Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Originally posted by soficrow
Finally found a writer who shares my view, a very bright guy IMO.

Hi sofi... haven't seen you around much lately. I was surprised I never heard from you on my 'Is genetically engineered cotton killing sheep' thread. I hope all is well. How is your research going these days.

Still trying to disprove the notion that protein can transmit information to the genome?

As you know, I live for such scientific heresy.

In any case, I just wanted to reproduce my standard response to the antibiotic resistance argument for you.

Indeed it is a significant problem, though I'm not convinced it provides the evidence often attributed to it.

I have cut and pasted this from another thread, so if the context seems bizarre or anything, this is why.

Antibiotic resistance isn't evidence of evolution. Antibiotic resistance was present in populations of bacteria prior to antibiotics even being discovered. Antibiotics don't induce any change in an organism. Antibiotics kill off sensitive organisms, leaving resistant ones behind... that is the resistant individuals were present in the population already. The use of antibiotics has merely changed the frequency of pre-existing alleles. The organisms haven't changed, only the numbers of resistant strains relative to sensitive strains.

Antibiotic resistance genes are a necessary consequence of antibiotics; the organisms that produce antibiotics also, by necessity must produce antibiotic resistance genes. Antibiotic resistance genes are generally shuffled freely between different types of bacteria via horizontal transmission as well.

So antibiotic resistance isn't evidence for evolution in that it doesn't create anything new, it merely shuffles pre-existing genetic information both within and between populations. Furthermore, much of this is done via horizontal gene transfer. There is no mechanism in place in multicellular organisms where genetic information can be transferred horizontally. So even if horizontal gene transfer was evidence for evolution, it couldn't be applied to multicellular organisms.

Indeed I recognize the importance of understanding pathogen resistance and certainly genetic variation plays a role in this. In fact, I work in a plant path lab, and more or less see the effects of resistance every day, so I am certainly aware of it, and in fact have a hands on sort of knowledge of it.

Hey on that same note... we're currently testing a product that I think you'll appreciate, it combats bacterial infections using phages. It's somewhat limited currently as we can only apply it at certain times, and in fact have to have a genetic profile for our pathogens. But the technology is really in its infancy.

I also recently read that the FDA approved the uses of phages, which is great news.

In any case, I hope all is well with you.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Hi sofi... I was surprised I never heard from you on my 'Is genetically engineered cotton killing sheep' thread.

Please - send link!

How is your research going these days.

Still trying to disprove the notion that protein can transmit information to the genome?

????!!!!! That was YOUR argument! I proved proteins DO transmit info to the genome.

As you know, I live for such scientific heresy.

In any case, I just wanted to reproduce my standard response to the antibiotic resistance argument for you.

And about the other examples? Like the evolution of disease, creation of new strains, etc, etc, etc???

the simplest form of life consists of 600 'different' protein molecules. the mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10 to 527(that
is, 10 to the 527th power)

the magnitude of the number 10 to the 527th power can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is only about 10 to the 28th power inches in diameter.

the simplest organism that is theoretically capable of existing and reproducing would actually not be simple at all. since nucleic acid molecules (dna and rna) cannot do their thing without protein molecules, and the codes for protein molecules are carried by the nucleic acid molecules, how could life therefore start without both?

Chairs are not questionable objects. Things like arrowheads, early hominid tools, suspicious deaths, code are.

"Questionable" by what standard? By the standards of my background knowledge, NOT any convoluted inferences about design vs. randomness. No such inferences are ever performed, nor would a positive answer be justifed IF we stick to the evidence set we are supposed to use, according to ID.

Archaeology continues to fail to be an example for you, since archaeologists start by identifying items as ARTEFACTS, and thus no question of "inferring design" ever arises. You continue to be bereft of a genuine uncontroversial example of "design inference", apart from the ones ID think should be grafted on to biology, despite it not needing them.

This takes us back to that mysterious (joking?) comment by you about what philosophy had to do with science. That was a very odd thing for an ID supporter to write, since all ID has to offer is a philosopher's abstract argument about methodology, which is set against the existing practises of biologists. Do you think the biologists should just ignore Dembski (who has never done a day's work in biology or geology in his life, and his musings are no more relevant or authoritative than any other philosopher, such as me)?

The "design inference" stuff is the only new thing that ID puts on the table. If we are take seriously all the publicity about how it's not the same as Old Hat Creationism, then we should note that the stuff about "complexity" is just what the OHCs have been saying for decades, as Henry Morris himself pointed out shortly before his death. Thus we can set it all aside as not a new contribution to any debate.

If you want to insist on bringing it in, then you'll only find it has been debunked all over again - see H.Allen Orr's original review of Behe's book. And then note that since then the ID racketeers have been playing fallacies of equivocation with alternative defintions of what "irreducible complexity" is supposed to be, depending on which counterexample they want to rebut:

The ever-changing defintion of IC

Oh, if you want to moan that this is "just getting bogged down in semantics" - well THAT'S ALL THAT ID EVER WAS. Dembski's entire racket is a word-game playing on equivocation and suggetsive misuse of words like "inference", "complexity" and so on.

If you want a second opinion by another philosopher, try this chap, who doesn't say quite the same things as me:

Elliott Sober on Dembski

[edit on 21-9-2006 by JonN]

If you have a pile of rocks and in those rocks is a single arrowhead, what allows you to infer that it is in fact an arrowhead, and not just some uniquely shaped rock?

That's exactly the point. You're NOT justifed in inferring, just from the shape. Yet ID is based on the fantasy that we could do just that.

But, as you admitted yourself, archaeologists also have the contextual evidence that native Americans lived in a particular area, etc.

Interesting that you think the opinion of the majority of scientists is relevant to the merits of SETI. The overwhelming majority of biologists reject ID. What gives?

Yet if they helped themselves to that, they wouldn't need to do a "design inference" in any case.

And what exactly is that supposed to even mean?

Normal people never make "design inferences". Abnormal people would never be justified if they used them. They could save time by cutting down the amount of futility in their lives.

All the examples you give start by identifying the items in question as ARTEFACTS, rather than natural objects... and thus "design" is already assumed, it is never inferred.

Originally posted by JonN
"Questionable" by what standard? By the standards of my background knowledge, NOT any convoluted inferences about design vs. randomness.

Exactly. And the design theorists are using their background knowledge, what they know about machines, for example and inferring based on this. It's not about randomness.

Archaeology continues to fail to be an example for you, since archaeologists start by identifying items as ARTEFACTS, and thus no question of "inferring design" ever arises. You continue to be bereft of a genuine uncontroversial example of "design inference", apart from the ones ID think should be grafted on to biology, despite it not needing them.

taken from another post:

That's exactly the point. You're NOT justifed in inferring, just from the shape. Yet ID is based on the fantasy that we could do just that.

But, as you admitted yourself, archaeologists also have the contextual evidence that native Americans lived in a particular area, etc.

Archaeologists are justified in doing so, and they do. Arrowheads aren't found specifically at campsites, etc, though these are great places to look. They're found everywhere, in hunting grounds, I've found them in streams. They aren't always found in some context. Sometimes they're just lying around with other debris. The fact of the matter is you look at it and you know, based on experience that it was designed. That is you 'infer' it was designed.

Interesting that you think the opinion of the majority of scientists is relevant to the merits of SETI. The overwhelming majority of biologists reject ID. What gives?

In my experience, most biologists don't have firsthand knowledge of ID. They are generally exposed only to the opposition arguments. Most biologists aren't thinking about it. Like evolution, ID isn't relevant to their experimental lives, most scientists read stuff from their own incredibly small slice of the biological world, and aren't exposed to alternative origins ideas. That and the fact that most biologists just accept evolution as a given. Though I would imagine that these are somehow related.

This takes us back to that mysterious (joking?) comment by you about what philosophy had to do with science. That was a very odd thing for an ID supporter to write, since all ID has to offer is a philosopher's abstract argument about methodology, which is set against the existing practises of biologists.

I can and have proposed testable ID based experiments that in fact offer different predicted outcomes compared to ToE. So apparently you're mistaken about this too.

Do you think the biologists should just ignore Dembski (who has never done a day's work in biology or geology in his life, and his musings are no more relevant or authoritative than any other philosopher, such as me)?

Dembski doesn't really speak to biology too much. Dembski is more of an information and numbers guy. I have read most of his stuff, but honestly don't enjoy it. His style is bland, and personally, I enjoy chemistry, etc. not math. I wish I was better at math... but I don't enjoy reading about it too much. Dembski certainly relates his work to biology, but his stuff at it's core, is more about information than it is biology per se. In any case, biologist are free to do whatever they want. Personally, no, I don't think they should ignore him, as it has a potential impact on their lives. But as I've indicated, most do.

The "design inference" stuff is the only new thing that ID puts on the table. If we are take seriously all the publicity about how it's not the same as Old Hat Creationism, then we should note that the stuff about "complexity" is just what the OHCs have been saying for decades, as Henry Morris himself pointed out shortly before his death. Thus we can set it all aside as not a new contribution to any debate.

Hmmm... not sure how the newness of any idea is entirely relevant, but in any case, ID isn't Creationism, and it's a shame you revert to such a lame argument.

If you want to insist on bringing it in, then you'll only find it has been debunked all over again - see H.Allen Orr's original review of Behe's book.

Sorry, but just saying something has been debunked and referring me to a review, which I'm sure I've read, isn't doing it either. Debunking involves a point by point rebuttal of the argument.

What specifically in this review do you believe has debunked Behe. I could just as easily refer you to a rebuttal of this review, but where does that get us? Nowhere. If were here to discuss stuff, then let's do it.

Saying something has been debunked and then saying read this review doesn't cut it, it's not an argument, it's a form of literature bluff. If there's an argument in there that you find appealing, the quote it, paste it, source it, and we can discuss it.

Otherwise this discussion will go nowhere.

And then note that since then the ID racketeers have been playing fallacies of equivocation with alternative defintions of what "irreducible complexity" is supposed to be, depending on which counterexample they want to rebut:

The ever-changing defintion of IC

Actually, I contacted Behe personally about this specific issue. In fact the definition of IC has always been the same. It has certainly been elaborated on in different contexts, but has never changed. If you were to contact Behe today, he'd give you the same answer that is contained in DBB. In any case, there are some significant errors in this document you posted. One such error, Dembski didn't introduce the concept of irreducible core, the concept was quite clearly described in DBB. If Perakh can't even take that away from Behe's original description of IC perhaps he shouldn't be commenting on anyone's work.

It is further interesting that we are supposed to accept a computer animation of mousetraps that are reducibly complex. The really interesting point is that these reducibly complex mouse trap experiments could very easily and very cheaply actually be carried out. Why do you think they haven't been?

If you want a second opinion by another philosopher, try this chap, who doesn't say quite the same things as me:

Elliott Sober on Dembski

No thanks, like I said philosophy isn't up my alley. I'll stick to reading scientific rebuttals.

Originally posted by soficrow
Please - send link!

Here you go.

How is your research going these days.

Still trying to disprove the notion that protein can transmit information to the genome?

????!!!!! That was YOUR argument! I proved proteins DO transmit info to the genome.

Wow... how did that come out so backwards Here is what I meant to type: Still trying to disprove the notion that proteins can't transmit info to the genome.

And no, no, no... I wasn't arguing against you. I just wanted to know the source of some of your hypotheses. But I certainly wasn't arguing against you. Hell... if I was trying to argue against you, I'd probably not be done doing the background reading just to catch up to you.

When I say 'I live for such scientific heresy,' I'm offering you my support.

And about the other examples? Like the evolution of disease, creation of new strains, etc, etc, etc???

Well, as I mentioned to you, at least I think I did. I am certainly no stranger to pathogens, and new species of disease. Hell, we have two papers due to come out re: new species of pathogens that we've found. so I certainly don't deny the emergence of new strains of disease, and in fact, have first hand knowledge and hands-on experience with them.

In any case, nobody, not even the YECists deny that this type of variation takes place. These are in fact variations that occur as species move into and inhabit different niches. The types of traits selected for change, and subsequently we see new species of pathogens. Though they are fundamentally the same pathogen. A xanthamonas species is still retains all the characteristics of xanthamonas, but with different local adaptations.

In any case, I don't think microbe evolution is directly comparable to multi-cellular evolution for a number of reasons. One reason, and I think I mentioned it earlier is mobile genetic elements. Many pathogenic species not only freely swap genes for things such as antibiotic resistance, but they also freely swap virulence factors. Virulence factors are often horizontally transmitted. As I should have mentioned before there is no analogous process in humans; genes are passed down, not across exclusively in multicellular eukaryotes.

Again no one denies this sort of adaptation takes place, but whether or not it's directly comparable to the human organism is questionable. A couple of other features that add to this are things like rapid generation time and number of offspring. Bacteria can double rapidly; E coli has a doubling time of 20 minutes, so then E. Coli in a single day, one E. coli (in theory) could produce 2^72 offspring, which is a lot. The fact that they can double so quickly and produce such a large number of offspring permits them tolerate greater selective pressure. If you kill 99% of the E. coli in any given area, it won't take the remaining population long to recover, and the population will recover. It also appears that bacteria don't seem to suffer from such things as genetic bottlenecks, etc, allowing them to tolerate large selective events.

This is not so with large complex organisms. Given that we have such a long generation time, large multi-cellular organisms aren't really able to recover as well from large selective events. If 99% of humans were killed, not only would it likely end civilization, but the population would likely never recover, or it would a signifcant amount of time. Futhermore large multi-cellular organisms are subject to things such as the founder effect, genetic bottlenecks, etc. As we've seen with isolated human populations started by a few, recessive disease tends to rear its head within just a few generations.

The case with viruses is even more pronounced. Viruses produce thousands of offspring from a single infective event. As many as 100,000 polio viruses can bud from a single infected cell. Viruses can afford to have rapid rates of mutation. If you're producing 100,000 offspring from a single infection, what difference does it make if 50,000 are crippled by mutation, while some percentage obtain some selective benefit. None. Viruses can afford to mutate much more than cellular entities. They also can afford to be wasteful and produce lots of non-viable offspring, as it's not their energy.

In any case, consider the billions upon billions upon billions of individual viruses that have been produced and selected for since HIV appeared. Despite the rapid rates of mutation by HIV's incredibly inaccurate RT, introducing god only knows how many mutations into the genome, the virus is essentially unchanged. We certainly have more drug resistant viruses etc. But HIV hasn't changed. I think this is especially remarkable when you consider the size of the HIV genome... can't remember the number of bases, but it's only got like 10 genes.

So for those reasons, I don't think the situation with microbes in general is directly comparable to that of multicellular organisms.


[edit on 21-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by JonN
Normal people never make "design inferences".

They do. And I never made any claim of being normal. But people do make design inferences. It's an inescapable fact.

All the examples you give start by identifying the items in question as ARTEFACTS, rather than natural objects... and thus "design" is already assumed, it is never inferred.

So then what you're saying is you must identify an arrowhead as an arrowhead before you identify it as an arrowhead?

That's the point. You identify based on what you know the characteristics of an artifact to be. All machines, with the exception of biological machines, have been known to be designed. And the origin of biological machines is unknown. They possess the characteristics of having been designed, many if not most are not sub-optimal, and they function as machines. Inferring design isn't unreasonable, and it's why Dawkins felt the need to write The Blind Watchmaker, to account for the appearance of design. Thus even the ID critics acknowledge that biological machines and indeed biological organism appear designed. You can't fault everyone for not buying into the garbage peddled in TBW.

My thoughts on this arrowhead thing:

If I am walking through the woods and I look down and find a triangular shaped stone with sharp edges I don't automatically think, Holy Moly! An arrowhead! The Gods have given me an arrowhead! Praise the gods and their forthought for me! Now I can go hunt for food and eat. Instead I would figure Hey look! a sharp piece of rock! I bet I could use this to cut flesh or maybe fashion it into an arrowhead. But I wouldn't think that that was the rocks destiny. I wouldn't infer that the sharp rock which could have formed that way for hundreds of different reasons was an arrowhead. And if I were to see a short tree stump or maybe a log that could be used as a chair I wouldn't automatically think its a chair given to me by some really powerful and thoughtful chap. I may even go hey this might make a great stool or small portable table like thing, or even a grinder for food.

[But people do make design inferences. It's an inescapable fact.

No it isn't, and you have no answer to a genuinely challenging alternative to your assumptions, other than to close-mindedly chant "is not".

So then what you're saying is you must identify an arrowhead as an arrowhead before you identify it as an arrowhead?

Here he goes again... "so you're saying something which anyone with adult reading abilities can see you aren't saying..." - no I'm not. I said that identifying something as a TOOL or ARTEFACT is already reaching a conclusion about it, which forecloses the issue of "design", and does not leave any need for a further "inference". Any more than recognising a car requires the further "inference" that it is a motorised vehicle.

With arrowheads, we would NOT be justified in calling them tools if we only ever found them in isolation, and had no inkling of any humans inhabiting the region in the time period we believe them to come from. Note the huge number of background assumptions in there (I really shouldn't need to point out the role of assumptions in science to a creationist, you're usually the ones who overrate that issue). But, as you've already given away yourself, we actually have a big bundle of knowledge about human habitation in the area and so on and that is the guide to identifying the artefact as an artefact - not any "design inference" of anything like the variety Dembski advertises.

Recognising a fragment of porcelain as porcelain (rather than a mineral ore) is certainly foreclosing the issue of its artefactual origin, and no further inference would be needed. That point should be simple enough even for you.

A genuinely alien artefact (found on a distant planet, or a signal found by a SETI sweep) could NEVER be justifiably identified as "designed". Unless we meet the designers and see them do their creating, we have no reason for not classing the signals or objects as of natural origin. It's no use you whining "but we infer design all the time..." - we do no such thing. All our knowledge of "design" is due to the shared, background knowledge of our very elaborate culture, and could never be reconstructed if we had to limit ourselves to the meagre evidence set, and flawed procedure, that Dembski imagines. Humans are not inference-machines and pretending they are just leads to futile and irrelevant theorising.

Originally posted by JonN
No it isn't, and you have no answer to a genuinely challenging alternative to your assumptions, other than to close-mindedly chant "is not".

Wow you do have a penchant for misrepresentation don't you? You call defining inference multiple times, putting it in the context of your own language, discussing repeatedly and disputing your take on archaeology as stating 'is not.' Nice job again.

We can certainly continue on with the archaeology discussion as well, but we might as well open up the areas of forensic science, cryptology, and even anthropology, because they all make 'design inferences' as well. You infer things about the world around you, it's a part of perception.

I said that identifying something as a TOOL or ARTEFACT is already reaching a conclusion about it, which forecloses the issue of "design",

But this is exactly the point. How does one identify something as a tool, artifact, or part of a relic, or shard of pottery, they do it by applying what they know about the world random forces and the marks they leave vs. intended forces and the marks they leave. In the desert in Arizona, one doesn't need to know that Pima indians once lived in the area to realize that some, but not all of the depressions in the rocks around the area were caused by Indians using the rock as a pestle.

You identify something as a tool or artifact because designed things, ie: tools and artifacts have distinctive features, that separate them from undesigned things. Yes when you identify something as a tool or artifact you've made a design inference.
You've stated that this piece of rock isn't shaped by natural forces, rather an intelligence worked into this arrowhead. Similarly, these locations where natives used the rock as a natural pestle are abundant in AZ. Without knowing any of the history of the area, it's plainly obvious that some are the product of natural forces, and others are the product of deliberate and intended force.

Yes, when you identify a tool or artifact you've made a design inference. No nothing further is required. When you identify an arrowhead in a stream, which actually used to be a common place to find them, you've distinguished a designed arrowhead from miscellaneous undesigned rocks. How can you deny this?

and does not leave any need for a further "inference".

No one said anything about further inference. When you identify something as a tool or artifact you've done it, you've inferred design, you've designed from not designed. Again, how can you deny this?

Any more than recognising a car requires the further "inference" that it is a motorised vehicle.

Recognizing a car, and identifying arcaeological relics, like arrowheads, or looking for codes, etc. are not even close to being analogous processes.

With arrowheads, we would NOT be justified in calling them tools if we only ever found them in isolation, and had no inkling of any humans inhabiting the region in the time period we believe them to come from.

People find arrowheads in isolation, like I said... they used to be found in backwoods and streams where I grew up all the time... not anymore though. And you're perfectly justified assuming that an arrowhead is an arrowhead if it looks like an arrowhead. How do you think early hominid tools were discovered? They're not all necessarily in settlements. I knew next to nothing about the desert in AZ, and my question when I saw the pestles wasn't "who designed these," It was more like "What were people doing here to make these obvious depressions in the rock." It wasn't until after my climbing partners told me that natives used them to grind up seeds, etc. did I know what they were for. In that situation, I knew nothing of the area, but was completely justified in assuming the 'pestles' were a product of design.

Note the huge number of background assumptions in there (I really shouldn't need to point out the role of assumptions in science to a creationist, you're usually the ones who overrate that issue).

Well... I'm not really a creationist, but whatever....

But, as you've already given away yourself, we actually have a big bundle of knowledge about human habitation in the area and so on and that is the guide to identifying the artefact as an artefact - not any "design inference" of anything like the variety Dembski advertises.

The key to identifying an artifact lie within the properties of the artifact itself. That humans inhabited a particular area doesn't speak to distinguishing a rock from an arrowhead in a stream, nor does knowledge of human inhabitation speak to distinguishing the product of simple erosion from deliberate 'working' with human hands.

No, no, no, the key to distinguishing artifact from non artifact lie within the artifact itself, not the history of the area. The history of an area only speaks to the possible origins of the artifact, but distinguishing artifact from non-artifact is solely dependent on the features of the artifact.

In another ridiculous so what you're saying comment: So what you're saying is someone would have to know that people live in the Dakotas to know that Mt Rushmore is the product of design? Similarly, if you took someone from another country to the Dakotas, and told them people actually didn't design and carve Mt Rushmore, and that it was in fact the product of natural forces, do you think they'd believe you? Why not?

Recognising a fragment of porcelain as porcelain (rather than a mineral ore) is certainly foreclosing the issue of its artefactual origin, and no further inference would be needed. That point should be simple enough even for you.

A fragment of porcelain is distinctly designed. Yep. I agree. No FURTHER inference is needed. You've seen a fragment of porcelain, and you know it's designed, end of story.

A genuinely alien artefact (found on a distant planet, or a signal found by a SETI sweep) could NEVER be justifiably identified as "designed".

Okay, but most of the mainstream science community patently disagrees with you. Richard Dawkins anti ID pitbull, thinks the project is necessary, as did people like Gould, etc. The mainstream science community absolutely insists it can detect design from not designed.

What would be your explanation for a pattern observed via the SETI project wherein all the primes from 1 to the highest prime above 1,000,000, was rec'd followed by the fibonacci series up to one million, over and over. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that was design. What natural process besides intelligence is capable of recoginizing things like the fibonacci series or prime numbers?

Unless we meet the designers and see them do their creating, we have no reason for not classing the signals or objects as of natural origin.

Depending on the signal. Given the above scenario, with primes and fibonacci, what would be the reason for assuming anything natural could generate it? What is the basis for that assumption?

It's no use you whining "but we infer design all the time..." - we do no such thing.

Please see above.

All our knowledge of "design" is due to the shared, background knowledge of our very elaborate culture, and could never be reconstructed if we had to limit ourselves to the meagre evidence set,

Where do you think this knowledge comes from. Its wasn't just here. Humans have researched dug, excavated, etc for ceturies now to acquire this knowledge. Knowledge of artifacts etc. wasn't handed down, it was earned by careful digging and painstaking research. It's all well and good to say we know this because of accumulated knowledge about objects. The point is that in that accumulation of knowledge humans have in made inferences that things are designed, things like arrowheads and huecos.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by mattison0922]

i dont know if this is the right place to ask this, but i was wondering about the big bang, sense it seems to be discused a lot here, and the conditions directly after it. What about the conditions directly prior to it? Do we know anything about that? Basically, what caused the big bang? (you know, Causality, every event has a cause)

I haven't read any of this thread besides the few first posts (26 pages is far too long!), so hopefully I didn't miss anything important. Anyways, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by Kenneth Miller (author of 'Finding Darwin's God', biologist, and Catholic) about evolution vs. ID and it was pretty damning towards ID. To put it bluntly, any evidence that ID supporters have produced or given is 100%, totally, wrong. To say 'evolution is just a theory' too is not thinking scientifically. Gravity is a theory too, but I don't see anyone purporting "Intelligent Falling" or something silly like that. Evolution is backed by boatloads of evidence, and obviously it's not perfect. ID is backed by no evidence at all. Michael Behe is a (in)famous supporter of ID, and his entire argument - "Ireducibly Complex Systems' have been proven to be total bunk. Infact, he even said that if ID was science, so was Astrology!

Honestly I don't see how anyone can truly believe in ID, unless they are in complete denial. I'm a Christian, and I feel that evolution is evidence of a far more powerful God than ID would give us. Even the most obvious evidence that supports evolution - That it is continuing today, as we can see in bacteria and even larger organisms - is ignored by ID supporters.

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
...evolution is evidence of a far more powerful God than ID would give us.

You need to rephrase that, as it counters the very argument you are espousing.

There is no God in the evolutionist paradigm.

ID proponents, not all of which are Christian by the way, are open to the possibility of a Higher Power of some kind having initiated The Big Bang. While evolutionists feel that there was no need for a God or Original Creator to orchestrate ALL THAT IS in the first place

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
...evolution is evidence of a far more powerful God than ID would give us.

You need to rephrase that, as it counters the very argument you are espousing.

There is no God in the evolutionist paradigm.

ID proponents, not all of which are Christian by the way, are open to the possibility of a Higher Power of some kind having initiated The Big Bang. While evolutionists feel that there was no need for a God or Original Creator to orchestrate ALL THAT IS in the first place

But you left out your average everyday 21 year old Human that is a proponent of the 'Infinite/Eternal Being/Existence'; the only thing that makes sense, ever will, and ever has. The Big Bang never saw it's day except for the fact that it's name defines it's downfall. BIG BANG, bye, bye. This probably makes many 'world renowned' scientists do a little doo doo in their pants to see that a '21 year old' 'kid' has basically begun figuring out the entirety of reality. Where will the illogical 'Godlessness' lead us next? The Earth was created through a mini-bang? C'mon...

♥~Infinite Love and Eternal Peace~♥
@::Bloom::@

You are both wrong, but I know there is no point discussing it with either of you, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are accepted by large numbers of theists. The catholic church accepts both and sees neither as an issue for faith in a higher being. The theories say nothing about an omnipotent being, like science, they are completely agnostic.

So are these people 'evolutionists', Paul? Well of course not, when you say evolutionist, you really mean athiest, no? If so, why not use the proper terminology?

Am I also a gravitist? Relativist? Germist? Quantumist?

piffle.

UIR, yeah, I'm sure the greatest minds in science are thinking and talking about your word salad posts whilst making their daily contributions to the extension of knowledge....

grandeur, delusions, of.



[edit on 20-10-2006 by melatonin]

UbiquitousInfiniteReality & Melatonin,

You guys are hilarious.

Regardless of what you think, The Big Bang is a very popular and widely accepted theory

Originally posted by melatonin
You are both wrong, but I know there is no point discussing it with either of you, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are accepted by large numbers of theists.

And by most scientists as well...

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

From: The Big Bang Theory.

Here is another good explanation:

Big Bang: How Did The Universe Begin?

Others:

Big Bang Cosmology

Creation of a Cosmology: Big Bang Theory

Even Stephen Hawking, physicist and author of A Brief History in Time, who is probably the most famous scientist alive today, espouses the theory of The Big Bang

A Brief History of Time

A Brief History of Time: From The Big Bang To Black Holes

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang & God

A Brief History of Time - The Movie

Do evolutionists tend to also be atheistic?

You tell me.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Do evolutionists tend to also be atheistic?

You tell me.

Well, I'm glad you find it humourous.

I have no issue with BB theory, as I hope you would have seen from my post, so I assume the start was aimed at UIR.

As for the above comment, it depends what you mean by 'evolutionist', it's a silly word anyway, I don't accept that it has any useful meaning. You can show me how it does if you like.

If a theist accepts the evolution of the cosmos and the evolution of life, are they 'evolutionists'? They accept the major theories talking about how the universe and life unfolded, they just add a personal sky-daddy for whatever reason. Theists can, and do, absolutely reject the vacuous 'theory' of intelligent design.

Deists also readily accept the science but have a 'god' kicking everything into action, then having no more interest. They will reject the 'theory' of intelligent design.

An athiest sees no evidence or reason to have a 'god' involved and that natural forces are, and will be, sufficient to explain life and the universe.

So when you say 'evolutionist', which of the above groups does it apply to? All of them, or just the athiests? They all can accept the evolutionary theories we currently have (cosmic and biological) but differ in their conception of god.

If that is the difference isn't 'evolutionist' a vacuous word that has no real meaning?

If that isn't the difference, then is your comment about a godless evolutionist paradigm total garbage?

[edit on 21-10-2006 by melatonin]

Melatonin,

So I see you decided to give up on trying to put down the theory of The Big Bang.

Wise decision.

Are we to assume then that your are espousing the idea that The Big Bang occurred through evolution? With no Higher Power or God to initiate it?

Oh that's right. You really don't know what being an evolutionist is.

Originally posted by melatonin ...isn't 'evolutionist' a vacuous word that has no real meaning?

Only to those who are ignorant to its definition.

Evolutionism Defined

Originally posted by melatonin
Deists...will reject the 'theory' of intelligent design.

Wrong.

ID has strong Christian and Deist supporters. The very foundation of Deism can be used to further the theory of Intelligent Design.

Do you now need to have a definition of Christian and Deist?