What exactly is the point here guys? Still having trouble understanding the debate? Are we to post any and all evidence used to support evolution
and any and all evidence used to support design... to what end? You do realize that just about everything posted thus far is irrelevant in the
context of a design versus chance origins debate, yes? You guys have posted evidence that contradicts most creationist models, eg 'biological kind
barrier' (YEC and OEC) but nothing (aside from the TO link about the flagellum) that contradicts a design inference/claim. This continued assertion
that evolution and design are
mutually exclusive is only
evidence that you don't understand what's being argued; and most importantly
what evidence is relevant
to the debate.
You guys (unless the point is to debate biblical creationism) need to be putting up evidence that supports the theory that all life developed
solely by the undirected forces of natural selection acting on random mutation.
That's what the contradiction/debate between
neo-Darwinian theory and intelligent design is all about.. just FYI. You could replace "intelligent design" with "intentional design" if that
makes it any easier. To put it simply, "intelligent design is the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an
intelligent cause for a purpose."
That's why it makes no mention of the designer, there's simply no current methodology with which to test for
Like any other thoery it doesn't have all the answers. Somethings may be forever outside of our scientific
capabilities... seems i hear both
those arguments from naturalists all the time. We just want a level playing field. ID will rise and fall on its' own merits or lack there-of, those
of you who seem to think this has already been decided simply haven't been paying attention imho. Not that all the critics are wrong of course, just
that the debate has not been settled and throwing up your hands and saying "nature did it"... somehow, we think, maybe... never mind guy quit
just don't cut it. Hey looky there, i took the God did argument and flipped it; aint i clever (annoying having your position
misrepresented ain't it), i never even had a class on strawman construction and demolition. Ain't no fun when the rabbit's go the gun, eh
Seeing as we're not debating here and only posting evidence used to support our interpretation of the available
data (ie not
there-of) i'll post some stuff for posterities sake.
Evidence/Observations used to support Design in Cosmology (physics)
-The 'fine-tuning' of the universe (many ID advocates (except the ID/creationist types like me) don't get involved with cosmological design
arguments; creationists have been advocating it for years though (eg OECist Hugh Ross, which is where i found alot of this info, his books are
excellent too imo.) Most agnostic IDers only advocate biological design but it's relevant none-the-less imo. The fine tuning argument is AKA the
a) Ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant.
It cannot differ from its value by any more than one
part in 10^40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Robert H. Dicke, "Dirac's
Cosmology and Mach's Principle," Nature 192 (1961), 440-41.
b) space energy density.
Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10^120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical
life requires. Eli Michael. 1999. How physically plausible is the cosmological
from the University of Colorado, Boulder.
c) The following numbers represent maximum allowable deviation from currently accepted
values. Anything beyond that deviation would result
in either a)the universe's immediate collapse (ie no universe beyong plank time) b)matter unable to form in universe or c)universe unsuitable for
life. For the record. The cosmological design inference is based on what we know... the opposite (chance) is argued from the what we do not know
angle ie, we don't know how to explain how we got so "lucky" other than to say "nature did it." Getting it yet?
Ratio of Electrons to Protons - 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity - 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe - 1:10^55
Mass of Universe - 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant - 1:10^120
The anthropic principal argument is also used to describe our local cluster, galaxy, solar system etc... but i figure you guys get the point. Visit
links provided below to see those arguments (and what is stated above with refs where neccessary) if interested.
Extreme Fine Tuning - Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant
Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
Includes 34 examples of "Fine Tuning
Parameters for the Universe" which have to be 'just so' in order for life/matter/universe itself to exist. (OECism site)
Elegant Test" and "Anthropic principle: Precise Plan for Humanity") (OECism site)
Observation/Evidence/arguments used to support the design inference in life/biology
Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each
M. Behe from arn.org
This next quote is relevant to produkt and truthseeker (an anybody else having trouble understanding what's being debated... ie, pro-ID does not make
someone an anti-evolutionist.) FYI- there are ID advocates who have no issue with common ancestry.
Anybody here care to venture a guess as to what defines someone as an "anti-evolutionist"... i'd be interested in what that means to you and how
many so called "loyal Darwinists" i could find whom would fit your criteria, making them anti-evolutionists instead. Might be interesting.
In writing on the topic of naturalism and evolution the problem arises of what to call the contending camps. The difficulty comes from the fact that,
although the term "evolutionist" is often used to refer to persons who demand the unrelenting application of physical laws to all phenomena in
the universe, many other persons who are opposed to this view are perfectly willing to concede that a limited number of phenomena can be explained by
Darwinistic principles. Similarly, although a term like "creationist" brings to mind champions of a young-earth theory, it is often applied to
persons who do not defend that thesis but do contend that natural laws have at some points been superseded by a supernatural agency.
Since the focus of this symposium is the sufficiency of natural law, and in order to avoid the confusing terminology discussed above, in this essay
I will use the term "believer" for those who believe in the universal application of natural law and the term "skeptic" for those who doubt
it. This has the advantage of using terms for each side that the opposite side generally regards positively. Perhaps this will go a little way
toward promoting the good will that this conference strives for.
My post is getting rather long so i won't put up any more quotes from that page. Still i'd recommend reading it in full, many issues re: the design
inference in biology are covered.
What is Irreducible Complexity? An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced … by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system,
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional…. Since natural selection can only
choose systems that are already working, if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell
swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution)
Can anybody think of a way to falsify the Darwinian claim of a "series of slight, successive modifications" outside of a concept like irreducible
complexity? Best i can tell it fits Darwin's criteria re: falsification of his theory, assuming of course anything is actually
IC in biology
of course (again not
settled - "debunked" or "proved.")
My point is; If not a series of succesive modifications then what? Not falsification of a specific pathway mind you, but the concept of a Darwinian
pathway at all, just curious... opinions?
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference.
M. Behe from arn.org
Trying to keep my quotes small, so just the conclusion (again alot of info... just trying to keep the post readable.) Interesting that many of the
theological/supernatural arguments used against ID today (by some
) could have been and were used against Big Bang Theory. The theological
implications of a "creation event" are the exact reason Einstein added his cosmological constant to favor a steady state (infinite) model of the
universe (later retracted when Hubble made his red-shift measurements.)
It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad
science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true
statements about physical reality.
It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event--that at
some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a
supernatural event--the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing
his disgust with such a notion 8:
Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those
who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single windingup at some remote epoch is not really the kind
of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.
Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that
physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion. In the present day, as
biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have
arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace
it and build on it.
In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not
inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it
was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was
designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.
It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological
world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations
science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with
our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.
This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting ofthe C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University.
I know i've posted this stuff around here before (i like to post material i've read/am familiar with) and didn't like the implication, in other
threads, (by some
) that we (ATS ID advocates) were scared or unable to answer this and other thread topics in O&C. It's not the case... i've
been following this stuff for a few years now and the "God of the gaps" type arguments are very old (i'm an OECist so i've heard them from way
Have you guys thought that maybe the reason some of us don't bother with your threads/posts is because, since you've been here, you've shown your
complete unwillingness to objectively look at the [interpretations of] data or the design paradigm being argued; peppering your posts with terms like
moron, retarted, etc don't help either? IOW maybe it's you and not that your arguments are so good we've run off crying and screaming... just a
It's cool with me if i'm wrong... doesn't destroy my faith either (could just as easily be a theistic evolutionist - like most ID
opponents/Darwinists are BTW.) I was a Christian before i knew any of this stuff and will continue to be after it's ultimatley rejected or
accepted... IOW the "those of weak faith" theory doesn't apply to me, believe it or not i don't need a concept like IC to be shown valid in order
for me to believe God is real or that Jesus is my saviour. I'm already there, was prior to any of this and will continue to after this has been
settled, one way or the other. You may have to accept the fact that not every one is going to see it your way, it doesn't make them ignorant or
Although you guys may be happy to know that people like you have got me thinking about not posting in the O&C forum anymore. I mean what's the
point? Your posting styles are to a debate what masterbation is to sex... just an observation.
*off to find something else to do*
Have fun guys... carefull, i'm not sure if there's any merit to the whole "too much can make you blind" theory... if you know what i mean. I'd
The forum is all yours. Might not be much fun without any opponents... but that ain't stopped ya'll yet.