Any opera written in the last 100 years definitely proves that nothing in them is the product of intelligent design.

Irreducible complexity does not discredit evolution theory. It's as simple as this: Imagine you have a bunch of single cell organisms floating in a pool of water. These organisms fuel their life processes by absorbing energy from the sun. Imagine there are no predators to cull the reproduction of these organisms. Eventually there will not be enough space available for all of these creatures to gain exposure to the sun. Some organisms finding themselves pushed so far beneath the others, whith no exposure to the sun's rays available, will need to find an alternate source of nutrients. The more inovative of these lifeforms begin to absorbed nutrients from the decomposing matter of other dead organisms. Because biological matter is a more efficient source of energy some organisms grow larger and have enough energy to become mobile. These larger active organisms begin to consume decomposed organic matter more quickly than it is being produced. In some places there will not be a sufficent supply of nutrients for all of these scavenging organisms. The largest most adept microbes resort to killing and ingesting the weaker organisms. Due to competition for food, space, etc. more and more complex lifeforms eventually develop. Sure you cannot have a functional mousetrap without all the necessary components. However, how the heck do you build a mousetrap by attaching every part at the same time? You don't. First you take your base, then attach the metal hammer, then the spring and so on. Evolution works the same way.
Evolution theory in itself is not enough to completely discredit the possibility of intelligent design. Anybody familiar with physics knows that all matter is simply a special form of energy. Einsteins theory of relativity proves this. We also know that energy is a substance that can neither be created nor destroyed. The question remains; What is the origin of the energy responsible for the fabrication of our universe.

"The more inovative of these lifeforms begin to absorbed nutrients from the decomposing matter of other dead organisms. Because biological matter is a more efficient source of energy some organisms grow larger and have enough energy to become mobile. These larger active organisms begin to consume decomposed organic matter more quickly than it is being produced."

I think it's rather important to point out that the evolutionary scenario you're describing there would take place over hundreds or even thousands of generations.

"However, how the heck do you build a mousetrap by attaching every part at the same time? You don't. First you take your base, then attach the metal hammer, then the spring and so on. Evolution works the same way."

Except that Darwinism requires that all the changes happen at once, because any partial, useless-in-themselves genetic changes are going to get selected against and disappear from the gene pool. It's all or nothing.

This is what led to the big controversy between Dawkins and Gould, the former affirming slow, gradual change and the latter postulating some bigger jumps along the way.

Kate, I'm ashamed of you. This is the first time that you've refused to take a position on something. Shocking. :)

I'm waiting until David Suzuki, the United Nations Committee On Sustainable Evolutionary Change, and Maurice Strong get together to announce a UN sponsored global summit to design a species tax on "rich" nations to slow unprecedented evolutionary trends in the third world.

"Except that Darwinism requires that all the changes happen at once, because any partial, useless-in-themselves genetic changes are going to get selected against and disappear from the gene pool. It's all or nothing."

That's a misconception. Evolutionary theory requires no such thing. Further, a "useless" thing is not selected against because it is useless, but because it is detrimental. We have useless nipples on men but there is no selective pressure to be rid of them. Finally, Evo theory doesn't state changes have to happen at once. The main problem with evolutionary theory is that most critics haven't studied it, or having studied it cannot accept it on religious reasons. Either way, as Kate says, our belief in it is of no consequence to its ongoing occurence.

The world is also flat, (and there is no such thing as 'gravity'- the earth sucks.)

So we should base our belief (or non-belief) in a theory on whether or not it affects the phenomena described by the theory? Great! Now I don't have to believe in relativity either. That stuff always seemed a bit weird to me anyway.

It's great to get away from those irrelevant issues, such as whether or not a theory is correct.

Buzz, the thrust of my argument is that 99% of people who debate evolution vs ID are as ill-equipped to do so as I am to sing Italian opera.

The majority of laypersons who adhere to strict random evolutionary theory don't have the formal background in physics, biology, genetics, etc. to grasp the essential arguments - and make the same "leap of faith" in accepting the assertions of scientific experts as do the proponants of intelligent design when they turn to theologians.

Er - the main problem with evolutionary theory is that proponents of it overstate its case, making broad assumptions without comprehensive evidence. In fact, the problem is evolutionists who make assertions into the realm of scientific 'faith', without acknowledging that they are being as, if not more, credulous than the religious.

Without a satisfactory evolutionary mechanism, why believe in it? (and even though I'm a religious guy, I'm inclined to believe in the general evolutionary process - just not the assertion that it's all 'by chance').

Kate,

Glad to help out.

Regarding this comment:

Except that Darwinism requires that all the changes happen at once, because any partial, useless-in-themselves genetic changes are going to get selected against and disappear from the gene pool. It's all or nothing.

This is not true. This is an old trick of Creationists and anti-evolutionists. They say, "Oh, how likely is it for all these parts to come together to make a whole unit?"

The answer is obviously damn unlikely. The problem is that the Creationist/Anti-Evolutionists is disregarding the gradual part of evolution. Look at the flagellum[sic] for example. Part of the flagellum works as a secretory system.

Also, in looking at the second graph we are seeing (click the link to the post at OTB) the final stage and not seeing the begining. The final result is IC, but the begining was not. Loss of function in redundant systems is not catastrophic for the organism and hence could very well be the product of evolutionary processes.

Regarding the evidence, or as some like to say, the lack of evidence for evolutionary theory; there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolutionary theory. This is why it is the dominant theory. There is the fossil record, speciation events, DNA, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, etc.

In fact, the problem is evolutionists who make assertions into the realm of scientific 'faith', without acknowledging that they are being as, if not more, credulous than the religious.

This is a logical fallacy. Shane is using the word faith which has more then one meaning and doing so to muddy the waters. For example.

1. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
2. I have faith that God exists.

It should be obvious to everybody that faith in 1, is quite different than faith in 2. Sure scientists have faith in evolutionary theory. They have faith because of the evidence. Having faith in God is believing when such cold hard evidence is lacking.

Without a satisfactory evolutionary mechanism, why believe in it? (and even though I'm a religious guy, I'm inclined to believe in the general evolutionary process - just not the assertion that it's all 'by chance').

There are evolutionary mechanisms. Mutation, genetic drift, allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, natural selection, etc.

Steve - I'm an athiest, and even I don't think the two theories are mutually exclusive.

It's no surprize that this creationist nonsense has such broad support. Decades of bad science teaching have created generations of people who have no real understanding of what science is, or are even hostile toward it.

Is it any wonder the Japs build better cars than we do?

Um - I'm a high school science teacher. I have a pretty good picture of the basics. I only become hostile when an agenda overtakes good science and overstates its case.

So which mechanism (or combination of them) commands the most scientific respect? And how is this mechanism hostile to the idea of a 'guiding hand'?

Religious faith isn't simply blind, guys - many/most religious people have some type of personal experience that validates this faith (in addition to the rational part/arguments in favor of it). It's not a scientific way of knowing, but it's not at all illogical.

Evolutionists consistantly muddy the concepts of micro and macro evolution to make their case. Few people argue that small local mutations can and do occur. Dog breeds are a good example. However noone has ever shown that these changes lead to new species. Evolutionists would like to believe that they do but there is no evidence for it and quite a bit against it.

The ID camp is equally bereft of actual proof. I.E. noone has scientificallly shown the existence of GOD. Their case rests on the fact that the smartest scientists of the last dozen generations using the most sophisticated equipment have yet to fully explain even basic aspects of life. What they have shown is that things follow specific, describable rules that appear to be constant. Any begining science student can recite a list of constants for use in equations.Life as we know it exists in a very narrow and improbably precarious band. Just ask the global warming people how easy it is to upset the balance.

The argument can be reduced to this: you are walking across a field and trip on a rock. You ask how did this get here? someone says "oh, it has always been there." That is at least a plausible explanation. Now suppose that instead of a rock you trip on a rolex watch. Would that same explanation be as plausible? Doesn't the watch design suggest a watchmaker? Is a watch more complex or 'designed' than a human body?

Finally an evolutionist believes that we are a product of chance with no purpose or reason for being and no future. An ID person believes that we were made on purpose for a reason and that what we do counts for something. Since neither theory can be supported by facts which one is healthier for a young child learning about their place in the world?

Sorry Paul but you played straw man a couple times in your post, including the quote "...an evolutionist believes we...(have) no purpose orreason for being and no future." Completely false - evolutionary theory does not speak to purpose or reason for existence, just as to how species change over time.

My friend, Dr. Denis Lamoureux has a great lecture on the subject that can be seen online here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/beyond.html

Critical of the Intelligent Design movement, he has several published papers available here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3PubMenu.htm

From his website:
Denis O. Lamoureux is an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta.

Lamoureux's academic specialty focuses on the modern origins controversy. In "Beyond the 'Evolution vs. Creation' Debate" he argues that the simple either/or approach to origins inhibits everyone from making informed choices. He asserts that if the limits of both conservative Christianity and evolutionary biology are respected, then their relationship is not only complementary, but also necessary. This view of origins is known as Evolutionary Creation. Concisely stated, it claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process.

Lamoureux holds three earned doctoral degrees: dentistry, theology, and biology. In 2001 he received the University of Alberta Students' Union 'Recognizing Talented Teaching' Award.

Evolutionary science cannot disprove the existence of an intelligent designer as a guiding force of evolutionary processes, no more than Newtonian mechanics could disprove there is an intelligent choreographer guiding movement. On the other hand, "intelligent Design" is about as relevant to an evolutionary scientist as "Intelligent Choreography" is to a physicist or engineer.

Many Intelligent Design advocates seem to base their case on evolutionary science not being sound factually. This is a hopeless strategy. There are mountains of data from various disciplines confirming evolutionary mechanisms and historical speciation, etc. Evolutionary science has myriad successful applications, from designing medical treatments to designing aerodynamic structures. One need not waste time debating this with the ID lot.

There is indeed work to be done in evolutionary science--there are "gaps" as in any field of science. However, there are good reasons to be optimistic about the prospect of finding natural explanations and, therefore, focusing on natural, observable and reproducible natural processes in the science program, instead of being distracted by untestable super-natural explanations.

First, the rate of progress in evolutionary science has accelerated over time. By inductive argument, one has good reason to expect the scientific approach to continue to fills gaps at an even greater pace. Similarly, by induction, the massive body of observation of and experimentation in evolutionary processes using existing species and ecosystems continues to support the basic principles that Darwin inferred. The so-called criticisms (Gould, for example) elaborate the basic principles in the way they unfold over time. Finally, after having spent a lot of time programming computers and studying math and self-organizing criticality in dynamics, one develops an intuition of how powerful changes to the dynamics themselves can have to effect "complexification" over time. Without such an intuition, I could see how the power of evolutionary dynamics would seem counterintuitive.

It seems another strand of the ID crowd is that without an intelligent designer, life would have no purpose. Well, I feel sorry for those who need to believe there is an intelligent designer for their lives to have purpose. Perhaps they suffer and need a reason. I don't. I'm going to the opera this evening with my wife and daughter. As Goethe observed, there is nothing more valuable than this day. If I got hit by a car on the way home, I could with great conviction utter my final words, "I've lived!"

Evil Weasel,

I'm sorry but you can't dismiss the issue that easily. Evolutionists most assuredly do not limit themselves to facts or proceses.

Evolution is every bit as much a "creation" story as anything in a religious text. It's primary function is to answer the question "where do we come from?" ( hence the title 'origin of the species").

My point was that if we are the product of random, amoral, mutations as the evolution theory states then we are merely an accident and a temporary one at that. If we are just the accident of the moment then it is impossible to make a case for morality, or inherent worth, or any kind of a future. We are not any better or worse than a bacterium or a slug or a rock. We also should have no expectation that any organism resembling ourselves will survive into the future random chance being what it is.

You can't just stop at stating the theory and pretend that there are no implications to holding that view. You have to answer the question "so what?' and the answer to that question is very very different depending on what side of the issue that you come down on.

If this weren't the case then people wouldn't care as much as they do.

Finally, it's not a straw man to state the logical implications of someones position.

Um - I'm a high school science teacher. I have a pretty good picture of the basics. I only become hostile when an agenda overtakes good science and overstates its case.

Then I don't see the problem. I have no agenda other than sound science. Any reasonable evaluation of the evidence for evolutionary theory v. ID would lead one to reject ID and go with evolutionary theory. ID makes no predicitons, has no experiments, and there is no data.

So which mechanism (or combination of them) commands the most scientific respect? And how is this mechanism hostile to the idea of a 'guiding hand'?

All the mechanisms are at work to varying degrees. And your notion of faith is rather disappoiting given that you are a high school science teacher and apparently unaware of people like Lynn Margulies.

Margulies put forward a contentious idea that questioned "Darwinism". At first she was criticized and her work rejected by many. She kept at it did the experiments, provided the data and her ideas are now considered innovative and praised. Your use of the word faith, as in beliefs unsupported by the data and clung to no matter what, is clearly erroneous.

Religious faith isn't simply blind, guys - many/most religious people have some type of personal experience that validates this faith (in addition to the rational part/arguments in favor of it). It's not a scientific way of knowing, but it's not at all illogical.

Thinking a fortunate occurence is a miracle and is a sign form God is a little different from having thousands of observations where the sun does indeed come up every morning. And I didn't say it was illogical. You appear to be coming close to making the error that just because I oppose ID and believe that evolutionary theory is the best explanation I must think people of (religious) faith are somehow mentally deficient.

Paul,

There are quite a few examples of speciation. There is plenty of fossil evidence showing morphological similarities across animals like pelycosaurs to cynodonts (link).

Now suppose that instead of a rock you trip on a rolex watch. Would that same explanation be as plausible? Doesn't the watch design suggest a watchmaker?

Sure. Why? Because I know that mankind has made watches and other time telling devices for centuries. I have no such background information for the E. coli bacterial flagellum and neither do you, Behe, Dembski or any of the other IDists. In fact, I'd argue exactly the opposite. We have plenty of evidence that mankind has not had the ability to modify organisims at a genetic level until only recently. Hence arguing by analogy where in one instance we know not only that something looks designed, but we know the designer vs. the other situation where we have reason not to conclude design and know of no designer, falls apart.

Finally, you have more than just a strawman fallacy in your comment about purpose. It is another example of the either/or fallacy. One can be and evolutionist and aslo believe in God and have the same views on the purpose in life.

And your claim about evolutionary theory not beind supported by the facts is simply not true.

"If we are just the accident of the moment then it is impossible to make a case for morality, or inherent worth, or any kind of a future."
(Quaere: even if true, how is it a reason to justify bad scientific method?)

Perhaps morality is an impossible case for the author of this quote. Seems Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., for example, made a great case. I find it frightening that belief in an intelligent designer or fear of punishment in an afterlife is all that makes some people moral. Others of us do what's moral simply because....it's moral--no super-natural purpose or threat is required.

Steve,

Thank you for making my case for me. Someone who believes in both God and Evolution is in my mind in the ID camp because they posit an intelligent designer of the process. However most evolutionists are athiests and insist that there is nothing at work but random chance.

As for evidence, morphology was discarded by serious evolutionist years ago because of it's many flaws. Stating that A looks like B does not mean that B came from A anymore than it means that they were both created by the same source. The fact that Apes look like men is interesting but it does not mean that one came from the other. And it is interesting to note that no one sugests that apes may have come from humans. And to date there is no proof that there is any overlap between the two. We have a lot of ape bones and a lot of human bones but no connection.( and yes some of the most spectacular frauds have come from the ranks of the evolutionary anthropologists). Furthermore, advances in genetics also undermine the morphology argument because that 'wing' that looks like an 'arm' turns out to originate from a differnt gene and isn't related at all.

And speaking of genetics it turns out that our closest 'cousin' in terms of gene overlap is the weasel. Apes aren't even in the top ten.

I agree that micro evolution within species does occur. I also agree that the theory of evolution is useful as a classification tool and should be taught for that reason if for nothing else.

However to pound the table and suggest piles of evidence for evolution is to confuse quantity with quality and leads you to overstate your case

The earlier post that suggests that evolutionary principles are useful in medicine is downright scary. I don't want a remedy that is posited on random unpredictable mutations. I want something that consistantly and accurately repeats itself the same way every time according to a well thought out design.

Finally the idea that evolution is somehow scientific is absurd. The 'scientific method' is based on repeatable observations. There is nothing about macro evolution that can be subjected to the scientific method. call it what you like but it is not 'science'.

Murray,

you can't have morality in a vaccuum. It has to be based on something. There has to be a final arbiter to say what is and isn't moral.

You can have morality based on power, where the person with the most power sets the rules. You can have morality based on consensus where people vote for what they like or feel. you can have morality based on religion. But you have to have a base standard.

My point was that 'evolution' does not provide that. Furthermore 'evolution' would never lead to the kind of morality that we currently have.

I assume that you are against murder, but that could be a valuable evolutionary mechanism. A harvard researcher stated last year that Rape was a positive and logical evolutionary action. He's right but I wouldn't advocate it. I could go on but I don't have time.

to define morality you have to answer the question: "says who?".

An atheistic evolutionist can't answer that question, hence my logical assertion that they can't claim morality as part of their worldview.

You can distinguish two kinds of atheism.

There's the atheism which is part of the definition of science. When faced with the scientific question, "Why does this happen?", the answer, "Because God wills it" isn't valid. Not because it's wrong. Because it's trivial and nonconstructive. Everything happens because God wills it, and you knew that before you asked the question. You need an answer that actually increases your knowledge, that shows exactly what the non-God bits are up to, or it isn't science.

And then there's the atheism which is religious dogma. I'm afraid it's just wishful thinking to pretend that evolutionism isn't jam packed with dogmatic atheism, or that the evolutionist camp in the evolution-ID debate isn't as loaded with religious partisans as the ID camp.

To the extent I can form opinions, I'm not impressed with ID science, and Darwinian evolution by contrast makes perfect sense. But I've been wrong before about simpler matters. What I'm sure of is that the existence of God has nothing to do with this issue and will not be illuminated however it is resolved.

I can distinguish more types of atheism.

The first ebt has identified--theism is not relevant to a task. One can do good science without theism, one can be an effective physician without theism, one can be a successful petroleum geologist without theism etc. That is, I am a-theistic in my field.

This can be extended to the general task of one's life. One may feel motivated without the need for theism. Here one does not believe in the existence of gods because the issue is not relevant to one's life. One is a-theistic, in the sense of not caring to believe in or fret about something of no practical relevance.

One could be what I call "Santa Claus agnostic." One could admit that the existence of gods cannot be scientifically disproven. But just as I cannot scientifically disprove the existence of Santa Claus, I can plausibly form the opinion that the god concept is a human construct that follows for psychological reasons. Nietzsche and Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained) examine this.

One can be any of the above versions of atheist and still have the view that the fact people in general ascribe to theism is a good thing...especially if that's all that makes some people act morally.

One could equally be any of the above versions of and view theism as a bad thing. These people I would call anti-theists, as opposed to the mere a-theists.

Anti-theists I would break into two categories: those whose review of historical and psychological data have convinced them that, on balance, theism causes more harm than good, and those who are anti-theism because of psychological need. The latter, I is what I presume ebt means by religious atheists. I would call them need-driven anti-theists, as distinct from a-theists and data-contingent anti-theists.

The difficulty I have with sorting through the mountains of data related to the ID/evolution debate is that so many are partisans for reasons that go beyond the strictly scientific data. I'm not a big fan of the current ID 'fad' (it does seem a little light on the scientific evidence), and I agree with the post-er higher up who said something about how this debate will not really solve any of the theological questions that people have about God.

I've also seen enough from the scientific community too that goes beyond, or mis-states the facts (not that I'm an expert who can evaluate every aspect of it). I think that part of this arises from the fact that the info needs to be 'dumbed down' for the average person to understand the intricacies of this or that mechanism/theory. Thus, we find pictures in Biology textbooks of moths on tree bark in England showing their colour adaptation to correspond to the tree bark, but nobody bothers to ask the question, "Are these moths even found on tree bark?" (when the answer is 'no'). It's a simple illustration to 'prove' the evolutionists' point, but it's a false example that most won't even realize is 'staged' to bring the argument to a level they can understand.

I've been to a couple of lectures by Denis Lamoureux (mentioned higher up) - he uses a different term than ID (I think it's also mentioned above), but seems to take issue with much of ID. His web-site is worth checking, anyway.

I'm not a biology teacher - and you're right, I haven't heart of Lynn Margulies. I will perhaps google her sometime.

Some of my discomfort with evolutionism is with the conclusions its adherents sometimes arrive at. Natural selection was the scientific basis for the 'superiority of the Aryan race'. It was used as justification for what happened to the Jews at that time. Any theory that leads to that kind of event as its logical conclusion has problems. What Paul wrote above is bang on - there will be implications to what one 'believes'. I know I work backwards that way at times - figuring that if the conclusion can be so morally misguided, then there must be something wrong along the way somewhere. Admittedly, this isn't scientifically logical, but it's very rational from a common sense perspective.

Interesting discussion, thanks everybody.

Part of the problem is that few people understand what Intelligent Design really is, even those who claim to espose it.

The MSM seems to confuse it with biblical creationism but it is not. Contrary to conventional thinking, ID proponents like Michael Behe basically take evolution as read but say that the significant developments did not occur naturally but are the result of a designer's intervention.

The "movement" consists of a few main characters - and even fewer have relevant PhD's. The leader of this group, Philip Johnson is a law professor.

They seem to want to believe in evolution, but are unable to.
I really don't understand why they cannot. They have already rejected a literal reading of the creation stories in Genesis. There is really nothing stopping them from saying that God created the world by building evolution into the universe, which is the position of most PhD scientists who believe in God (40%, according to the journal Science), and also the position of conservative Christian thinkers like CS Lewis..

Behe's work raised an interesting and valuable discussion, and would have been better received had he not been presented as the final blow to evolution.

Paul,

Thank you for making my case for me. Someone who believes in both God and Evolution is in my mind in the ID camp because they posit an intelligent designer of the process. However most evolutionists are athiests and insist that there is nothing at work but random chance.

You know, you really should stop using this notion of "random" chance. It is a strawman in regards to evolution.

As for the designer, the difference is that those who believe in evolutionary theory and in God (e.g. Ken Miller) don't try to verify the unverifiable.

As for evidence, morphology was discarded by serious evolutionist years ago because of it's many flaws.

Uhhhmmm, no.

that A looks like B does not mean that B came from A anymore than it means that they were both created by the same source.

Bwahahaha. Of course, you are omitting that I said the "fossil record". You make it sound like it is piling up all the fossils in a pile and picking and choosing and set up whatever progression we want. This mischaracterization is false as it ignores the placement in terms of geological time periods as determined by the strata in which the fossil was found.

Finally the idea that evolution is somehow scientific is absurd. The 'scientific method' is based on repeatable observations. There is nothing about macro evolution that can be subjected to the scientific method. call it what you like but it is not 'science'.

This applies to a great many things that are considered science. Earth sciences aren't science with this nonsensical definition. We can't repeat earthquakes, movement of tectonic plates, or soil erosion. We can't perform repeatable observations for weather either, but most accept that as science...or maybe rain is caused by Thor?

And there have been quite a few instances of speciation. So this notion that it hasn't happened, and can never happen is nonsense. Only by taking a very narrow and restrictive definition of science can this position remain tenable. The true irony is that this is often done with the person telling us to keep an open mind.

you can't have morality in a vaccuum. It has to be based on something.

Here is a scary thought for you Paul, how about morality being based on evolution. People who display things like inclinations for cooperation, value fair play, and telling the truth might actually provide some selective benefits. Evolutionary theory has actually been brought into economic thoery and with some interesting and useful results. Such as why in some games are there such high levels of trust and cooperation? Why is "unfair" play punished even when punishment is costly?

My point was that 'evolution' does not provide that.

Really? I'm going to hazard a guess here, but you haven't read Herb Gintis' article on welfare reform have you. Why can't evolution give us "morals". What if behaving "morally" leads to improved survival rates? I'm not saying this is the way it has to be, but it seems to me you have ruled out a possible answer a priori with zip evidence.

Thus your final conclusion about athiest evolutionists is dubious at best and quite possibly wrong.

Shane,

The difficulty I have with sorting through the mountains of data related to the ID/evolution debate is that so many are partisans for reasons that go beyond the strictly scientific data.

Why is this going to lead to some sort of argument about "secularism" being bad because those pusing ID want to push permissivness or something?

Why must you continual impugn the character of those who say, "Look there is all this data for evolutionary theory, and zip for ID. We should go with evolutionary theory until something comes along to change our mind"?

Thus, we find pictures in Biology textbooks of moths on tree bark in England showing their colour adaptation to correspond to the tree bark, but nobody bothers to ask the question, "Are these moths even found on tree bark?" (when the answer is 'no'). It's a simple illustration to 'prove' the evolutionists' point, but it's a false example that most won't even realize is 'staged' to bring the argument to a level they can understand.

Uhhhm, this is false. You'd be better served not drinking Jonathan Wells' kool-aid without checking the facts first.

Shane, you have been lied to. Frankly, I'd be mad when I found out somebody lied to me, but YMMV.

Some of my discomfort with evolutionism is with the conclusions its adherents sometimes arrive at. Natural selection was the scientific basis for the 'superiority of the Aryan race'.

If I use a car to run you down in a crosswalk should we get rid of cars? Should we favor unicycles as a replacement? The point is that because some people pervert and misuse a concept does not render the initial concept invalid. This is a typical creationist bromide by the way.

...I agree with the post-er higher up who said something about how this debate will not really solve any of the theological questions that people have about God.

It isn't supposed to. If you think I'm trying to convince anybody to become an athiest (and technically even I don't qualify) you are seriously mistaken.

sheesh, don't you guys ever just sit around talk about the weather? Mother Nature, God bless her.

You say this is a "scientific debate". It's not.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (observation based etc), whereas ID is based on religion and a belief in a god (one without a creator one must assume).

The debate is about whether ID (religion) should be tought in science class or not. Hence, one does not have to be a scientist to have a valid opinion.

So, now that that hurdle is gone, what IS your opinion in this debate?

Shane; religeous faith is blind faith as it is based on stories written by men. You can not find me any real, touchy-feely, evidence that any part of any religeon has any validity when referring to a creator or intelligent designer. Perhaps it's the voices in your head that are validating your belief in a god. My belief is that god is, at best, an absentee landlord.

I'll preface this by admitting I haven't read all the comments. Here's a question that has perhaps not been addressed - for the random chance version of evolution to be considered, there has to be a start point. That is, a point in which the chemical soup that was swirling about the planet evolved into a form of life that was able to reproduce itself.

Let us dismiss the notion that this was a single "spark" of chance. To have been successful, the process must have repeated many, many times - millions, perhaps billions of times. Otherwise, it's unlikely it would have occured at all.

So, here is my question - we have a pretty good idea what elements were in play during the formative years of the earth. The process by which life erupted can't have been extremely complex - see above.

Why has it not been duplicated in a labratory setting? One would think that this would be the most fundamental of all evolutionary experiments - to replicate that simple process.

After all, we''ve been able to duplicate far more complex natural physical processes - nuclear fission, generation of electricity to name the obvious.

Why not the creation of life?

People blog what interests them. I'm always a little surprised at "Why dont you blog about X?"

Thanks for adding to the blogfather post.

re: your last. Evolution doesn't address the origin of life. How the first 'chemicals that could replicate themselves" came to be has many possible theories, including 'God did it.'

We presume so much. Just because we see births and deaths, beginnings and endings in our tiny world, that is not a logical reason to presume the universe begins and ends. Maybe it only changes or resonates but never begins or ends.

Human nature seems to be self-erasing. We create man made clubs called *religions*, and then we kill each other in great numbers because we are sure our *man made* religion is the one and only, backed by an unseen and unknown galaxy wide original authority.

Let's hope we never find a shred of real evidence of the origins of the universe.

You know what that will lead to. Why nuclear war of course.

Half the happy gang will decide the evidence
of creation is valid, and the other half will be just as certain it is a hoax, thus the very logical grounds for nuclear war.

In the meantime warring over fundamentalism and materialism will keep us from being too bored.

After all, what a waste Television and newspaper news resources would be without wars to keep us alert and focused. eh? 73s TG

I think the biggest flaw with ID (or "the God of the Gaps" theory) is that it supposes that the things about biology that we do not now understand we will never understand.

ID: Evolution doesn't explain X, therefore God must have done it.
Science: Actually, new research shows X is caused by Y
ID: Okay, but evolution doesn't explain part Q of X, therefore God must have done it.
Science:...

You see? The gaps keep shrinking as our knowledge expands. The great danger of ID is that it stops questioning. If you accept the simple, "God did it," why is there any more reason to look into something? This is akin to parents telling their 5-yr-old "because" to stop them from asking "why." While it may be effective parenting in some opinions, it should not be encouraged as a way of doing science.

Kate,

Thanks for replying, but I think you avoided the actual question:
- The debate is about whether ID (religion) should be tought in science class or not, what is your opinion on that?

(The 'first cause' debate is an old one, and, I think, irrelevant in this context. Please note that the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to answer the question of how 'it all started'. ID, on the other hand does, in a religious manner, i.e. it says God started it all. However, ID does not explain how God came about...)

In any case, when you get a chance... religion in science class or not?

Of course theres intellegent design becuase god is intellegent all these evolutionist can show us is a few fossels some bone fragments and a rediclous idea and let us not forget the hoax known as PILTDOWN MAN and the thing they call NEBRASKA MAN came from what was later found to be a pigs tooth and DONALD JOHANSENEs LUCY comes from nothing but a kneebone evolutionists have come up with not one bit of proof evolution is so stupid and rediclous

Fortunately most people have evolved beyond the posting of curlew. It's always nice to know what god is and what it may be thinking--all you have to do is listen to people like curlew who claim to be in constant contact with god and also claim an intimate knowledge of the supposed entity.

Obviously, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. To wit: that one determine from a study of an object or event whether or not it could have been the result of pure chance.It may be correct or not, but to assert that it's not science is plain dishonest.

Evolutionism, by the way, is not science, as it speculates on matters not susceptible to proof. Darwin was not an evolutionist; Darwinian evolution is science.

Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is purely speculative as ID is "not susceptable to proof"(ebt).

Well there it is, curlew, a died in the wool anti-evolutionists, anti-science, and basically a pro-ignorance poster.

Piltdown Man: Science discovered the hoax, eventaully rejected Piltdown Man and it no longer considered evidence for evolution. Score one for science.

Nebraska Man: Scientists and the initial discoverer were dubious about the implications of the tooth that was found. Nebraska Man never even made it so far as to be considered evidence for the evolution of man. Score two for science.

"Lucy" (a.k.a. Australopithecus afarensis): Curlew has it wrong, unsurprisingly. About 40% of Lucy's skeleton was found. Further, there was no intact knee found with Lucy. The knee joint that was found, was found by the same guy who found Lucy, and found the knee several kilometers away. Johnson never claimed the knee came from Lucy, this conflation was basically the result of errors on the part of creationists or deliberate attempts to mislead people. Score three for science.

Curlew has a pitiful zero.

These are all common creationists responses as to why evolution must be false. Of course, even if they were true these arguments do not support creationists. Creationists seem to suffer an extremely powerful version of the either/or fallacy. They seem to think that if evolutionary theory is false, that creationism must be true.

ebt,

In science nothing can be proven. Only a dogmatist would conclude that something has been proven in science. Hence you position is internally inconsistent and incoherent.

Here is a link to an intersting article that reviews a new book responding to creationist/ID attacks on evolutionary science: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/missing_links?mode=PF

One has to recognize that for years evolutionary science has largely ignored the creationist/ID movements. However, with (1) the stepped up assaults on science, (2) the growing importance of scientific capability in the emerging "flattened" world economy (see Friedman's book - the World is Flat) and (3) the decline in US graduation rates for scientists, there is a newly perceived need to engage anti-science movements, even though this distracts from undertaking the basic science.

A scientist would much rather explore and apply evolutionary principles to cure diseases than engage in debate with curfew et al, but curfew et al are becoming a significant impediment to finding those cures.

Regarding the question of why evolutionary science has not replicated the formation of life from inert chemicals, first, this is not part of evolutionary science. Evolutionary science studies the principles of change within life systems. Second, I don't think that this area (ignition of life processes) gets much funding. Evolutionary science helps devise new treatments, drugs, nutrients and so forth. I'm not aware of any applications for replicating life-ignition processes. The big money seems to be going into nano-robots (nanobots) and other "nano" processes, which have more obvious engineering potential.

As to the foundation of morality, Matt Ridley and others make a good case for the evolution of moral inclinations. This is a contingent, empirically based morality, I acknowledge. There are those who want apodictic authority for morals and, essentially, argue for morality based on the structure of grammar (reason). I find fact more convincing than grammar. But if ebt finds grammar more convincing, I'll live with that, so long as ebt acts morally. The bottom line is, in what situations do we take away liberties of others without feeling guilt?

On moths--a personal experience.

At a camp in Algonquin park (parent visiting day) I happened to see a moth on a tree trunk. I summoned three nearby 9-year old girls and told them to find the moth on the trunk, telling them to look at eye level. After a good minute or more, none of them could locate the moth. I touched the moth and it flew away right before their amazed eyes.

Moths do rest on trees.

In what respect is the ID hypothesis not susceptible to proof? Its opponents keep insisting that it's wrong. How could they know that if it weren't susceptible to proof?

ebt

Again, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding for what science does. Science does not prove anything, what it does do is provide evidence for hypotheses and theories. We accept the notion of gravity because the evidence suggests that it is the most likely explanation for what we observe. But gravity has not been "proven" like a mathematical theorem.

ID is problematic because it ultimately must come back to a supernatural designer. Dembski has argued that natural processes cannot create Complex Specified Information (CSI). This is his "new Law of Thermodynamics" the Law of Conservation of Information. Hence you cannot have aliens or some other being that came about via natural processes. Thus the only remaining explanation is God or a Godlike being. Behe has also argued that IC systems cannot come about via natural processes either. Hence we are back at the supernatural, or a natural process we don't know of.

So you are left with either an appeal to ignorance as the basis of ID (a logical fallacy) and one that will be rejected once the natural process is discovered (unless ID ends up paralzying scientific research). Or you are left with the supernatural that explains everything and hence nothing. This latter is scientifically vacuous and should be rejected outright, IMO.

This is why ID is bad. Either IDists must address these concerns of give up, IMO.

Lecture me about science when you get out of Grade 9, boy. You've entirely failed to demonstrate that there's anything unscientiifc about ID. The fact that you don't like the people advancing it and doubt their motives is simply not relevant. So is the fact that you think it's wrong. I happen to think it's wrong, too.

But: whether it's actually possible to determine by observation that a phenomenon could not have occured by chance, but had to have been the result of conscious action, is a scientific question. I take it wording like "susceptible to proof" is a bit too classical to suit you, so have it your way. There ought to be evidence for and against such a theory, which would allow us to accept or reject it.

I've seen very effective critiques of Dembski, by the way, but yours is nonsense. He routinely uses a pocket watch as an example of a phenomenon too complex and structured to be natural. He has never suggested that only God can make a watch.

Prove the existence of a god/creator and you may then advance this ID notion. Hey, maybe curlew can help as curlew seems to be in contact with god or seems to know what this entity thinks--got a minute curlew?

super free http://sobachka.pc321.com/1 html and http://sobachka.pc321.com/1 and .... no free http://sobachka.pc321.com/4 yes and http://sobachka.pc321.com/1 and super http://sobachka.pc321.com/3 .Thanks.

or super http://anasha.server.us/7 html super http://anasha.server.us/3 and .... and or http://anasha.server.us/5 super and http://anasha.server.us/4 free no http://anasha.server.us/7 .Thanks.

I've seen very effective critiques of Dembski, by the way, but yours is nonsense. He routinely uses a pocket watch as an example of a phenomenon too complex and structured to be natural.

Yeah, and guess what not a single proponent of evolutionary theory argues a pocket watch came about via natural processes. Perhaps if you could find such an example you and Dembski might be onto something.

And no offense, but teaching 9th grade science is totally insufficient to give you the kind of understanding necessary to grasp Dembski's arguments and see their problems. I seriously doubt you can even articulate the Likelihood Principle without googling it.