I am a very spiritual person, but I am also a firm believer in science. I'm more intellectual these days than I used to be. By that I mean I've taken it upon myself to evaluate what is told to me and come to an in-depth understanding of it.

For example this Intelligent Design business didn't make sense to me because people kept telling me it's just Creationism, which basically means "God did it," and therefore has no scientific basis. Through my own personal studies I've come to the conclusion that this is not true.

Intelligent Design takes science into account in many ways. Natural selection, for one, is completely compatible with Intelligent Design. For example there exists variation within any species. Without variation a species cannot adapt. Therefore the ability to adapt was designed into nature by whoever/whatever designed nature, in order for a species to survive should environmental pressure be applied.

This is not unscientific. This is just common sense. An architect would not design a building without the ability to withstand earthquakes or strong winds. Why would the architect of our existence be any different? Especially when you consider that the creator of this earth would be fully aware of the constant environmental changes occurring here everyday.

Intelligent Design does not assume any religion. It does not say that you must believe the bible to believe we were all designed by something higher than ourselves. It simply states that this is world is so complex and the chances that it all happened by happy chance are so small that there must have been some higher power involved. That's it. If you want to put your own religious deity into that hole, that is your business, and yours alone. One cannot assume that just because someone decides to do just that, everyone else automatically believes that person is right. The very notion is completely absurd.

Yes, I can see the problem of using "whoever/whatever" in an explanation. Granted I, personally, do not know who or what put us here. Maybe it was the Christian God and maybe it was a magic genie. I'm not a scientist, though, so it is not my place to fill in that blank. I leave that up to those who have the resources to do so.

What you describe isn't really Intelligent Design in the way most people think of it. Intelligent Design implies the separate creation of species, whereas evolution by natural selection shows the common ancestry of all species.

What you're describing is more along the lines of theistic evolution. I have much more respect for theistic evolutionists than your run-of-the-mill creationist drone. Nevertheless, theistic evolution violates the scientific precept of Occam's Razor- don't use more to explain a phenomenon than what is necessary. Evolution by natural selection works just as well if the idea of a creator isn't added in, therefore you're using more explanations than necessary to explain the phenomenon, and therefore violating Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
For example this Intelligent Design business didn't make sense to me because people kept telling me it's just Creationism, which basically means "God did it," and therefore has no scientific basis. Through my own personal studies I've come to the conclusion that this is not true.

OK, so you say ID has scientific basis and is not creationism. Do you really want me to answer the rest?

ABE: oh, sod it, here ya go...

Intelligent Design takes science into account in many ways. Natural selection, for one, is completely compatible with Intelligent Design. For example there exists variation within any species. Without variation a species cannot adapt. Therefore the ability to adapt was designed into nature by whoever/whatever designed nature, in order for a species to survive should environmental pressure be applied.

OK. But you have a non-sequitor. I could just as easily say that the ability for gravity is underpinned by little invisible extra-dimensional fairies.

This is not unscientific. This is just common sense. An architect would not design a building without the ability to withstand earthquakes or strong winds. Why would the architect of our existence be any different? Especially when you consider that the creator of this earth would be fully aware of the constant environmental changes occurring here everyday.

So far, it's just bad logic. And is not scientific because it makes no predictions and has absolutely no potential for predictions.

You are also assuming a telic entity without any real evidence.

Intelligent Design does not assume any religion. It does not say that you must believe the bible to believe we were all designed by something higher than ourselves. It simply states that this is world is so complex and the chances that it all happened by happy chance are so small that there must have been some higher power involved. That's it. If you want to put your own religious deity into that hole, that is your business, and yours alone. One cannot assume that just because someone decides to do just that, everyone else automatically believes that person is right. The very notion is completely absurd.

So it assumes a creator due to apparent complexity. And therefore is a form of creationism. You could take an alien angle, but then the question still remains - who designed the aliens?

Yes, I can see the problem of using "whoever/whatever" in an explanation. Granted I, personally, do not know who or what put us here. Maybe it was the Christian God and maybe it was a magic genie. I'm not a scientist, though, so it is not my place to fill in that blank. I leave that up to those who have the resources to do so.

Okie doke.

ID creationism is compatible with anything. It an amorphous concept that produces no hypotheses, makes no scientific predictions, has no theory, and no mechanism. It doesn't even have the balls to identify the designer. What you outline above is essentially 'it's all too complex and improbable, therefore telic designer' - which is just an argument from incredulity.

Therefore it is not science, but philosophy/theology. This is just warmed over Paleyism. Darwin dealt with him over a hundred years ago - complexity develops from simplicity. You are assuming the existence of a supernatural designer in order to explain complexity. And it is therefore a form of creationism. Doesn't have to be YEC, mind. Creationism comes in many forms, including ID creationism.

So, why do people call it creationism? One easy reason is because modern ID is just a poor trojan horse for creationism. It was created by a group of conservative american christians who had clear aims to remove what they called the materialistic bias in science and renew culture. They have failed miserably.

They have produced no science at all. In 10 years, not one tested or even testable hypothesis. Just negative arguments against evolution, like creationists. And has essentially been a socio-political movement attempting to deceptively shove religion into science classrooms.

If it walks like a duck etc etc...

[edit on 16-2-2009 by melatonin]

Atheists, mostly, love for some reason to say that evolution and creationism/intelligent design can't coexist but its ridiculous. It isn't even their place to talk since they are speaking from the standpoint of the religious/spiritual person with them being an atheist, so go figure. Science is totally separate from spirituality but anything that comes from science can come, and does, from God. God owns science, science doesn't own God in other words.

Really, I'm not sure how necessary the distinction between a creationist vs. a theistic evolutionist is. Both believe everything came and comes from God. The means might be a bit different but the ends, the most important part, is the same. The point is God, the rest is irrelevant. Unless you enjoy needless, useless debate, in which case continue.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by ghaleon12]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

"When you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains however improbable must be true." - Sherlock Holmes

Written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, also a scientist/writer.

Sir Aurther Conan Doyle scientist writer beliver in fairies and seances as both real

argument from authority is a logical fallacy Matrix you should know better ..tut tut ... especially when the authority is a few waves short of a shipwreck

Noob, Noob, Noob, quit following me!!!

You should know better than to confuse semantics with possibilities!

As long as one can identify a power with consciousness - this would answer all of the ??????? marks!

You can still have natural selection with a power that could also instill instinct, consciousness, along with; creativity, imagination...brain power.

Without this bogus power you are left a day late and a dollar short!!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Noob, Noob, Noob, quit following me!!!

no im still waiting for aformal introduction to your daughter despite your near continous flirting with me

You should know better than to confuse semantics with possibilities!

sorry which possability? Aliens did it .. fine where did they come from designeed or evolved? if they evolved why would we need them to explain us without any evidence?

if they were designed whos thier designer? on and on past the start of time and super aliens wont work anymore and gods start appearing to lay claim

so which possability exactly am i confusing with semantics? .... theres 2 possabilities

1)somthing evolved so no reason to majik up aliens or gods until theres overwhelming evidence that somthing cant have evolved, and a list of what they are. if they can evolve why cant we? why is there a need for them without evidence?

2) infinity digress leading to gods

theres the possabilities where are the semantics?

As long as one can identify a power with consciousness - this would answer all of the ??????? marks!

conciousness is overrated, unconcious beats it on every level and even controls it

i can counciously come up with an explenation for unicorns (equines with horns) using evolutionary theory doesnt mean they are real

i think there fore i am, not i think there fore they are

that comes under the extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence clause

You can still have natural selection with a power that could also instill instinct, consciousness, along with; creativity, imagination...brain power.

you mean .....

Originally posted by noobfun
welcome to theistic evolution

god designed natural processes such as gravity evolution thermodynamics (the names we give them) to send the universe on a 14 billion yearold journey to get where it is the way it is filled with what it is

Without this bogus power you are left a day late and a dollar short!!

i agree thats why i leave out the mjiks until someone can show concluisvley they are needed or even exist

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, so you say ID has scientific basis and is not creationism.

That is exactly what I stated in my original post.

it makes no predictions and has absolutely no potential for predictions.

This is not true. With Intelligent Design I can make a very good prediction, with potential for many more, and they would all be scientifically testable; by which I mean disprovable (That is the proper scientific method. Scientists work to disprove their theories, and in doing so discover new things).

I can make a prediction that contradicts Darwin by asking a question like "Do plants and animals really evolve into entirely new creations of nature? Not just a new species which is essentially the same creation of nature with a different/new trait."

My prediction is no. Plants and animals can very well adapt and create a new species. What they cannot do is become something entirely new. For example Dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds. So how would I test this?

Being that I am not a scientist I cannot be certain, but what if I did something similar to Gregor Mendell's sweet pea experiment? What if I took a pure breed of plant, grew several crops of that pure breed, and then mapped the DNA of every one of (or most of) those plants. Now what I should get are plants that are similar, but varied. There will be variation. The DNA should show that variation quite clearly. What if I took it further? What if I took another pure breed, grew crops, mapped it's DNA, and then looked at the results. Of course the results would be the same. All of the plants should be similar, but with variation. So far so good. Now what if I bred the two breeds together? Now I've got hybrids that are a mix of both... here is where something interesting can happen. What if I took the crop of hybrids and compared DNA from those hybrids with with the DNA of the original plants?

I predict that in doing so I will most certainly see the DNA of the original plants, but with some information either missing completely (due to mutation) or altered. What would this mean? I theorize it means that data was lost, or altered, in such a way that the hybrids I created are not evolving. Yes they are changing and the new hybrids will most likely thrive, but will only ever be a version of the original and nothing more. Done. If I was using sweet peas the plants will always be sweet peas. Game over. No Darwinian evolution is taking place (yes there is change, but not in the way Darwin theorized).

Of course new species' can certainly arise. No new creation will ever come out of it though. No matter how many mutations occur a sweet pea is a sweet pea, is a sweet pea.

If my results are what I predict then another test can be done to prove the same is true for animals. Dinosaurs will always be Dinosaurs, and never birds. The genes do not allow for them to grow feathers. The genotypes are not contained within their gene pool. Dinosaurs simply remain Dinosaurs and never anything else. Game over... and this is obvious due the fact that they are now extinct.

If I had the resources to prove all this I would. Since I am not a scientist it remains only a theory. Perhaps one day a real scientist can see the potential and do something similar... of course more scientific and with greater care and insight, but I'm pretty sure the results will be as I have predicted.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
That is exactly what I stated in my original post.

Yup.

This is not true. With Intelligent Design I can make a very good prediction, with potential for many more and they would all be scientifically testable

Probably not. You'd be the first. I've seen more qualified try here on this forum.

by which I mean disprovable (That is the proper scientific method. Scientists work to disprove their theories, and in doing so discover new things).

Yup.

I can make a prediction that contradicts Darwin by asking a question like "Do plants and animals really evolve into entirely new creations of nature? Not just a new species which is essentially the same creation of nature with a different/new trait."

So you are proposing to test evolution and not intelligent design?

That was a quick boo-boo.

My prediction is no. Plants and animals can very well adapt and create a new species. What they cannot do is become something entirely new. For example Dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds. So how would I test this?

Up to you, but either way you would be testing evolutionary theory.

I predict that in doing so I will most certainly see the DNA of the original plants, but with some information either missing completely (due to mutation) or altered. What would this mean? I theorize it means that data was lost, or altered, in such a way that the hybrids I created are not evolving. Yes they are changing and the new hybrids will most likely thrive, but will only ever be a version of the original and nothing more. Done. If I was using sweet peas the plants will always be sweet peas. Game over. No Darwinian evolution is taking place (yes there is change, but not in the way Darwin theorized).

Wut? How is that a logical consequence of intelligent design?

Sounds completely identical to evolution. I probably had a hundred or so mutations from my parents.

The latter part is an argument against evolution.

Of course new species' can certainly arise. No new creation will ever come out of it though. No matter how many mutations occur a sweet pea is a sweet pea, is a sweet pea.

So it's another argument against evolution. I'm starting to see a pattern. Indeed, I'm sure I've heard the 'dogs iz always a dog' type argument before...

If my results are what I predict then another test can be done to prove the same is true for animals. Dinosaurs will always be Dinosaurs, and never birds. The genes do not allow for them to grow feathers. The genotypes are not contained withing their gene pool. Dinosaurs simply remain Dinosaurs and never anything else. Game over... and this is obvious due the fact that they are now extinct.

Another argument against evolution?

When you have a test for intelligent design, let me know. Indeed, tell the likes of Behe and Dembski, I'm sure they'll be chuffed.

You need a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that is a logical consequence of intelligent design. Even the YEC creationists can do that. The earth is 6000/10000/12000 years old is readily testable and falsifiable - not firm evidence if confirmed, but would at least be consistent with their YECism. Of course, problem is that the evidence clearly shows it to be wrong.

I guessed I would be wasting my time.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by melatonin]

Noob.....

no im still waiting for aformal introduction to your daughter despite your near continous flirting with me

You had me laughing so hard with your post!! I needed that! Thanks!

I'll get back to you!

Prof

I think you're failing to understand the beautiful simplicity of evolution/abiogenesis as a whole... Simplicity is key... it only LOOKS complicated if you start looking at everything in terms of vast geological epochs...

Evolution is remarkably simple... is it really too much for one to think that a simple process has simple origins?

Think of the complexities you add when you decide that an infinitely complex divine intelligence... Can you explain how this intelligence "popped" into being? This all knowing, all powerful being must be complex indeed!

I find it much much more probable that man created "god" to try and explain what was once "unexplainable".

However, if you look at history, so many of religions claims have been irrevocably debunked by scientific observations...

After you think about how often religion has moved the goalposts... the odds that "god" is a man-made creation grows to almost a certainty...

I find tho, there doesn't seem to be an answer for how instinct, consciousness, imagination, creativity, and pure brain power came in through natural selection, abiogenesis or whatever, without an intelligence who has these attributes him/her/itself creating the initial template.

I have no problem with the above theories, but am unsatisfied with the lack of answers to my question.

Oh mighty ones...can you please satisfy my hunger for knowledge?

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
I find tho, there doesn't seem to be an answer for how instinct, consciousness, imagination, creativity, and pure brain power came in through natural selection, abiogenesis or whatever, without an intelligence who has these attributes him/her/itself creating the initial template.

I have no problem with the above theories, but am unsatisfied with the lack of answers to my question.

Oh mighty ones...can you please satisfy my hunger for knowledge?

Well, each of those things proved beneficial to the species, and aided in survival/propagation... The same manner as any other genetic trait...

If you're looking specifically for the how/why these evolved... well, there's no "reason" for any sort of genetic mutation... just pure genetic drift...

However, there have been suggestions that humanoids eating the brains of other humans led to some rather interesting results... but for the most part, these theories are purely speculative, so I won't go in depth with them...