Evolution Vs Intelligent Design

The theory of intelligent design is not a matter of faith. It is a way of filling in Darwin's gaps.

Natural selection states that all mutations are random. Many people feel that mutations are just too convenient. How does a fish mutate a light on its head? How many people have you heard of mutating a light? Who would mate with him? What would the chances be of that bloodline continuing in the natural world?

An otter hound has evolved webbed feet and a waterproof coat for better swimming. I cant see natural selection applying there.

A giraffe evolved a long neck to reach leaves at the tips of trees. Are you telling me just one lucky one randomly mutated exactly what it needs and the rest starved? You can call it lucky, I'll call it design.

If your to debate ID versus evolution it's important for you to make clear the difference between Creationism and ID theories. ID theory and evolutionary theory are not(necessarily) mutually exclusive.

Here's another good ID site: www.arn.org...

From link:
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William A. Dembski
Abstract: For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.

Intelligent design is not scientific.

The evidence for it is completely subjective.

Keep in mind science is only for observable, measurable things.

The idea of a designer cannot be proven, just as it cannot be disproven. It is the same as proving or disproving god.

It is a matter of faith.

You can point out millions of things that would make an intelligent designer a logical idea.

The problem is that correlation is not causation.

If a hypothesis relies on unprovable statements, it is unprovable and in no way a theory.

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, as no evidence for it is objective. There is no proof, only ideas.

As to Gravity.

Gravity was once a law, aka Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

However, our good friend Einstein came along with his Theory of Gravitation and covered up the problems with Newton's Law, while still posing new questions.

en.wikipedia.org...

So gravity is a theory, just like evolution.

I know it's been said but I'll say it again. Scientific theories are not just fancy guesses. That would be a hypothesis, like Intelligent Design.

It is all semantics and subliminal messaging.

Evolution is commonly referred to as the theory of evolution, while creationism or the new fangled terminology; intelligent design, is commonly referred to as just that. When one hears theory, they immediately associate same with an unproven fact, when that word is missing, it is presumed by the impressionable mind to be a fact. However, they both are theories, one is based solely on faith while the other is based on reason, mathematical data, etc.

The Bible,a source of faith, is a written theory of creation where some entity was given the name God and credited with intervention in the writing of those words. Since no man witnessed same, with no basis in fact, no supporting data to date of such an account, and more importantly, no logical explanation behind the sequence of events in the time frame given, it is nothing but a faith based theory. In essence, acceptance of same requires no logical thought, only this thing called faith. Darwin's books and all additional data to this day employ cerebral exercises, mathematics, physics, models, hypotheses and relevant knowledge of all of the sciences advanced thus far. But since neither he nor any scientist do not call themselves God, the purely faith based crowd look to these as lesser entities.

Scienctific research is always based on theory, because it prefers to deal in fact finding, not fictional accounts. Theology declared the world to be flat; science declared it to be spherical based on mathematics, it tested that theory and have now declared same to be fact, as did theology declare that the sun orbited the earth, while science claimed otherwise. Theology lost both of those faith based beliefs to logic, reason and human intelligence. Genesis 3:16 can in no sense of the word today be considered viable 1) when science intervenes in the first part and 2)in a modern society where women will not be beholden to men, in the second part. Therefore such claims of faith are nullified by science, where the former is dependent on lack of human intelligence, sporting a zero win ratio, while the latter sporting a win record, is the proponent behind the theory of evolution. The odds do not favour faith.

Whatever side you are given, good luck to you. If you are given evolution, then I would suggest you keep in mind when your opponent tells you it is a theory, that you rebut as above. Were you to be asked for proof, the simple answer is that you have none, that is why is is called a theory, then challenge the opponent to provide proof of creationism, and offer the loss ratio of faith versus science. If however, you are to defend creation, then do as the other poster said, and hope your opponent lacks intelligence.

Why you came to ATS, IDK. I never would have thought of it. Of course, for my big senoir HS paper I did 12 pages of George Carlin and got a 34% F. Not that it mattered, he cut the lowest grade you got from the quarter, so I still got an A for that quarter.

But again, if you are on evolution side and they say "It's just a theory" tell them the turth, gravity is just a theory, and then ask them if they will jump off the ESB because gravity is "just a theory". And as stated above by others, you will be able to explain the theory part.

If you get ID, just say god did it, and you will win.

Also, for the evolution side, here is some stuff you can use to make you look even more smart!

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." Isaac Asimov

And my favorite, one I have debated replacing one of my sigs with.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." Isaac Asimov

More here
css.peak.org...

Using this, the opponet will go into christian mode within minutes. "KILL ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME!!!!!" and other christian arguments to the truth.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Whatever side you are given, good luck to you. If you are given evolution, then I would suggest you keep in mind when your opponent tells you it is a theory, that you rebut as above. Were you to be asked for proof, the simple answer is that you have none, that is why is is called a theory, then challenge the opponent to provide proof of creationism, and offer the loss ratio of faith versus science. If however, you are to defend creation, then do as the other poster said, and hope your opponent lacks intelligence.

By creationism one typically understands what is also called “young earth creationism,” and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as “creation science” or “scientific creationism.” According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world’s origin. It is the creation scientist’s task to harmonize science with Scripture.


IOW creationism an ID are not the same thing! this is a common ploy to discredit ID. Design in nature does have empirical content. It is a testable theory(read my above link). A 'typical' ploy will be to try and discredit the ID proponent by showing examples of pseudo-science in "Young-Earth Creationism". ID does not require a 'supernatural' creator. People on both sides fall into these dogmatic positions(yes evolutionists too). Outright rejection because you don't like the possible implication of the conclusions is not science, IMO.

Correct, Creation is God Did It, ID is God Did It. Now, the difference between God Did It and God Did It is God Did It is different from God Did It. Know what I mean?

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Correct, Creation is God Did It, ID is God Did It. Now, the difference between God Did It and God Did It is God Did It is different from God Did It. Know what I mean?

God did it, through evolution, maybe, that is if evolution is true............

Why is no one mentioning Inventionism? I think this needs to be discussed as the third option among people of the world. I hope everyone talking about this will go to this site. Please stay with the slide show, you might just learn something.

www.lloydpye.com...

Rren,

I took the time to read your above link. The information sounds convincing, but on doing research I have found that Dembski's theories have been disproven in the labaratory.

Dembski's use of the law of conservation of information, and his conclusions are false.
Dembski states:

evolutionary algorithms, apart from careful fine-tuning by a programmer, are no better than blind search and thus no better than pure chance.

Dembski basically says that the evolutionary model cannot gain information without fine-tuning i.e. an intelligent designer. That selection without guidance would never change, or evolve.

So there was a study done on evolutionary models, using one with selection, and one with no selection, to see if the evolutionary models were just blind chance.

www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov...

This control experiment shows that when the ev program is run without selection there is no information increase. Therefore we can attribute the information increases observed with selection on entirely to that selection. In other words, an evolutionary algorithm does far better (almost 13 standard deviations!) than 'pure chance' which is the situation when there is no selection. This falsifies Dembski's statement about No Free Lunch Theorems.

Here is more information refuting Dembski's ideas.

www.talkorigins.org...

Dembski defines his information as Shannon uncertainty, which is equivalent to entropy. We know that entropy can and does increase. Dembski's law of conservation of information is simply wrong.


No recognized theory of information (i.e., the statistical theory of Shannon et al, and the algorithmic theory of Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff) has a law of conservation of information. William Dembski and Werner Gitt have each invented their own nonstandard information theories, but neither of these theories is used in science or engineering, and their claims are not supported by the vast body of research into information theory.


Even if there were a law of conservation of information, it would not necessarily invalidate evolution. Information is transferred from the environment to organisms by natural selection and other processes.


Normally, physical laws get to be considered laws after they are tested and verified by independent sources under very many various conditions. For Dembski to claim a new physical law without any testing whatsoever is hubris of the highest magnitude.

Dembski reply to Schneider's EV program

Schneider's simulation starts with a randomly given "genome" and requires no further intervention. Unlike Dawkins's simulation, Schneider's does not identify an explicitly given target sequence. Even so, it identifies target sequences implicitly through the choice of fitness function. Moreover, by tying fitness to number of mistakes, Schneider guarantees that the gradients of his fitness function rise gradually and thus that his evolutionary algorithm converges in short order to an optimal computational sequence (optimality being defined in relation to his fitness function). Although once the algorithm starts running there is no intervention on the part of the investigator, it is not the case that Schneider didn't intervene crucially in structuring the fitness function. He did, and this is where he smuggled in the complex specified information that he claimed to obtain from scratch

(much more in depth at link if you like)

Is Intelligent Design Testable?

I am not stating that ID is fact or that evolution is not. i appreciate your(left behind) approach to the debate, and civility in which you present the "anti-ID" position. I learn alot here on ATS. I do however believe that their is real science to be done here and if in the end its disproven, so be it. I'm not naive enough to think i have all the answers.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by Rren]

Always glad to have a friendly debate Rren.

I do however don't agree with the testable evidence presented by your second link.

From your link.

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

These are the testable parts of intelligent design according to the website.

Maybe I just don't see it, but how will proving any of those things prove an intelligent designer?

Wouldn't the above things also be possible without any designer?

Also, as stated in my second link from above, the conservation of information is not used in any other information theory, It seems that they applied it to get the answers they wanted.

Do you have any experiments that back up Dembski? Or even ID?



[edit on 24-5-2005 by LeftBehind]

Where's red dragon? he made this post, yet hasn't replied.

Still, hope you get ID, just say god did it and you can't lose. Even better get a local church there so they can yell and scream in tounges to prove christianity. Also, if the girl actually knows what she is talking about, they will hang her for being a witch making you the winner by default.

If evolution is false, then how do viruses resist cures? More

This quotation is great :
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly..."
-- Isaac Asimov, Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994

Yeah, I hope I get evolution. When I'm actually debating, I can't really say: "God proves it, etc etc." if I'm doing I.D because we need to form a logical argument for a good grade. Good luck doing that with I.D... Fortunately, my opponent has an extremely weak voice so she would make a poor public speaker. Basically, no matter what I say, even if I'm wrong, I will sound correct because of her crappy skills.

Really, the entire strategy of I.D isn't to form a logical, coherent argument. It's just to get heard and not seem like crazy lunatics (which most of them are). However, as the I.D side will already be assumed the power to debate, that goal is already achieved and something further is expected. That, I'm afraid, is impossible because I.D can't achieve anything more than infecting people's emotions lest they be some kind of moron.

That's why, as logical, thinking people, we should not even allow the creationists the dignity of being heard in a serious manner. Most people are at least a little religious and so they are very supple to falling into the trap of I.D. Once they have started preaching, they have already won. For the I.D side to even be considered in this debate, the I.D representative should have already won.

The above implications are precisely the reasons why scientists in Kansas (really advanced, progressive state :shk: ) refused to show up in court to debate I.D. Once they start talking, the I.D will not contort to rebukes, they will not use logic and they certainly will not budge when they are wrong. Yet, the weakness of judges and juries due to their faiths, no matter how intelligent they may otherwise be, allows them to be exploited. Is it our responsibility to stop this, our responsibility to advance the U.S.A. It is our responsibility for mankind.

__________________________________________________
Different topic:

During the economic boom of the 90's, the U.S.A was also advancing in other spheres, namely science, secularism and politics. However, in the recent years of the economic decline, the entire process has reversed itself.

Science is recieving a lack of funding and to rub it in, conservative leaders are literally forbidding the progress of American science with the nation's laws and courts. It is no wonder then, that Asian countries such as South Korea are siezing the future of bio-medical technologies with advancements in stem cells that would be illegal in the United States. It is no wonder then, that European countries are siezing the future of physics and engineering with advancements in particle acceleration technologies that aren't adaquately funded in the United States.

Throughout history, technological decline has almost always been accompanied by a decline in secularism and a rise in religion. Now is no exception. It is cool again to be Christian in the United States and if you are an atheist you are shunned and generally made an object of ridicule. I know this from experience. Aside from biased observations, that notion is supported also by financial data: sales of religious clothing and music have boomed and church attendance has grown dramatically.

However, religion growing is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe that people should be free to believe in whatever they want. The bad thing is what the growing religions teach. Tolerant religions have actually experienced a decline in membership despite the general growth in other churches. Churches like the Roman Catholic Church, which teach intolerance and general hatred torwards groups like gays are growing in membership. This, along with a decline in secularism and tolerant religions and faiths, has contributed to the degree of being nearly the sole cause torwards an actual decline in the civil rights of people in this country. Briefly, people are losing their rights to be human.

Recently, a constitutional ammendment was even backed by our president to limit the rights that these people should have as humans. His only defence was along the lines of a shallow defintion of the word marriage. "Because the word marriage as defined by a book called Webster describes the union between a man and a woman, 10% of our population should be denied human rights." That's right, an entire constitutional ammendment based on bigotry that is poorly masked by the shallow definition of a word. If we want to save our nation, and ultimately the progress of humanity, we must not look to our past. After all, things were worse in our past. Instead, we must look torwards the future and define ourselves by what we really want to be instead of what we once were.

[edit on 5/24/05 by RedDragon]

Well, if you do get ID and can't use the christian arguement "God Did It", get a local church to come as suggested above. But if you know what you are talking about, and want evolution, then good luck in advancing reality/science/facts.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The idea of a designer cannot be proven, just as it cannot be disproven. It is the same as proving or disproving god.

Still waiting to hear your refutation of my Tektite Origin theory, LB.

jacquio, it is a matter of BS*, no BS, no ID. You have facts, science, and reality for evolution, and you have BS for BS. You have no facts, no evidence, no reality to support ID, all you have is BS.



*BS=Faith

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Always glad to have a friendly debate Rren.

I do however don't agree with the testable evidence presented by your second link.

From your link.

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

These are the testable parts of intelligent design according to the website.

Maybe I just don't see it, but how will proving any of those things prove an intelligent designer?

Wouldn't the above things also be possible without any designer?

Also, as stated in my second link from above, the conservation of information is not used in any other information theory, It seems that they applied it to get the answers they wanted.

Do you have any experiments that back up Dembski? Or even ID?



[edit on 24-5-2005 by LeftBehind]

Well it looks like we have given RedDragon plenty of source material, regardless which side he "draws" in the debate. Here is a better understanding of where IDT and some aspects of Evolutionary theory differ(from an IDT perspective). Looks like your hoping for evolution, but if not, in the spirit of an honest debate here's a good starting point for you.

The Model
The following are the model/theory parts that would (or do) logically point to intelligent design in the universe6,7:


1. transcendent creation event where all matter, energy, spacetime began (Big Bang)
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
4. rapidity of life's origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. rapid recovery from mass extinctions (mainly through appearance of new species)
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
19. molecular clock rates (which show humanity's recent origin)

Discoveries and data overwhelmingly support this model. Dr. Ross comments: "This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data.6" Source

quote from source(above):
"A note on "chance." Many naturalists refer to as "chance" as a guiding force. They have replaced God or a creator with the god of chance. But what is chance? Chance is a nonentity. It does not have any physical or metaphysical reality. Chance is equivalent to nothing. Nothing cannot produce anything."

Good luck in your debate RedDragon, i hope i've been helpfull

Originally posted by RedDragon
This quotation is great :
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly..."
-- Isaac Asimov, Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994

Yeah, the patient findings of the origin of tektites......

hmmmm, wait a minute there Gomer, they had thousands of years to find its source....how come they havn't come up with a solid answer???

up yours', Isaac!