probably be applied to abiogenetic research, because its reasonable to think that the 'precursors' to life, while not living themselves, may have behaved similarly to populations of organisms (ie being variable and reproducing themselves).

This is a repugnantly bigotted statement.

Thats quite a misuse of words. Religion, in particular the religion of most creationists, behaves exactly in that manner, accept it as truth or suffer permanent punishment. And, also, it does illustrate the difference between the sceince of evolution and the dogma of intelligent design. Evolutionary theory is just that, collections of theories about things in nature, that may or may not be correct. Intelligent Design offers no way to compete with other theories, it states that 'this thing was designed by god'. You can't 'trap' god with theories and experiments and reasoning.
Infact, technically as far as I understand it, sciencific theories, even longstanding ones, are not said be true. I don't just mean 'we can't prove that its true, but its such a good theory it probably is'. I mean it can't even be thought of as actually being 'The Truth', just unprovably so. Scienctific theories are at best 'truth like', they are in some set of ways thought to be like the truth.
So compare that carerful and couched thinking on the subject (which is horribly mangled by my poor understanding of it) to the creationist/id parallel, where its positions aren't theories or anything like it, but actual natural facts. 'This is designed' not 'its reasonable to think that because we don't know the evolutionary sequence that it was made by a god/alien/person'.

Tell me, do you actually think that its been shown to be immpossible,

That is what the statistical studies of the probability of an ideal mix of materials forming the simplest of life say. Remember the studies that you claim are irrelevant.

Why would one teach evolution at all if it were proven to be immpossible as you are saying?

What I am saying is impossible is the random creation of life from a perfect mix of component parts. This is what the statistical studies have shown to be impossible. Hence some unidentified process or intelligence is behind the creation of life, not random chance. This should be pointed out in the teaching of the theory of evolution to avoid the erroneous conclusion that evolution explains the origins of life.

They can take the bacterial flagellum, and say 'look, its irreducibly complex'. But they cannot say, 'here is the original organism, its irreducibly complex'. So Intelligent Design can say nothing about origins.

You assume that nothing can be extrapolated about the assembly of something by looking at the finished product? By your argument I could tell you nothing about the origin of a ford by looking at a finished explorer. To the contrary I can tell you a great deal about how the vehicle was assembled from a plan, what parts where installed and even in what order. Similarly the structure, function, and progressive development of life can be studied and understood by first recognizing that it is the product of design not chance. In fact if you do not study life from both the evolutionary and ID perspective you eliminate half the possibilities. Imagine trying to understand the construction of the Empire State building if you only studied it from the assumption that it was formed by purely natural phenomenon.

Though I would caution that something like natural selection can probably be applied to abiogenetic research, because its reasonable to think that the 'precursors' to life, while not living themselves, may have behaved similarly to populations of organisms (ie being variable and reproducing themselves).

This would seem to contradict your statement from another thread where you vehemently argued that :

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

So which is it does evolution’s principles apply to biogenesis or not?

I will take just a moment here to point out that evolution from one species to another completely different species is still hypothetical. It has never been observed that this can take place. A dog has always been a dog whenever bred with a dog. There is a great amount of variation possible within the species but they still share extremely similar genetic makeup. This is called microevolution or evolution within a species. It is an observed and verified fact. Macroevolution or the evolution from one species into a different and inherently unique species is still only a hypothetical supposition since it has never been observed to have occurred. It has only been implied via circumstantial evidence to have occurred. I have no problem with the study of that implication but it must remain only an unproven hypothesis until its mechanics are observed and verified.

Thats quite a misuse of words. Religion, in particular the religion of most creationists, behaves exactly in that manner, accept it as truth or suffer permanent punishment.

That is hogwash. Most creationists are reasonable inquisitive people who are looking for evidence to support their assumptions just as much as the average non-theist is. (which is admittedly is not very much) Basically the majority of people on both sides of the issue are simply parroting what they have been told. Most people do not even have a decent understanding of what evolution or ID really propose. Rather they argue them from a dogmatic perspective. Most people who claim to be evolutionist have little or no understanding of the real tenants of their own theory. They by and large think that man evolved from apes. They have even less concept of the yet to be answered questions that the theory of evolution is working through. Yet you paint only creationist with your smear brush. There are intelligent, and dedicated researchers on both sides of the issue. If you do not recognize that then you are blinded by your own non-theology.

Evolutionary theory is just that, collections of theories about things in nature, that may or may not be correct.

Yet evolutionist are positive that life as we know it did not originate in a designer. They are sure that what we see is only the product of natural forces. How is that any less dogmatic or intolerant?

the creationist/id parallel, where its positions aren't theories or anything like it, but actual natural facts. 'This is designed' not 'its reasonable to think that because we don't know the evolutionary sequence that it was made by a god/alien/person'.

You denigrate the assumption of design as if it is an ignorant blind belief, yet the study of design within our existence is foundational to all science. We are only seeking to discover what the design is. Everything functions according to pattern and guidelines. Natural laws govern everything we observe. Science seeks to understand that natural law. How then is it incompatible to science to assume that someone created the pattern, that someone formed the design, that someone authored the laws? Is it not helpful to the understanding if you make the correct assumption as to whether a system was designed or just happened by chance? I would argue that it is essential to make the correct assumption. Hence it would be foolish for any serious scientist not to think from both perspectives. There is no harm in beginning with the assumption of creation. There is no harm in researching from existence from the perspective of it having been designed. In fact there could be great good done if such an assumption proves correct. Yet you denigrate it as ignorant and close minded. I do not begrudge you your assumption yet you belittle me for mine. Which of the two of us do you honestly believe is being intolerant and close minded.

Inteligent design is flawed reasoning at best, intentional BS at worst. Two brief examples because I don't feel like 'saving' any more souls today.

Whales have the remnants of hip bones. If they were designed perfectly, they would not have bones designed to support weight on land.

Ocean dwelling mammals must come to the surface to breathe air. If they were 'designed' they would filter air from water like fish do.

Those are two facts that make 'inteligent design' an oxymoron. There are literally thousands more if you CARE to look. That's the crux of the issue. I could post page after page about human spinal cord development and snakes with legs, but what would be the point? People either care to know as much as they can, or they believe what the preacher tells them.

Oh, and abiogenesis most likely occured in space. So..

Originally posted by Johannmon
That is what the statistical studies of the probability of an ideal mix of materials forming the simplest of life say.

I was thinking more of specifically the 'studies' that look a the arrangment of atoms in a molecule and say 'what are the chances of this happening'. What studies are you talking about above? Who's 'ideal mix' is being used and why is it infact ideal?

What I am saying is impossible is the random creation of life from a perfect mix of component parts.

This is what the statistical studies have shown to be impossible.

I'd like to know what specific studies you are thinking of.

Hence some unidentified process or intelligence is behind the creation of life, not random chance.

If a single experiment fails, then that experiment has shown that it cannot produce the desired results. If I want to synthesize a particular organic compound, but don't know how to go about it, and make a hypothesis about how it can be formed and the experiment fails, does that mean that the chemical had to be formed by god?

You assume that nothing can be extrapolated about the assembly of something by looking at the finished product?

I said no such thing.

Similarly the structure, function, and progressive development of life can be studied and understood by first recognizing that it is the product of design not chance.

ANd how does creation science go about solving problems that evolutionary science cannot? Are there 'creationist pharmacuticals'? You are stating that Intelligent Design is a more powerful explanatory theory, what does it explain, outside of asserting that 'god made this'?

Imagine trying to understand the construction of the Empire State building if you only studied it from the assumption that it was formed by purely natural phenomenon.

If there were living populations of skyscrapers runnign around the world breeding, varying and evolving then it would be useful to look to nature rather than design. Infact, some engineers, and I don't claim that this is allways better, use the effects of nature to better design their projects, such as in designing robotic underwater vehicles that mimic the forms of fish.

of organisms (ie being variable and reproducing themselves).

This would seem to contradict your statement from another thread where you vehemently argued that :

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

So which is it does evolution’s principles apply to biogenesis or not?

Strictly speaking, evolution has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis. Evolution can only act upon living things, so it can only 'start' after the abiogenic event. However, something like natural selection can possibly apply to the sets of chemical reactions that might be invovled in abiogenesis. So a 'successful' chemical reaction that can lead to life might 'win out' over other 'successful' reactions that will not lead to life, or the whole series of reactions that can lead to life might be 'selected', insofar as the ones that are 'better' at making replicants will 'win out'. But this is rather muddled thinking, nad the terminolgoy of evolution and natural selection doesn't properly apply to chemistry, like with 'adaptation'. How does a 'chemical reaction' adapt to its environment? Realistically, I don't know that it can be said to. And yet, you have a population of 'individuals' that 'vary' and can be 'selected', at least selected for 'efficiency' or something. Hence the couching of terms and hemming and hawing.
But, strictly speaking, evolution and abiogenesis are entirely seperate, and infact shoudl be taught completely serperately.
I do not think, for example, that its worthwhile to go into any detail on the various abiogenesis hypotheses in highschool science, or even introductory college science classes, whereas evolution proper can be fruitfully discussed.

I will take just a moment here to point out that evolution from one species to another completely different species is still hypothetical.

No, it is not.Species have been observed in human time to have given rise to other species.

A dog has always been a dog whenever bred with a dog.

Stay with that for a moment. A dog allways yields dogs, yet dogs can be very variable. Do you suppose that its possible for a species of dog, if selected for cat like characteristics, to become cat like? Not 'become a cat', that makes not sense, only cats are cats. But if a dog can be changed so wildly as they have been, why can't the also be changed into something undoglike?

Macroevolution or the evolution from one species into a different and inherently unique species is still only a hypothetical supposition since it has never been observed to have occurred.

The distinction between micro and macro evolution is itself a theorectical construct, and a sloppy one at that, at least how its normally used. Change is observed, in phenotype and genotype, and via mutations new genetic material can be added. There is simply no need to say 'it stops at the species level'. Species are artificial constructs, in a sense, they are creations of man. In an anagenically changing set of species, where indeed is the line to be drawn? Only an abritrary placement is possible, there is no natural barrier in this case.
So what tells the organism, 'stop, you are about to cross the species line?". Indeed, nothing does, as there have been observed instances of speciation.

but it must remain only an unproven hypothesis until its mechanics are observed and verified.

All theories are merely hypotheses, and no hypotheses even get proven. Its allways potentially possible for them to be refuted.

That is hogwash.

"Hog wash" is such a disgusting term if you think about it for a moment no? Yuck, washings from hogs, bleck.

Most creationists are reasonable inquisitive people who are looking for evidence to support their assumptions just as much as the average non-theist is.

As far as 'lay' creationists, I agree. Infact, most 'lay creationists' that I have met are amicable enough people. The actual 'creationists', the ones promoting it, like those people at AIG, or that criminal "DrDino", are well described (as far as I have understood it) from the above. They are not open and honest researchers.

Yet you paint only creationist with your smear brush.

I did not smear most of the people mentioned, i 'painted' them rather accurately.

If you do not recognize that then you are blinded by your own non-theology.

Merely because I am not a creationist does not mean I am 'non theological'.

Yet evolutionist are positive that life as we know it did not originate in a designer.

Incorrect. People who research the issue recognize that science can not say 'there is no god' or 'there is a god'. For the same reasons, it cannot say 'this was created by god' or 'this most certainly was not created by god'. The problem is, its the IDists that are claiming that this can be done. They are saying 'yes, we can prove that god had a hand in something, we can say that this bacterial flagellum was designed by god, and that this rock was not'. Preposterous. One can not demonstrate that miracles occur, one can not detect supernatural influence, at least not using science, which is blind, completely blind, to the metaphsyical/supernatural. Scientists who research these things realize that design can't be detected.

They are sure that what we see is only the product of natural forces.

Scientists are sure that they don't know anything about the supernatural and will never be able to use science to figure any of it out.

How is that any less dogmatic or intolerant?

It is the antithesis of dogma. Its a rational, mutable, thought out position. Intelligent Design is Dogma, is unchaning statements about teh supernatural.

You denigrate the assumption of design as if it is an ignorant blind belief, yet the study of design within our existence is foundational to all science.

It most certainly is not. Biology, chemistry, physics, they are not based on the idea that all this stuff was created by some god.

We are only seeking to discover what the design is.

It is not discoverable thru scientific means.

Everything functions according to pattern and guidelines.

There is no reason to think this.

Natural laws govern everything we observe.

Indeed, they do not.

Science seeks to understand that natural law.

Science seeks to understand nature, and for a time had convinced itself that there were 'natural laws'. Unfortunately there are not. The 'laws' are merely things that tend to be followed by man's theoretical constructs.

Is it not helpful to the understanding if you make the correct assumption as to whether a system was designed or just happened by chance?

Indeed, it is not helpful. Design, in order to say it exists, must be demonstrated. One cannot demonstrate supernatural design. Better to not assume design or non design, and use science in the subject matter that it can operate in.

I would argue that it is essential to make the correct assumption. Hence it would be foolish for any serious scientist not to think from both perspectives.

I see no reason for a scientist to not consider design. No one has ever demonstrated it. I suspect no one ever will and no one can even think up a way in which it can be done. It seems like one should be able to, afterall, why shouldn't one be able to detect design, even in objects one designs oneself? And yet, no one has been able to detect supernatural design.

And, in all honesty, the vast majority of scientific time was spent with the assumption that there was design in everything and that such things could be explored. Its only really been since darwin that those fruitless ideas were tossed out the window. 'Intelligent Design'of dembski and others is not very different from Paley's thinking on the subject. Indeed, 'Natural Theology' was more than given its chance. It shouldn't be a surprise that most serious researchers spend most of their time doing science, rather than 'natural theology'

There is no harm in beginning with the assumption of creation.

But there is. Science best operates most objectively (more or less anway). Better to look to nature and find which is better supported, design or not? And, if consensus tells us anyting, most reserachers have concluded 'not'.

Yet you denigrate it as ignorant and close minded.

I willfully denigrate and correctly label the 'creationist researchers' such as the ones I mentioned to be ignorant and close minded, yes. They, and even people like dembski and others, are intellectually dishonest, or perhaps intellectual cowards. Certainly, biochemists like behe are more intelligent than I am, but they make conclusions that are simply not supported by the evidence, and even conclusions that can't be supported be any evidence.

I do not begrudge you your assumption yet you belittle me for mine.

I cannot possibly know what research you have done on the subject, so I can obviously not make such conclusions or statement about you. If you have detected an insult, what can I say other than that you are wrong.

Which of the two of us do you honestly believe is being intolerant and close minded.

I think you are more close minded if you think that I dogmatically assert 'evolution' and don't even consider design.