This is why the subject is almost undebatable. It really depends upon your own personal belief system rather than any scientific system of analysis. This is an absolute false statement. It is much more a matter of which scientists you want to believe. Both ID and Evolution are falsifiable. What is difficult is to make them both observable. For instance- The information to synthesize proteins is encoded in DNA evolutionary scientists have been all over the map in trying to explain how this evolutionary process took place since the genetic code first had to be precisely written in place before any synthesis of protein could take place. The compexity of writing the information to synthesize protein in the most simple cell is beyond computor intelligence, and could not statistically possibly have happened by chance and is a total impossibility because the DNA is compose of proteins that must already be synthesized and the mechanism for that synthesis is written in the DNA code. It is a quagmire of perplexity and paradox for the evolutionary scientist. Darwin didn't have any clue about DNA. The evolutionary scientist Francis Click came up with the idea that at one time there were 'proto-cells' (he termed them statistical proteins) that allowed 'mistakes' as he called them in protein formations that resulted in synthesis and DNA code writing all at the same time, all in random chance and all while the actual protein, genes, DNA was evolving over really huge amounts of time. Click's work is falsifiable and has been falsified. It is not verifiable nor observable and evolutionary scientists are still presenting 100's of idea and theories regarding protein synthesization and evolutionary theory. NOT FACT. There are 1000's of examples of problems in evolution. If you listen to ID scientists (there are 1000's of them). There are 1000's of examples of problems in ID if you listen to evolutionary scientists. I have a friend who is a geologist with a major oil company here in Houston who teaches ID. He is a brilliant geologist and definately not a religious quack. As he has told me about this debate, "It is not so much what people know about science that is the problem with this debate, but what they believe about origins." I think what he is saying is that those who do not believe in ID from the beginning have based their science on that bias. And those scientists who do believe in ID have based their science on that bias. When you say things with such bias and yet give a sense of absolute scientific authority with it is scares off most people-except the many reputible scientists that know it just isn't so. Go to a websites on ID or creatition science and you will find ample scientific method and validation. Go to a website for evolutionary science and you will find the same. These scientists are all brilliant men. I have never read a scientific piece on evolution and felt like the scientist was an idiot, and I can say the same for ID. We all have the bias. I believed in evolution for many years while in college and I was supremely confident in it being FACT. I know better. ID has problems. Evolution has problems. Don't try to tell me ID is not scientific. Just tell me you don't believe in a designer. That will give credence to your views. Science alone cannot do that unless you are listening to one side only. Are you?
ID is not falsible because that would require that you scientifically prove that there is no god / creator. The problem with the ID argument is that its complete circular logic. The complexity and diversity of species means there has to be a creator. There is a complexity and diversity of species because there is a creator. You can't logically prove or disprove either since they are really the same so there is no falsible test for it.
That's obvious, since ID has no scientific merit whatsoever. No. For me, it is a matter of what scientist actually makes sense. Care to explain how you can prove ID false? I'll bet you 20 bucks to the tipjar you can't. Lay out for me some experiment I can do in which one of the possible outcomes disproves the existance of God or the theory of ID. You can't - and that's why it's called faith, no matter how it is disguised. As for observation (off the top of my head): 1) Antibiotic Resistance Note that macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred. Of course, it would be rather difficult for current scientists to note macroevolution as it takes much longer than human history accomodates. 2) Roundup resistant Cocoa Plants Within four years after we started spraying coca crops from airplanes with RoundUp, a coca plant was covering large areas which was completely immune against RoundUp. No genetic engineering (a.k.a. intelligent design) was necessary to outwit the DEA and Monsanto: Just having evolution go its way and taking the survivors of RoundUp attacks and replant the field with them. You might love or hate Darwinism. But evolution is all around you every day. Your argument once again can be summarized as, "Complexity implies a creator." => Non sequitor. I cannot fathom the assertion that science must be wrong when it disagrees with the Bible, or when ID advocates assert something like irreducable complexity simply because they don't have the imagination or intellectual capacity to imagine how something complex could have happened without the direct interference of a supreme being. Darwin not knowing about DNA is not germaine to the argument. DNA helped further the argument, not repress it. ID advocates don't have any real data so they argue that the "quagmire" implies a supernatural influence. That's not science - Science does not accept an "absence of evidence" as being proof for something. Fine, strictly speaking, evolution is a theory, and not a fact. Much in the same way that 'gravity' is a theory and not a fact. It's true! People have come up with corollaries and conjectures and lemmas that all expect gravity to be fact, but it hasn't been proven. It's been demonstrated, tested, peeked, poked, prodded and is generally accepted as fact. But it is still a theory. So when people talk about the 'theory of evolution,' as though it should somehow be less valid... In science, the term 'theory' doesn't mean wild guess. It actually means this is the best guess I have that fits with all the pieces that are available and the factual observations made to date. Which brings me to my next point. In science, once a theory is widely accepted, it is rarely thrown out as completely wrong. One piece being incorrect generally doesn't invalidate the entire theory. The theory will be adjusted to accommodate the new information, and will be stronger for the change. Quell my shock. No argument. ID can have a place in schools - Philosophy Class. False. Evolution is based on data. Darwin was a christian who morphed his faith to fit reality. ID advocates morph reality to fit their faith. I can think for myself and judge which makes camp makes a more scientific argument. Intelligent Design websites can claim whatever they want - I don't care. It's not backed up by anything tangible. When the Dover school board announced they were going to teach ID, mark how the professional IDers at the Discovery Institute backpedalled like nuts. They know they've got a pile of nothing, but they sure don't want a court to stomp them down. For the record, I grew up in a very christian household and was taught creationism. I am a lot more open-minded now than I could possibly have been then. But all right. I'll stop telling you since you won't listen. In all honesty, I already knew this reaction was forthcoming since I recall you are a minister. Maybe that implies some bias on your part...
Scientific theories are there to explain things in the world, they are not perfect. Newton's theory works in certain situations but it breaks down in other situations. Does that make his theory useless? What have ID done to expalin the physical world, have it given any provable facts?
The problem that I see with your argument for ID and against evolution is that you are essentially saying that both are faith based positions. What you are arguing is that ID faith is that there is a creator Evolution faith is that there is no creator The problem with this is that Evolution really neither denies or accepts that there is a creator or a higher power. You can firmly agree with evolution and still believe in God or some other creator. Where things seem to be in opposition is that strictly Evolution doesn't deal with higher power because there is no way scientifically to prove that there is a higher power so its not a scientific issue. This is what separates ID from Evolution. One starts with the preconceived notion that there is a creator while one starts with no preconceived notions and instead realies only on what's observable and testible. As I've said before science and faith are two different things and the problem with the seeming opposition is that people are trying to use the means of one to prove or disprove the other when that is really a futile exercise. There is no way to scientifically prove God and no way to disprove God so questions dealing with God aren't science. They're faith.
I'll just respond to this portion since everyone else has done a great job debunking your other arguments. It seems to me that you have just taken a rudimentary bio course and assume you have learned everything about evolution. Did you know that in experiments that simulated collisions between astroids and earth, amino acids formed SPONTANEOUSLY? Even simple proteins were formed. I.e. no previous life in the vacuum enclosed chamber. Yet afterwards, the foundation of life was made. Proteins may be the end-product and DNA the starting material, but it's theorized that RNA is the first data storage device. RNA has been produced in vitro with no prior RNA available. Just free nucleic acids, phophate, and ribose present. They SPONTANEOUSLY form into RNA. So you see, DNA is not needed as a precursor for anything. In fact, this explains why many viruses don't have it.
i'm not a scientist...but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night. would it be fair to say that ID is a conclusion for some? that's the best way i could explain it. maybe not a theory, by your definition...but a conclusion. a conclusion based on evidence in the minds of some scientists. that's certainly how it's being presented from the scientists i've heard who would be categorized as ID believers. fair to call it a conclusion?
A conclusion implies you arrived to that idea from some other idea logically. I would call it a belief.
Max, Scientific conclusions require evidence and proofs, otherwise it is not science. If ID could offer better explaination of the various life form and how they are evolving I would certainly be open to accept it as SCIENCE theories.
to be fair, they are. these guys aren't idiots. they're looking at the complexity of the universe...the complexity of the cell...the power of DNA...and saying they think there is likely a creator.
to be fair, throughout history people made similar observations. Hmm, "heavier things fall faster than light things like a feather. It must be true." Or "if i look toward the horizon, it just falls off. The world must be flat. I can't be wrong because it makes sense." Or "everytime I watch tv on my couch, the Rockets win. I'm going to watch the Rockets on my couch everyday. THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY LOSE!!!"
Here is the famous state of Kansas again. Link Kansas Board Holds Evolution Hearings By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago TOPEKA, Kan. - As a State Board of Education subcommittee heard more testimony Friday on how evolution should be taught in Kansas classrooms, one member acknowledged that she hadn't read all of an evolution-friendly draft of science standards proposed by educators. ADVERTISEMENT Kathy Martin of Clay Center made the comment while attempting to reassure a witness who said he hadn't read the entire proposal, just parts of it. Russell Carlson, a biochemistry and molecular biology professor at the University of Georgia, said he had reviewed an alternate proposal from intelligent design advocates. "I've not read it word for word myself," Martin said of the other proposal, eliciting groans of disbelief from a few members of the audience. The board expects to consider changes in June in how Kansas students are tested statewide on science. The three-member subcommittee began hearings Thursday, and will hear more testimony Saturday and again next Thursday. "It's intellectually stimulating," said board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, one of the three presiding members. "It's good information." Similar battles have occurred in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the past few years. The Kansas board has sought to avoid comparisons of its hearings with the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tenn., in which teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a law against teaching evolution. But the hearings resemble a trial, with attorneys managing each side's case. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education, with a conservative majority — which included Abrams — deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. The next election led to a less conservative board, which adopted the current standards describing evolution as a key concept for students to learn before graduating high school. Last year, conservatives captured a majority again, and many scientists fear the board will adopt revisions supported by intelligent design advocates. The conservative majority includes the three subcommittee members, Abrams; Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis. Intelligent design advocates said they only want to expose students to more criticism of evolution, giving them a more balanced picture of the theory attributed to 19th Century British scientist Charles Darwin. "The way Darwinian evolution is usually presented is that the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no controversy about it," said Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design research. "That's clearly not the case." Intelligent design advocates question evolutionary science that says change in one species can lead to new species and that different species have common ancestors. Intelligent design says some features in the natural world — because they are complex and well-ordered — are best explained by an intelligent cause. None of the changes intelligent design advocates have proposed in the standards mention their ideas. But other scientists scoff at the notion that the board isn't being pushed to endorse intelligent design. "The only things that exist in intelligent design literature are criticisms of evolution," said Keith Miller, a research assistant professor in geology at Kansas State University. "Who are the people they are bringing here to speak? Advocates of intelligent design." Viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution, national and state science groups are boycotting, so no scientist is expected to testify against the intelligent design advocates' case. Instead, they planned news conferences at the Statehouse. On display for the first one Thursday night was a wheel barrow and two crates full of copies of scientific journals — to suggest evolution is well-documented.
There's a huge distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution. The former can be observed while the latter can't and must rely on previous observations in order to extrapolate untestable conclusions. If we assume Macro Evolution (uppercased) just occurred, then we can definitely trace a dotted line using geological, biological, genetic and paleontological evidence, yet we still don't know how it started or the actual process itself. Is it gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? A mixture of both? They're wildly untestable hypotheses and it's why certain fields within paleontology are considered a joke among other scientists. I'd be satisfied if highschools weren't taught any origin hypotheses. Even if IDers can disprove some points and mark Macro Evolution as an untestable hypothesis, none of those facts would boost the probability of ID being more possible. Give the students all the gathered evidence we have and let them come to their own conclusion.
Isn't the world about due for an inquisition or a new dark age? The anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-freedom forces are gathering on all sides. It seems strange that as the access to information is becoming more universal that the reaction of much of mankind is to resist advancement. But I guess that's just the way the pendulem has always swung, the flowering of every civilization is eventually assaulted by the barbarians.
