Evolution versus Intelligent Design

You’re hilarious Dubious! Gather the mob for a lynching! He’s a witch! He’s a witch! You’re a true conservative. If you are not prepared to questions your background assumptions, if you believe that your view of the world is the only view of the world, then why do you bother getting involved in debates? This isn’t the first time for you either. This is a patter of behaviour. You and Trader George are the same person but with a different coloured jersey on. If you have never learned anything that caused you to change your worldview then you are not going to understand what Kuhn and Hegel are talking about, and I guess that explains your confusion. But before we get off on a tangent let’s deal with a few points first.

Have you said anything of substance yet? What you’ve been saying to this point hasn’t even been on point, so if that’s all you’ve got then please do stop. You’re hijacking the thread.

So says you. Have you even read the thread to know who the people and scientists are that support ID? Given you level of analysis I doubt that would make any difference to you.

Religious agenda? And where exactly has religion even been discussed in this thread?

You are not even being honest here dubious. Does this kind blatant attempt to hijack a thread fall under the rules here? Clearly you’re having some problems. I suggest that you not participate in threads like this if they are going to induce you into a state like this. In the mean time maybe we should call in a mod to put you out of your misery.

 

still waiting.

Explain it scientifically please. (with no magic forces)

 

Well for starters, we're more similar to starfish than to flies, and starfish are more similar to humans than to jelly fish. It's evidenced by cell structure and genetic similarities.

Several species have gone through the process of convergent evolution where they find similar adaptations to their environment in different parts of the world while being different species. It usually turns out that if those species are isolated, they'll be genetically similar to other related species on that island than their other wordly counterpart.

Ernst Mayer, who passed away recently, argued strongly for isolation such as geography, time, predator/prey relationships, as the drive of species evolution. He pointed to islands such as the Galapagos as hotbeds of evolution and species diversity. Again, the genetic similary between those animal species and the lands surrounding it were more similar than similar breeds living elsewhere on the planet. Isolated islands are the best witnessable case of the Modern Synthesis.

These observations are usually grounds to poke holes into Creationism, such as "Why didn't God just sprinkle the same animals all over the globe like frosting on cake?" "If animals look similar then they should be similar genetically too", or "If we're made in God's eyes, then why are there vestigial organs?"

You don't learn this stuff in AMERICAN highschools, and there's definitely more to cover.

 

Just to clear up one of dubious’ slippery little attempts to deceive, I have not even said that ID is proven. In fact ID is really just a starting point for another direction of research. Certainly the evidence that suggests that what exists today could not have randomly evolved suggests directly that some form of ID was involved. In that sense there is in fact very good proof for it, and there’s not a hint of circularity there. All this has been discussed many times in this thread. Dubious is losing his argument so he’s trying to throw you off by deceiving you. He’s simply being dishonest at this point.

 

Your question is tangential to this discussion so I’m not sure I understand it. Essentially you are asking why some species are close to other species in genetic makeup? From an ecological standpoint I suspect that this helps support the ecological balance, food chains and “buffer” species and the like.

If you are asking if it’s by random chance that chimps got that way I’d say look at the evidence. As similar as we are we are also very different. There is no continuum between chimps and humans. There are no examples of chimps who have developed human like characteristics. There is no evidence of anything else evolving to a higher level of complexity, even a little bit, not even failed vertical mutations which would surely be much much more abundant than successful ones. Given that that kind of change, although intellectually appealing, is not supported by the evidence then another mechanism is likely involved. The non-randomness suggests some form of intelligent design. What that might be is something we have not even begun to address here in this thread, although I have offered to get into such a discussion. At this point, however, we just need to get the deniers over the hump to the point where they are prepared to consider that something outside their current worldview.

 

The problem again is that this is NOT testability but a philosophical argument that life is too complex to have been created so therefore it must have needed an IDer.

How do we observe the process of ID or the IDer? How can show that ID happened and is happening? How does it happen? Do new species just materialize out of thin air at a certain point in time by the IDer?

We can and certainly have observed micro-evolution and extend it to apply on a macro-scale. Have we and can we observe ID? If not, then, it is not scientific.

 

As a reminder, it’s the evolutionists that are trying to bring God into this debate. It’s a classic straw man diversion that I trust isn’t fooling anyone, but this is a reminder just in case.

That’s cool information, btw. It’s a wonderful mystery all this diversity of life. But the point in question here is, is there any real evidence for vertical evolution? Has any small measure of it been seen in any species, even failed mutations to a higher level of complexity? What do we observe of the nature of cell mutation in the lab? The theory is 100 years old now and we know much much more about cells and DNA and how it works and mutates. Is there anything at all to suggest that given enough time a frog could grow feathers and wings, two wings in fact placed in the right place for it to be able to fly?

Is this a reasonable thing to consider given our best scientific knowledge of today? Or, is it time to consider that something else might be going on? An even less controversial question would be, given all these questions should we teach that evolution is a theory and not claim that it is absolute truth?

 

I don't have any problem with teaching various disagreements and controversies regarding evolution if they are scientifical supported and valid. There are, I agree, many unanswered questions.

HOWEVER, I would have a big problem if ID is introduced as a plausible, alternative, SCIENTIFIC, explanation, because ID "Theory" as presented constituted is not scientific since it has no evidence other than philosophical argumentation.

Therefore, if you see legitimate weaknesses of gaps of evolution that should be taught, that is fine with me. But this has nothing to do with the validity of ID and does not mean that ID Theory (which has far more weaknesses and problems) then should be taught as an alternative.

 

What would start with a generic creator would end with a Christian one.

If all goes according to plan. Muhahahahaha.

 

Grizzly;

Nice guy or not, and I would like to believe you are a nice guy, there is no point in debating with you when you insult people by calling them dense when its you who are the one that doesn't even understand the very theory you're promoting.

Its not ID its Intelligent Design which by definition means there has to be a higher power unobservable creator of some sort. The argument for the theory is irreducable complexity that could only come from a creator. Conversely then irreducible complexity means there must be a creator.

If A causes B and A is the only cause of B then if B is true A must be true.

Anything else and the theory falls apart because since even proponents agree that A cannot be proven independently without B.

 

Rhester;

In general I would agree with you but I would point out that science has done alot more to predict that the medicines I take work, my car starts and I can debate controversial issues over the Internet with you than prayer has.

Your creating an artificial distinction that distorts both science and faith. There's nothing about Evolution that denies belief in God. Belief in a higher power can't be proven empiracally so can't be accepted scientifically which is bound by empiracism but faith by definition transcends empiracism.

Darwin himself was a seminary student and always believed in a higher power. In a way he not only formulated the theory of Evolution but also Intelligent Design since he believed in a higher power that set down the laws of the Universe by which species differentiated.

As rational and spiritual beings I believe we need both science and faith and see no reason why we can't believe in both.

 

I’m glad that you agree that evolution is not necessarily “truth” and that teaching alternatives are acceptable. Now, if the evidence suggests that the probability that the diversity and complexity of life on earth today could not have evolved in the time it is said to have evolved in that suggest that what has happened isn’t random, at least not by random evolution. Do you agree? That would suggest that what exists today is non-random, ergo, intelligent design of some sort. The very act of showing that what exists today is unlikely to be random evolution raises the possibility and the odds that ID is part of the explanation. Do you follow what I’m saying?

 

That’s an entirely separate discussion. There are many spiritual people who have other answers and there’s another group entirely who believe that alien life may have visited earth in the past. There are a range of possibilities once one gives up blind faith in evolution.

 

Guy, you don’t back up any statement that you make (like the one above) and you repeatedly misunderstand and/or misrepresent even the basics of the argument. If you’re not doing that on purpose then you are extremely dense, literally. I suggested above that you quote what people have said in the thread to prove you have actually read the thread. Again you have not done it and again you say something that is pure nonsense. I’ll go through this last paragraph one more time to illustrate.

Wrong! No marks for this answer. Please go back and read the thread

I’ll give you a partial mark for this answer because irreducible complexity is one of the arguments for ID, but only one. ID of course doesn’t itself claim that there is a creator in the sense you’re trying to imply so I’m being generous by giving a partial mark here.

Wrong! No marks for this answer. Please go back and read the thread.

This doesn’t relate to the question being asked. 0 marks.

I don’t know if you simply don’t understand what’s being debated here or whether this is some kind of straw man argument. Either way, if you actually have to back up what you’re saying then you won’t have problems with either one, so next time please provide corroborating evidence with your claims.

 

For variety here’s a Muslim piece on evolution. I haven’t looked at it closely but it does contain some statistical information on the probability of vertical mutations.
http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Darwinism Refuted/Articles/The evolution Deceit.htm

 

I might've pulled a strawman for bringing Creationists to the debate, but both ID and Creationism involve an active role of a Creator. The fact that most religious people lobby for it doesn't make me believe they think super intelligent aliens created life on earth.

Personally, I don't really know what really IDers want. They're evolving as we speak....

How so? How is that as verifiable as your supposed proof by nonproof against MacroEvolution? It seems like you're imposing the burden of proof for ID among scientists who are bound by the scientific method.

I don't buy the common origin theory brought out either, but there is copious proof of Macroevolution. I've studied the complexities of cell biology that makes me think, there's no way some of these walking strands can spontaneously happen, but guess what, that belief isn't science! At most, the thought of it is a philosophy.

Let's say in 50 years our tools are so advanced to the point where we observe a tatoo on our DNA that says "Mars Industries". That might be proof of some ID, but it was biology and its current theories that made it possible. There is no need for ID if ID can be observable, and you definitely don't want to water down curricula that's essential for our nation's scientific development, which is what Creation and ID proponents have done.

I've been peddling this Discover article every time I see a thread like this and no replies so far because people are either too lazy or unfamiliar with evolution. We'll see now.

Discovering Darwin

 

polypheus- Thank you, you hit the nail on the head.

Allow me to use creation instead of ID (although for point of understanding call it whatever).

When the discussion of origins and science are debated the scientific observations are often dismissed, primarily because the actual events of origin (beginning of life, universe etc.) cannot be observed. We cannot observe the creation, and we cannot observe something that happened about a trillion years ago.

That puts science in the position of theorizing origins based upon observable, empirical data. Which is the tip of the ice berg for the problems of using evolution to theorize origins:

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

The moon is receding in orbit a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years.

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation.

And on and on and on.

Micro evolution cannot be extended to Macro evolution they are separate. Micro evolution happens within species. Macro evolution happens between species. This is a great big difference.

Not common ancestors= similarity
Common creator= similarity

Both theories require faith.

The scientific holes in macro evolution are too numerous to list.
You see each side can explain away by personal belief the evidence, but nobody can say they observed the origins.

 

Oh. My. God.

Please lock this thread. This is ridiculous.

Standard ID claim. As usual, NO evidence.

10. Jupiter is not cooling off that rapidly! Based on the fact that Jupiter is radiating twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun, and given its mass and other data, we can calculate the heat loss. "A simple calculation indicates that the average temperature of the interior of Jupiter falls by only about a millionth of a kelvin per year." (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.269). (A drop of one kelvin is equal to a drop of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.) In short, Jupiter is big enough that it could still be radiating heat trapped during its formation 4.5 billion years ago. Thus, there's no problem there.

Saturn, which radiates almost three times more energy than it receives from the Sun, is a more complicated case as it is not massive enough to retain its primeval heat of formation 4.5 billion years ago.

"The explanation for this strange state of affairs, first suggested by Ed Salpeter of Cornell and David Stevenson of Caltech, also explains the mystery of Saturn's apparent helium deficit, all in one neat package. At the temperatures and high pressures found in Jupiter's interior, liquid helium dissolves in liquid hydrogen. In Saturn, where the internal temperature is lower, the helium doesn't dissolve so easily, and tends to form droplets instead. The phenomenon is familiar to cooks who know that it is generally much easier to dissolve ingredients in hot liquids than in cold ones. Saturn probably started out with a fairly uniform mix of hydrogen and helium, but the helium tended to condense out of the surrounding hydrogen, much as water vapor condenses out of Earth's atmosphere to form a mist. The amount of helium condensation was greatest in the planet's cool outer layers, where the mist turned to rain about 2 billion years ago. A light shower of liquid helium has been falling through Saturn's interior ever since. This helium precipitation is responsible for depleting the outer layers of their helium content. ...As the helium sinks toward the center, the planet's gravitational field compresses it and heats it up. [Saturn is a "gas giant," a planet without a surface. As the helium in the outer layers "rained" down into the lower levels it was squeezed into a smaller space due to gravity, which caused the helium atoms to bump into each other more often. That is, the helium heated up according to Boyle's law. - D.M.]"

--(Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.288)

You may object that the above is just a "theory," but this hypothesis comes with realistic, detailed mathematical and physical explanations -- something almost unheard of in creationist literature. We now have a plausible explanation for Saturn's heat output. Therefore, Saturn presents no problem with respect to the above creationist argument.

Of course, seeing as this is based on science and not some dogma-induced twisted logic, I'll just assume you will ignore this tidbit. Try reading before posting what you heard on the latest ID bulletin board.

5. Once again, Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddly-squat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.

Education is an amazing thing.

Please stop.

You are giving me a headache.

My favorite by far. So old - so useless - so STUPID.

"2. The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.

The obsolescence of this argument has been brought out in numerous debates and published in countless books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It's not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain??"

Thread lock requested to preserve my mental health.

Rhester, do you read anything other than "The ID Journal"?

Aluminum gives you an age of 100 yrs.

Please stop quoting the "beginner's guide to ID"

No.

Move to Kansas.

Look up the last three yourself.

NO. The funny thing is, I used to enjoy philosophical arguments about a creator - a creator that I think would fit perfectly into evolution, as opposed to being adverse to it. The more I here from the ID camp however, the more I see it as a bunch of close-minded and fearful simpletons - that I want nothing to do with.

You can't explain squat with your "arguments". Go back to teaching the gospel and leave science to scientists.