No it's not pirates day.
[url http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4419796.stm]
Friggin Kansas, oh wait I live in Kansas >_<
cough cough I'm getting weak here dies

Funny thing is that even Vatican has rejected the intelligent design theory

google news

Evolution turned me into a newt!

Is that official list available online anywhere?

Look on the bright side: at least they're not being thought that the Bible is literally true...

Correction: international.

Let's pick some from the BBC article:

Lack of explanation I won't comment on because it hinges on what is meant in this context by `explanation'. But lack of evidence?

I'd like to hear in what way. As far as I know it's perfectly consistent.

One would have thought that the existence of ring species is enough to settle the debate on evolution. Apparently one cannot underestimate human blockheadedness.

But they did redefine science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Yay, astrology is a science now!

[EDIT]
Ok, apparently that was Pennsylvania. Idiocy's not just limited to Kansas it seems. USA! USA!

[EDIT2]
They apparently did rewrite the definition after all: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

And this is bad, how? A theory is only as good as the arguments against it. And please, the last thing we need is more people who don't use critical thinking.

That's entirely possible. Probable? I don't know. Possible, of course. But I'm not so sure how this equates to a science class.

The fundementalists are going about it entirely wrong. They don't need religion in science classes. They just need optional religious classes. Certainly everyone can benefit from knowing more about religions to prevent bigotry and other misinformation.

I'm amazed by how little people know about other religions. I once said, "I want a bracelet that says, 'What would Buddah do?'" and I was asked if I was jewish.

Because Intelligent Design IS. NOT. SCIENCE. No matter what arguments they use to push it.

I didn't say that.

Then why should it be taught in Science classes?

They're being sneaky! Is that a sin?

The bible says that the universe was created by a higher being. The bible also says it is never wrong. Therefore the universe WAS created by a higher being. That's science. It takes solid evidence and uses logic to create a solid theory based on said evidence. Duh.

----

On a more serious note:
Yes, I know what you mean by people are ignorant of other religions. Jehova witnesses will offer me bibles or tell me how great the Mormons are when I'm wearing my Buddhist prayer beads. Then they will ask me, "Do you go to church often?"

A-mi-to-fo.

But the theory of intelligent design is right! If "Natural Selection" was true, the morons should have been dead long before they got to rule the education of a whole state.

I'm sure that would make for some good mottos, such as: HIV, hard at work promoting natural selection!

By its nature science is incapable of proving things absolutly. Ideas are suggested and people perform tests. Over time as the number of tests and evidence accumulated for an idea increases the idea becomes more and more accepted. That is how scientific theories work. Scientific theories can be disproven or replaced with a better more supported theory, and I say that ID does neither of these to evolution.

Most people are ignorant of every religion, including their own. Both in the stupid human tradition sense, and the real meaning of it.

I've been trying to intelligently grow a tail for a very long time now and nothing has happened I'm a fairly intelligent person what am I doing wrong here???

I wonder why hasn't anyone yet posted these two thingies

You're a furry.

(oh, and do read this)

People interested in the subject who understand Swedish can read Genesis, a magazine that spends a lot of time arguing against evolution. A bunch of old issues are available for free as PDF files. (My older sister used to be a subscriber.) I find it interesting reading. I'm not convinced the evolutionists are wrong, but there are intelligent scientists who think so.

I'm a Christian, but to me, it's no big deal if evolution is true. The creation described in the bible fits quite well with that theory anyway, if you read the seven days as seven "periods of time". It there was evolution, it was a plan behind it, and not just random.

What even the mistakes?

God speaks through me.

Good God!

Bad God! Bad God! No treat for you!

Not Dog, God! She's not a dog.. or is..

Why can't both theories coexist? The world may have be created just 5 minutes ago! But how could you know that? The world could be created to have a history. You could've been created to think that you've existed for dozens of years.

Anyways, religions are always about belief. They aren't something you can prove or otherwise they wouldn't be a question of faith. Arguments between sciences and religion are always void.

Yeah, yeah, evolution is wrong! It just stands to reason... Consider Newtons theory of gravity giving way to Einsteins theory of relativity, and now they have that superstring stuff. Science is constant refinement under the assault of new facts, ideas etc. BUT, the refinements are just "fine tuning" of the basic model. Einsteins theory didn't say apples would elevate themselves into space. So evolution is "wrong" if you have a boolean mind and 1 part incorrect as opposed to 99 parts correct makes it a lie. OTOH, the bible isn't updated according to new evidence, it's just reshuffled as the old versions language usage becomes to archaic to understand, and there is some cultural bias thrown in. Kind of like astrologers, ask them the chain of reasoning that lead them to conclude you will be financially successful this year based on the position of a planet projected against some stars.

Actually, it could also have been created half an hour from now.

Because theories for which there is no proof shouldn't be taught to children, or for that matter, anyone. If you do, you might as well add to the curriculum that Pink Unicorns rule the moon, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world... after all, they have about the same quality of evidence going for them, which surely must mean that they too should be taught in schools?

The US is causing worldwide problems in this area. We cannot allow religious fanatics to undo hundreds of years of scientific thinking. We should not allow this sort of nonsense to spred. People need to be taught what science is, not just what science says. Otherwise the lay person cannot tell the difference between the two sets of "facts" that the scientists and the fanatics are feeding them.

That's really not funny. There are people that actually believe what you just said. You should never even pretend to agree with these people. They are a horrible blight on society.

Karadoc, you need to spend some quality time with YTMND.

This whole argument is dumb. It's just too hot of a topic to do anything with. They take their side, the others take theirs, and both are staying where they are. Not to mention the pure amount of garbage that has filled up what we believe to be "facts" as a result of both sides trying to push their arguments.
What's worse is how this conflict is infecting ... everything! But, I guess if it isn't this it'd be something else.

I thought this was a pretty good summary of my feelings:
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/theories8yd8gr.gif

I don't know what that means. "define:YTMND" on google tells me "You're the man now dog". I didn't look into it, but I don't think that's what you meant.

How about you just say what you mean. Do you disagree with what I said?
Or should I say:
How about you just SWYM. Do you DWWIS?

I'm sure this has been posted before: http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/gravity.html

Just in case it's not clear, I'm 100% behind Karadoc here. Religion really is a blight on humanity, especially the people who do downright insane things like this. What is this, the middle ages? Where the hell were these people when we discovered science? Or common sense, for that matter?

I mean, seriously... what is more likely? A coherent theory based entirely on natural processes and piles upon piles of physical, observable evidence using modern techniques by thousands of modern scientists, or the absolutely unconfirmable words written down by a select group of people between 5000 and some 800 years ago who didn't even agree with each other and claims an unexplained beard in the sky did it?

Intelligent Design has exactly the same kind of backing behind it that the Pink Unicorn theory and the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory does; which is absolutely none. It is not based on anything resembling science, it has no scientific basis, and should not be taught as part of a science course, ever. Discuss it in social studies or religious studies or what have you all you want, along with the rest of them, but keep it out of my science classroom.

For me, religion would seem to be within the realm of the household, not state-sponsored education. Your parents can beat you with the Jesus Stick(tm) all day long, but once you go to school you should be asked to deal with things that are... like... empirical, ya know?

The separation of church and state is a good thing.

The real problem with the argument and why it doesn't get resolved is that how one views the evidence is largely affected by acceptance of certain axioms. Evolutionists assume that there can be no divine intervention so they interpret the evidence in that light. Creationists assume that God created everything in a certain way and they interpret the evidence in that light.

All ID is doing is trying to debunk (or at least open people up to challenging) Darwinism because they think that it is inadequate at explaining all the design in nature. They aren't aligning themselves with any particular God but simply asserting that some sort of intelligent force has acted in the past to create the bioligical systems that are in place today.

Really, one side is not going to convince the other side of anything. Both sides will only end up frustrated that their "opponent" cannot see the truth.

I wouldn't say that about all religions though. Some of them aren't so bad. Generally the ones that just focus on ways of life rather than belief systems are ok. It's the forcing of unfounded beliefs onto others that I'm against.

The truth is that we don't know how all of these things were created. There are theories, some are a lot more reasonable than others in our current time.

Religions are difficult for me to grasp because they require me to do something I don't believe in: blindly believe.

Rubbish. "Intelligent Design" is a marketing ploy for creationism, pure and simple.

... and because this can't be repeated enough: ID ISN'T SCIENCE. Even if the theory of natural selection was 100% wrong and the Earth was in fact created 10 minutes ago by leprechauns, ID/creationism still wouldn't have any place in a science classroom. No predictions, no testability, no falsifiability => not science.

Well, they do. But very few people can accept both. People tend to mix them. Science is about the world that human is watching and interpreting, religion is about the human watching the world. The bad mix happened when the concept of science was gradually invented, long after, say Genesis was written. Or after Kalevala was told, as well. After that people started to read Genesis and the other books as science.

A bad mix from the opposite point of view happens, too. People tend to look at nature and find scientifical facts about human and try to legitimate morality aspects based on scientific facts. For instance, some people claim that homosexuality might be due to a genetic anomality and therefore it should be considered a natural acceptable condition. Some claim that homosexuality is due to some psychological trauma in the childhood and therefore it should be treated with therapy. Well, I believe homosexuality in some cases might be due to genetics, in some other cases to environmental factors. Either way, you can't legitimate homosexuality based on that. You have to legitimate it based on other things, like what is the real meaning of two people sharing their lives together and how do they fit in the human community.

Please don't continue on this gay topic in this thread. Feel free to start a new thread instead. My point was only that you shouldn't shoot down scientifical theories (like Darwin) with religious reasons. And you shouldn't shoot down the meaning of religion with non-antropocentric scientifical arguments.

Evolution is about nature, based purely on nature studies.
Intelligent design theory is not quite the same thing. It includes the religious reason. At least it attracts people because of their religious reasons, not because the theory's scientifical values.

[edit, less than 10 mins ago ]

Right, because the leprechauns did some good work in creating the concept of science and in that concept, the concept of ID (which they also created) doesn't fit in.

Well said.

I don't think that's nescessarily so. It's certainly true of me, but I wouldn't say in general.
There is no problem in asserting that god created the universe and believing in evolution, even without invoking the cludge of intelligent design. The question should not be if god created the universe, but wether the universe can be explained without invoking the intervention of such a being. By the way, I'll be reasoning on the assumption that divine intervention is a scientific proposition that can be analysed and argued for or against. If you don't approve of this approach, don't read on.
For physics and cosmology, I would say that as we learn more about the nature of elementary particles and the universe, it becomes clear that postulating a divine being to explain all things is less and less nescessary. In prehistoric times when man did not understand fire and thunder they were assumed to be devine. Now, god's ability to meddle in human affairs is greatly reduced. For me this is a hint that no god had any say in the creation of the universe.

To evolution and Darwinian evolution. The question is not wether things like speciation exist, because as Darwin argued in his book, this can clearly be seen. If you need further proof, look up the link I posted above about ring species. The question also is not wether selection works because that too can be seen clearly (in a laboratory, breeding for a certain quality) and even understood without trouble. Even that natural selection works in principle should be obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it for a second or two.

The question, then, is if natural selection is sufficient to explain the variety of species we see today.
To the best of my knowledge (I'm not a biologist, and I can only refer to popular literature, for instance Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale and references to original literature therein) current evidence and observations says that it can and earlier claims that the mutation rate is too low are superceded by new measurements.
Intelligent design claims that natural selection is not sufficient and invokes divine intervention to explain the surplus of evolution that natural selection cannot explain.

So, there you have it: a scientifically sound check to test the main premise of intelligent design. Obviously, if it fails the check, well, maybe god made it so that it would. But that line of reasoning is not science.

If you are interested in ID, please feel free to read some info on the ongoing trial in America about teaching it:

[url http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn8061]

Intelligent Design is not a theory. I don't think it's even a hypothesis. I'd call it more of an unfounded assumption. If Intelligent Design was a theory, then so would be Intelligent Falling, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Sorry to go a little off-topic in this interesting thread.

But it seems that the important question here is : What is science ?

That is incorrect. Science is quite open to most possibilities; but there exists no evidence that divine intervention has ever taken place. That is why intelligent design is not credible science, and why evolution is. Evolutionists are not automatically assuming it can't be true; they've looked at the evidence for creationism and found it to be nonexistent.

Well, as I said above, there are two things to intelligent design, one of which is a scientific claim (meaning we can use science to study the thesis).

This is the claim that natural selection is not sufficient to describe the diversity we see around us. This is a falsifyable claim and within the realm of scientific investigation. If it's found to be false (and I think it is false), then the viability of intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis is gone.
The other thing is what we deduce if we did find that natural selection is not sufficient. The claim of intelligent design is that we need divine intervention to explain the surplus. This is not a verifiable claim and hence outside the realm of science.

I wonder what happens if we find (intelligent) life on other planets?
Bible said God created people by his look. I wonder by whose look did he create those other creatures. Perhaps they say that God has several faces or something
I think the Bible doesn't say there exist any other life forms besides what is on Earth. Probably it also doesn't say that it does not exist so just as with fitting evolution theory to creatonism extraterrestial life could be fitted too.

Does anyone know what religions think about the fossils that are supposedly from Mars?

Anyway, finding intelligent life on other planets will severely screw up most religion beliefs. Perhaps thats why there is all this coverup around aliens, to avoid massive panic

They obviously look just like us. Don't you watch Star Trek?

Best to leave those fossils from Mars where they belong: in science fiction stories.
What was thought to be fossils from Mars a couple of years ago have turned out to be perfectly normal anorganic mineral deposits. Fascinating from a geological point of view, but not from a biological one.

Read "Out of the Silent Planet" by C. S. Lewis.

I don't believe in intelligent life on other planets, either.

"Intelligent Design"...If God is so smart, how come he created science then? To make us doubt?

How come he created sin?

That's because science is made by satan! Nooo, we're all doomed!

heh, I didn't know that. I red about them some years ago and I haven't red anything about these stories being wrong. Too bad

On a similar topic, aren't there several missions planned to find out if there really is/was life on Mars? They have quite good reasons to believe there once was open water sea there so life was probably not very unlikely.

Hmm, roughly 100 pages. I might read it if I put Isaac Asimov’s “Robot,” “Empire,” and “Foundation” series aside for a while

I don't believe in intelligent life on other planets, just as I don't believe in God
I do believe that we are not alone in the universe. Only problem is that it is so big there is little chance of two intelligent species from different planets to ever meet

Why did he made people able to not believe in him

This is the kind of confusion that made me turn to the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

When I was in high school, I believed in Evolution because my teacher told me to. I stopped believing it a few years ago when I went and learned about it myself (and no, not from religious sources ), because the problems I found with the theory had never even come up and I could never find an honest answer; just "How dare you question Evolution! It's established! Evolutionists agree it's true! Here's a bunch of evidence that says we're right and that's that! Anything that challenges or goes against our views are just religious propoganda!"

Go ahead. Teach Evolution as Gospel and never mention the failings and challenges to the theory in the classroom. You'll just keep producing more of me.

Sounds like you found some really retarded people to ask. How about you ask some real scientists who can explain it to you proper? Or are you ignoring them on purpose and just looking at the easily dismissable kooks?

Hmmm; first place I went was here. Read quite a bit of stuff on that site back when I was into this. Just so I know whether it has the X-G Seal Of Approval, are those "really retarded people" and "easily dismissable kooks"?

Yeah, it's always the need for absolute answers what makes anyone to turn to religion instead of science.

Because, of course, the two are in conflict.

Indeed! Why would you need faith then, if you can prove what you're talking about?

Faith requires evidence (or "faith follows facts" as the saying goes). Only a complete cretin believes in something for no reason, even if it's a bad one.

Come on, that's a faulty argument, and you know it .

Not to say I'm criticizing your beliefs, I'm a spaghetti monsterist myself.

I assume you're just trolling?

Anyway, I'm going to work soon, so I'll see you later when the thread is closed.

But what evidence do have religious believers, for their faith ?

No, it's just difficult to discuss when we are not talking about the same thing.

The genetic sciences, vast fossil records and scientific studies done which show (slowly) evolution occuring now makes it hard for me to doubt the general idea of evolution. As for the precise details, I'm ok for people to argue about them.

Do you doubt genetics and the evidence of evolution 23?

Oh; okay! Ummm .... bye then.

Not sure sure I understand the first question; do I doubt I have genetic code? Not really. And it's not that I doubt the evidence of evolution; I just don't think it goes terribly far in proving much. Most real-world examples of evolution I've been shown as "proof" (finch beaks, moths that change colour, bacteria experiments in general) are just high-school level heredity, for example. But it's held up as so much more in the papers I've read. All of which leaves me incredibly underwhelmed and makes me wonder if people are just fooling themselves at this point. The concern I have is that evolution is so well established that no one considers things like the "challenges". That comic David McCallum posted is perfect; heaven forbid people learn to think and reason for themselves ...

What about domesticaded pigs, sheep, dogs and other animals? They are not yet a new species but not too far from it I think.

Well, here's one example of possible evolution in humans:
[url http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn7974]

That's completely silly. There is no mechanism by which more intelligent people are selected for breeding. Humans will never evolve without something like fascism to do the selecting ...and I'm sure that we can all agree that this will hopefully never happen.

You give a creationist the same evidence and they will tell a different story about it which is based on their own understanding of the way things are.

The term evolution is also misused because it has a double meaning. When people say evolution is true and we can observer it today, they are talking about natural selection. Then they say, "I told you evolution is true," referring to the bigger picture type of evolution where everything is a cosmic accident with no design and no purpose.

Religion and evolution are not opposed to each other. Christianity and evolution (again speaking of the "big picture" kind) are opposed to each other. Basically Darwinism requires millions of generations of death leading to ever more complicated life-forms. The Christian viewpoint is that death did not exist until man sinned and that is where the hang-up is.

If you did not study this for yourself then you don't really know. The evolution story is explained in "great detail" all the time in various places but they conveniently wave over the problems as if some day they will magically be solved.

Now what harm is there in teaching there are problems with evolution theory? The evolutionists don't have anything to worry about since their theory is so strong, right? Wouldn't pointing out the problems help the up-and-coming scientists of the future to solve the problems?

James, read again. The article makes no claims about what these new adaptions do:

They've been studying human brain genetics for several thousand years? Facinating ....

That's not my point. By calling them "adaptions" there is the implication that they have come about by some form of natural selection.

I'm going to say something that might be offensive, but it's the honest truth. Intelligent Design is a reasonable hypothesis. I think people get so wrapped up in what they believe to realize that it's not totally crazy to suggest that someone created all of this, and all of us. Certainly it's possible.

However, facts are not a democracy, and the theory of evolution is well supported with millions of years worth of fossil evidence. Whether or not evolution explains every detail is beyond me, but it's one of the most robust theories in science.

You can't vote on facts. So treating evolution and intelligent design as equal theories / hypotheses is a fallacy. One is heavily supported, the other has yet to be proven.

On the other hand, I wouldn't call people stupid for suggesting intelligent design as a hypothesis.

EDIT
Remember, there's nothing completely random about natural selection.

My studies do not agree
Scientifically speaking evolution is just a lucky mutation.

The body can mutate (this has been demonstrated by science), for a number of reasons, during DNA replication, often the changes are so small they aren't noticed, more often the mutation will bring to the death of the being, rarely the mutation is good and encreases the being's fitness (and chances to reproduce), thus transforming into evolution

Natural Selection != Mutation.

Natural Selection says the strongest survive. What becomes the strongest can come of slight mutations. If a slight mutation makes a creature only SLIGHTLY more survivable, then over time, that gene will propogate.

Natural Selection is not random.

Even mutations are not 100% random. Certain genes are geared towards mutations, others are not.

But genetic mutations are MUCH more random than natural selection.

BEGIN LONG POST

Ah. When I posted that comic, I had interpreted it as meaning that if you must mention Intelligent Design in schools, then there's no limit to the psuedo-science you're introducing...

Every year, flu season comes around, and this year will be no exception. When people want to be protected from it, they use a vaccine. Researchers need to develop a new set of vaccines every year, because there are always new mutations, new strains of the virus. The vaccines work by introducing a weakened form the new strain, which the immune system can then adapt to. When the immune system is faced with the real virus, it will then be able to defeat it easily.

When you want to protect someone against an argument, you use a similar vaccination. You introduce a weakened version of your opponent's argument, one that has important points missing, or is slightly misrepresented, or even just given a negative spin. You can also insert your own opinions, or logical inconsistencies but be careful! The argument has to look like the real thing, and it has to be superficially valid. Now when the person encounters the real, original argument, he'll be safe.

This works amazingly well because 1) argument vaccinations tend to be shorter than the real thing, and 2) people hate to think for long periods of time, and will tend to ignore the real argument if it's long or complicated anyways.

I have yet to see a real, unbiased debate on any complicated subject that didn't occur under very controlled conditions. This is because people don't tend to want to learn anything from you, they want to convince you that they're right. (ie not interested in determining the truth, but interested in spreading their version of it)

David's Rule of Argument:
A person who is interested in changing your views will tend to use argument immunization, especially if they're not aware of it, or even of why they're arguing in the first place.

INTERMISSION
At this point, I invite you to take some time out to critically evaluate my second paragraph. Was it written because I was interested in learning something, or interested in convincing/persuading? Does the motivation behind an argument impact it's validity? (ie by causing the poster to use argument immunization techniques) Is this always unavoidable?

As a rule of thumb, anyone who sounds certain of anything other than the simplest real-world issues is wrong. It's only a matter of determining how, and why. This includes politicians, religious figures, people who claim to be scientists, etc.

THE CONCLUSION, AND POINT OF THIS POST:
23yrold: It's good for people to reason and think for themselves, but they will find it almost impossible to have an informed opinion if they're exposed to immunizations and not the 'real' arguments. (I'm not talking about the kids in school, I'm talking about you and me here). The debate over whether kids should learn by exploring and if kids should learn by being told what's right is an entirely different issue, IMO.

Every now and then, some physics hobbyist decides to talk to me about why he doesn't believe in quantum mechanics. I know a heck of a lot about quantum mechanics, and I know that there is a large body of evidence to support it; but it is still difficult to reason with these people, because they have their own 'creditable sources' which feed them all sorts of nonsense about why QM is wrong. It can be frustrating trying to convince them without just saying "look, go study physics for 4 years and then you'll understand."
Obviously people don't want to have to spend years and years studying just so that they'll understand a couple of interesting points about quantum mechanics, or about evolution; so they tend to look for shortcuts.

I'm no expert on evolution, but I know that there is a large body of evidence to support it. The experts will know about this evidence, but it is likely that most other people will not. I've heard a lot in favour of evolution; similar bone structures in land and sea animals, pathways to get from one species to other, instructions on how small (evolution sized) steps can lead to something as complex as the eye. I've heard a lot in favour of evolution, and I understand that it is a scientific theory and that the people who built the theory know a lot more about biology than you or I. I know of many books I can turn to if I ever want to learn more about the specifics of how evolution explains something, but we can't all be experts at everything.
My field is physics, and just as the biologists trust me on quantum mechanics, I trust them on evolution. In science we trust, because the scientific method is our best method of uncovering the truth.

ID has it's own share of problems. For example, if we were designed, then why did the designer do such a crappy job of it? Our eyes, for example, the blind spot could be avoided; and we could be made far less susceptible to various forms of blindness with relatively minor changes. Evolution can explain how our eyes turned out like this, but for ID all we can say is that the designer must have had some alteria motive, or was just a novice designer.

Intelligent design is not science. It really isn't. Evert, I know you reasoned for a little while that it could be tested; but you must realise that disproving evolution is not proving ID. ID is not falsifiable, it is not testable, it is not predictive. Our current ideas about evolution may turn our to be wrong, but that does not point to ID; it just points to anything else. Intelligent design is just a gap filler, the sort of 'theory' people come up with for a quick and easy answer that will fit in any problem. Don't know how it works? God did it! Not only is a not science, it is anti-science.

The problem with evolution is that everyone thinks they can have an informed opinion on the subject. You don't ask random people in the street what they think about quantum physics, do you? Why would their opinion on evolution be any better?

Anyway, I'll reiterate my point.
There's no question of wether or not there are mutations and modifications.
There's no debate on wether or not selection based on certain properties leads to new races and new species (and I refer again to ring species).
There is no reasonable way to doubt that natural selection works in principle.
Where there may be room for discussion is in wether natural selection is sufficient. Proponents of intelligent design claim that it is not and invoke divine intervention to explain what they feel natural selection lacks.

There are two steps here. The first is that natural selection is insufficient. The second is that this implies intelligent design.

One can find fault and argue over either of these two points. I assert that the first is false but I won't try to guess what points are raised against it and try to debunk them.

I will put forth a counter argument for the second assumption, that of intelligent design. One often cited example (at least historically) of `intelligent design' is that of the eye. Considering the many obvious flaws in the design of the eye (nerves running over the retina, to name but one) one can hardly call the design `intelligent'. To top it off, there are different types of eye in the animal kingdom. Why? Because the designer figured that he would design different eyes, each with their own mistakes and shortcomings? Why wouldn't an intelligent designer have designed one good eye and reused it in all creatures? Why wouldn't he have improved his design?
To me, this seems enough to refute the hypothesis of intelligent design where the eye is concerned. I see no reason the same line of reasoning couldn't be adapted to any other biological system one cares to mention, if it is studied and understood thoroughly enough.

EDIT: hehe... @Karadoc: couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't like how people are bring up the peasant defense.

The Peasant defense goes something like this:
We are all peasants and only the experts should have a say in all of this.

While we can not all be experts, we have an obligation to ourselves and others to become more informed and be able to make decisions for ourselves.

While it's important to remember that we are all peasants, and we should listen to the experts with a bit more of an open ear than, let's say, Evert, it's also important not to take a defeatist attitude toward an argument.

There is something which appears to be missed here. Evolutionists will argue that all life springs forth from a single original organisms. (How that organism got there is a matter of debate.) The straw-man creationist will assert that all species were created as they are by God in the beginning. Probably, there are some poeple who will assert this but those in the ID camp do not. Rather, they would say that the "Intelligent Designer" created a variety of creatures which would "evolve" into several similiar creatures.

So, in the Ring Specis Gull example, both Darwinists and IDers would agree that all of those gulls descended from one species, but have drifted apart genetically since that time. The difference is whether the Gull originally came from other species, or whether it was intelligently designed at its start.

Now, at this point it would be silly to try and assert that new species do not "evolve." We've seen it happen. The question is whether these relativly minor changes neccesairly extend to more major changes. I.E. we can evolve new specis, but can we evolve a new genus? The best way to prove this either way would be to give it enough time and observe organisms to see if it happens. The problem is that neccesairly takes a long time.

So, we have a few ways of trying to get around the problem.
1. We can argue about whether or not a certain structure could evolve. This is what the argument about irreducible complexity falls under. However, arguing over the abstract possibility of something happening only goes so far.

2. We can investigate the fossil record and such things to try and determine what happened from the evidence it left behind. The problem here is that its almost always possible to construct multiple explanations of any evidence.

If you find a bucket full of water outside, you might conclude that it was left there and the rained filled it in. However, its just as possible that somebody filled it up with a hose for some purpose and intends to return and use it. Unless you either find a time machine or the person who filled there is no sure way of determing what actually happened.

We are all waiting for the next patchset. First one was applied when Noah built his arch and created backups of the original animals

Creationists do not assert that all species were created by God but rather that all "kinds" were created by God to reproduce after their kind. Different species within a kind arose over time through natural selection. The above quote is a common misconception about creationism. Creationists believe God included all sorts of information in the genetic code to allow for variety and that over time much information has been lost. Here is a video where a creationist pops the information question to a well-known evolutionist.

Todd Cope,

Um... I was trying to point out what you were saying... are you agreeing with me or did I completely fail in my attempt to communicate.

Huh? According to Google's definition:

• Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

• Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.

• Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

• The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

</li>
The more evidence or proof you have for something, the less faith there is in believing of that something.

This has a problem though. Intelligent design proponents typically don't want to become properly informed. They have their book that says God created everything, and that's how it is. Sure, they might go looking for points against their arguments, but they're only going to worry about ones they can counter (and make up a bunch more).

I remember having fights with my parents over the family computer (back around '95) because they said the computer was slowing down, and it must've been a virus. A virus I supposedly got by using a Doom map editor (DETH; Doom Editor for Total Headcases, a 32-bit GCC port of DEU). Never mind the fact that hundreds of other people used the same exact program and it never showed up under virus scans, but they didn't want to hear that. The program was called DETH and they "knew" it was a virus the computer got a virus because of me, and I was subsequently punished for it.

The huge problem in this whole discussion is that most ID/creationism supporters (along with loads and loads of other people) have very little knowledge of the theory they reject so harshly. I'll elaborate on some of them.
1. The amounts of time we're talking about here are so huge that we cannot possibly imagine them properly. There is this thing where they say that the 30000 odd years homo sapiens exists, compared to the time Earth exists is like a second compared to a day. Of course the cases of evolution that we can witness are tiny; but that's not because evolution can't do great things, it's because our very own life span is so unbelievably short.
2. Although the chance that the current set of co-existing life forms evolves just coincidentally is virtually zero, we cannot possibly imagine all the gazillions of other configurations that would just as well produce a more or less stable (our world isn't that stable after all) system, albeit totally different. It doesn't even have to be DNA; other complex molecules could as well have been used to store the same information. The way information is encoded is pretty arbitrary and might just as well look very very different. As an example, I like to paraphrase Hoimar von Ditfurth: Suppose a tile falls and shatters on the ground. There is no way we can possibly calculate the exact number, shape and configuration of all the shards, because the chances for this exact configuration are virtually zero. Though only a fool thinks that this means there has to be divine intervention in order to break the tile. It will break; we just don't know in what way.
The mistake that is made over and over is that people tend to think that the current situation forms the only possible one, instead of the one that just coincidentally got "chosen" (this, of course, has to do with the fact that the human mind is a part of this very system and can therefor hardly imagine anything different).
3. Lack of evidence does not render a theory void. Only a different theory that is more conclusive and provides stronger evidence does. So we are missing quite a lot of (fossile) evidence to fill the gaps in the evolution from elements to simple molecules to complex molecules to DNA to simple life forms and all the way to mammals including us humans. But there is little credible evidence to contradict it, a lot less than for it.
4. Evolution does not render God unneccessary, nor does it prove or even suggest His absence. Even Genesis (and other similar stories in other religions) remain valid, provided you don't take them too literally. Of course God did not create the world in 7 days, but (although I don't believe in this) the argument that someone or something had to set up the "rules" for the game of life is a valid one and can be resolved with the hypothesis of a God. This, however, is not asking about the "what" and the "how" (the realm of Science), but rather the "why" and the "what for" (the realm of Religion and Philosophy).

Personally, I think that we humans are stuck with the problem that we are mortal, but don't want to be; we feel that things have to make sense, but we can't seem to find the Meaning of Life. In order to resolve this, we have two options: Either take the "easy way out" and remain stuck in either blind Atheism or blind faith (of any color); or else walk the hard path and find a mature, well-thought and well-felt way to deal with the world.

Actually, it does. You need some evidence for a scientific theory. You have to demonstrate that a given hypothesis can be correct (showing and/or getting evidence in the process) before it can become a theory.

Yes, you have to show it can be correct. You don't have to show that it always is. Therefor, if there is little evidence for it, no evidence against it, and no (or less) evidence for any other theory, then the theory is the one we'll be working with. At least for now. At least in theory.

This is very true, but the knife cuts both ways. We don't actually have solid evidence either way to suggest that evolution can or can't produce great things because we haven't been around long enough to tell.

Look a this:
ajdsloanbsoidnaskdhnfajsdhrkawergailsm

Okay, we can probably safely assume that's random and typed by me hitting random keys on the keyboard.

int main(int argc, char ** argv) 
{ 
    printf("Hello Darwin!");
}

Here, the assumption is that I designed that.

The question is, what's different between the two? To borrow from Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker." One is simple and the other is complex. My random letters are simple because any random jumbling together of letters wouldn't produce anything much different from that. However, my program is "complex" because while there are many possible valid C++ programs, the possiblity of randomly arriving at one is very small. Now, if extend this to cover both C++ and Pascal, then we've approximatedly doubled both the amount of possible programs and the amount of valid programs. But taken as a percentage of the whole, the amount of valid programs has actually decreased.

So, to go back and use your tile analogy, yes a bunch of random tiles strewn around is probably just a broken one. However, to run across a bunch of tiles arranged into the words "Hello World" is a far different thing.

It renders it a hypothesis rather then a theory.

The problem with saying we can accept it as long as we don't take the bible to litterally is basically suggesting that God misled you back in the begginning by saying that he did in six days when in fact it did in six ages. It's just as valid for me to suggest that God designed to world to look like it evolved in order to fool everybody. Both statements would undermine the belief in God.

Thats the point of difference. Does religion or science determine the "what." On the religous point of view, Yahweh came down communicated with us, and died to save us. He told us that he made the world in six days. Now he told us rather little about how he made the world. Under this view, science's purpose is essentially to study how it was done.

On the other hand, the Scientific viewpoint says that it decides what happend and how it happened. That is the conflict.

Here's you're assuming that the Bible that you read is the direct words of God written on paper without any human intervention because if humans had some part in it there could be mistakes. Consider for a moment that the Bible was in fact written by humans and then passed down, transcribed and translated countless numbers of times by people who may have had personal motivations to change pieces.

Scholar Bob while translating the Bible: "Hmmm, 6 ages eh? 6 days sounds a lot cooler, I think I'll go with that."

Yup. Evidence only goes so far, and faith makes up the difference. But if you have no evidence at all, how can you have faith?

Scholar Bob would be killed instantly for messing with the Torah like that. But in the ancient Hebrew, I believe the word for "day" and "age" are roughly equivalent. Of course, the writer knowing this, he specified "And there was evening, and there was morning—the * day." So, who knows, eh?

The point remains that in taking that stance you are still denying what the bible says about itself. And you cannot just deny one part of the bible and expect the rest to remain intact. If evolution occoured, then there was death before the fall which goes against the statements made by Paul in the new testament.

On faith:
I think there is a popular misunderstanding of faith. The point isn't that you are taking a wild leap in the unknown.

Paul states that "the existence of God is self-evident leaving men without an excuse." In other words, there is no possible way to deny that God exists.

James says, "You belive God is one? That's great. But so do demons."

Faith is primarily trust in something not belief in its existence. If you have faith in your airline pilot, you aren't saying that you believe that somebody actually is flying the plane, rather you trust then he knows how to fly the plane.

blah blah blah blah

Live and let live.

If you are not happy about what's happening, do something about it instead of complaining behind the computer screen.

Which is what many monotheistic religions believe( at least Christianity I am sure about).. God DIRECTLY spoke to a human who than wrote it down.

boohoo christians are evil!

Big fucking boohoo. Get off your arse and start your own religion.

Or join Spaghetti Monsterism, like I did. Seriously, the existence of the Spaghetti Monster is self evident, so you have no reason to doubt him.

[edit]

Okay, this is really a troll post. Please ignore me.

Ahh, yes, I see it now. Sorry Winston, The first part of the paragraph threw me off. I don't agree with the statement about creationists believing God created all species as-is with no room for change. This may have existed in the past but modern creationism does not say that at all. ID and creationists are on the same page in that regard. I still don't understand what you meant when you said, "the straw-man creationist."

Creationism and ID are not the same, though. I guess the main difference is the ID people leave the question of who God is open while the creationists go with the God of the Bible. Technically, they could both be considered creationist since they both assert that everything was created on purpose by someone but I think the ID people steer clear of that label because it has a certain stigma to it. The scientific community sees it as Christians trying to sneak their religion into school.

Why are they teaching about origins in school anyway? Couldn't they just drop it. Yes, we know natural selection is true. We know mutations happen to diseases which make new strains. Whether or not these mechanisms are sufficient to give rise to life as we know it is virtually irrelevant to real-world scientific studies.

They neglected to kill the people who made the translation errors in the original Hebrew->Greek translation though.

Even setting that aside, what is a day to god? Couldn't an age be like a day to god? Isn't it plain hubris to assume that a `day' has to be what we humans call a day?

Yes, and there are no other contradictions in the bible. Let alone contradictions between the old and new testaments.

I think faith is commonly defined as a belief in something without asking for rational proof. That's certainly what it means to me.
(Note: this is not meant as a moral judgement on the subject of faith, simply on the meaning of the word).

To me, it's perfectly clear that no such thing as a god can and does exist. I see no falsifiable, scientific evidence to assume otherwise.
So clearly, it is possible.

Anyway, I don't think this was about the existence or non-existence of god or wether the bible should be taken verbatim. It was about the merits of intelligent design as a scientific theory and as I said, I don't think there's any evidence for it.

That's where logic comes in. People have faith that the world was created by God, yet there is no evidence to suggest that (and no, just because we don't know/understand something doesn't give evidence to God, whether or not he exists). Personal experience doesn't count as scientific evidence, so you have to form a logical opinion based on your personal experiences and base your faith on that.

You can have faith with no evidence. In fact, that's the only way you can get the purest form of faith. But it would be insane to have faith without a logical reason.

Nah. AFAIK, it 's known that the events in the Bible were passed on for a few generations via word-of-mouth before they were written down. In any sect, you'll have those that believe the Bible should be taken literally (usually among the extreme fundamentalists), or metaphorically.

Their evidence is design itself. According to their own studies it is mathematically impossible for purely natural processes to account for all the design and the sheer amount of information in the genome. That is the whole point of ID.

On the issue of faith, faith in something that contradicts what you can clearly see with your own two eyes is just stupid. Faith and knowledge go hand-in-hand. I mean, how can you believe in something without at least some evidence. Also of note is Paul's definition of faith:

[begin ramble]
I think that faith completes knowledge. After all, we can only know so much and even within our own brain there can be contradictory beliefs. Faith in what we already know even without all the details allows us to act. Faith is strengthened through experience.

Also we need to consider what evidence is sufficent. For some it is sufficient to hear someone else say something is true for them to believe. Others need to find out for themselves. Still others only need someone to make a logical case.

Once you believe in something your actions and thoughts will be affected by it. The more you live with a belief, the harder it will be for someone to convince you that it is false because you've lived with it and interpreted your experiences in light of it. People have turning points in their lives when they look back at their life experiences and at what they believe and see that the two don't fit together.
[end ramble]

If their studies were scientifically valid, that would be one thing. But if they're not, it has to go under the same heading as personal experience (if not outright false, depending on what, exactly, they say).

Here's what's needed for a theory to be considered scientific:

ID theory is consitent at least as much so as macro-evolution theory

ID is parsimomious, macro-evolution is not

ID is as useful as macro-evolution (not very in scientific studies)

ID is not testable or falsifiable and neither is macro-evolution

Not sure about the experiments thing

ID is correctable and I suppose macro-evolution is, too

Neither or both are progressive depending on how you look at it

Neither are tentative

To clarify something, a straw-man argument is a weak-version of the real argument which is easily demolished in order to lend support to the other side of the debate. So, when I refered to straw-man creationists, I was refering to the common weakend perception of there views.

Actually, I'm finding this funny. In all this dicussion people have been constantly claiming that ID has no evidence, but we have yet to see any dicussion of the evidence that ID at least claims that is has.

Yep. This also seems to be in the realm of argument immunization which was mentioned earlier in this thread.

I checked on Wikipedia to see what they had about ID. By reading that article you get the impression that real science has proven that ID is false. If you actually read any ID papers you will get a different impression. This paper (cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia article) goes into detail about one of the core evidences of ID, irreducible complexity.

It's too late for me to read a 45-page article, but I will comment on the idea of irreducible complexity.

First I'll repeat (again) what I think the main hypothesis of ID is: that natural selection alone is insufficient to explain the properties and diversity of species we observe. If this premise is false, then there is no backing for ID whatsoever.
And when it comes to debunking irreducible complexity, that's what many scientists have done for various examples (see also references in the article or examples in Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker).

At the danger of being repetitive, I'll take the eye again since it's the example I'm most familiar with. It shows the basic structure of the argument anyway.
Thesis: The eye is an example of irreducible complexity. This means that if you remove any part from the eye, it becomes useless so that an eye could only evolve if all its parts evolved simultaneously - the chance of which is zero.
Counter argument: The core of the argument is `if you remove any part from it, an eye becomes useless'. The flaw in this reasoning is obvious, but I'll make the point anyway. Is an eye useless if you remove, say, the lens? No, it isn't - it just works less well than it does if it did have a lens, but it still works. Nautilus doesn't have lenses in its eyes, although it's eyes are quite sophisticated otherwise. What about removing the retina? Well, that would make it pretty pointless indeed. So you cannot remove any arbitrary part, but you can deconstruct an eye, part by part, and keep something that works (albeit less well) after each step, at the last shrinking the retina and optical nerve until they're gone and you have no eye left.
Reversing the argument and question: what use is having half an eye? The stock-ID answer is `none' - which should really be none if everyone else has normal eyes. However, if you have half an eye and everyone else has no eye at all, then you clearly have an edge.

I can see the same argument being repeated across different biological systems: intelligent-designer A comes up with irreducibly complex system B, which Darwinist C shows can be decomposed into B1, B2, B3, ... smaller steps, at which point a new irreducibly complex system is proposed, which is again reduced and so on and forth ad infinitum, or until either side grows weary of the argument or a truely irreducibly system is found that cannot be explained by other means.

Now, this is certainly useful and I think it's good for our understanding of complex systems to think about ways to decompose them into simpler systems while maintaining a working system. But if it's one of the `pillars' on which ID is to be scientifically founded, it's on shaky ground.

Todd Cope, you have said that evolution is not testable or falsifiable, and that it is not useful in scientific studies. This tells me that you just don't know enough about evolution. Scientific theories aren't always easy. If you are having troubling understanding how they work or what they say, that doesn't mean that they are no good. You may not know how evolution is useful, but experts on biology do know. You can't just pick up scraps of information from here and there and then say that evolution is hopeless.

Look at all the things science has done for you. Look at the modern world. The technology, the medicine, even in art science has done great things. Why are you people willing to turn around and fight against this? You are biting the hand that feeds you. Evolution can be left out of this argument entirely; the point is that the advocates of 'Intelligent Design' are trying to destroy science! I've sure you've all heard about the wedge strategy. These people are trying to put a stop to human progress in understanding the world, all because it disagrees with their belief system. ID isn't some new controversial scientific theory, it is a brutal assault on science itself, lead by creationists to defend their dieing faith. Why would you want to support these fanatics?? If you can't tell if ID is science or not, then listen to the scientists all over the world: it's not.

Karadoc,

Thats just an attack on Todd Copp and everyone else who holds to ID. Appealing to authorities does not prove your point. Calling people stupid fanatics doesn't prove your point. If Evolution is falsiable, demonstrate it.

That second paragraph was aimed at everybody, not at Todd in particular

I'm not going to even try to explain to you the finer points of evolution. Partially because I wouldn't trust myself to do it justice, and partially because it's beside the point. Evolution has been recongised as a scientific theory for a long time now. The 'new' kid of the block is ID, he should be the one under attack. And I say 'new', because this is just creationism wearing a thin veil. Creationism was never considered to be science, always religion. And what I said about ID being an attack designed to derail science was no exaggeration. It's really scary that so many people have fallen into the circle of propaganda.

I look at all the things science has done for me and see that macroevolution theories play no part in the actual science that led to any discovery that is found useful in practice.

This is completely false. ID does no harm to actual scientific studies that relate to real-world problems. ID accepts natural selection, mutations, and whatever else can be observed and duplicated in the lab and seen in the real world.

This is not actually how the argument goes. The real core of the argument is there exists no purely evolutionary mechanism which can account for the progressive steps that could possibly lead to the complex structure of the eye from a simpler form. This simply has not been shown to be possible in the purely evolutionary naturalistic setting.

And you can prove this is propaganda? This is an unsubstantiated claim.

Have you not heard about the wedge? What I said is true.

There have been proposed many possible paths leading to the eye and other complex organs using only evolution sized steps.

Give them to me in complete detail and I'll consider it.

Edit:

Nothing in that document suggests that what I stated is wrong or that you are right. They simply are saying that materialism has been a total detriment to the advancement of society. ID does not want to destroy science but simply to separate real science from fantasy.

Irreducible Complexity:

There are a couple of ways this term is used. When used by many people it refers to a system for which there is known natural explanation for its evolution. The definition of Behe is much narrower. Its a collection of parts which all required before the system can function at all. The eye can function without a lens, thus it does not fit under that category. Something such as the bacterial flaggelum does because we can see that the removal of any part of the flaggelum causes the complete and total failure of the flaggem.

Now Behe in his book didn't claim that proved it could not have evolved. Rather he suggested that it was possible that evolution might reach it indirectly. But that the more of such systems that were discovered the more problems Darwinian evolution had to face.

The Eye-Path:
Let me see if google knows...

Ok, this appears to be Darwin's suggestion:
1. photosensitive cell
2. aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
3. an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
4. pigment cells forming a small depression
5. pigment cells forming a deeper depression
6. the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
7. muscles allowing the lens to adjust

Or, look at this way:

Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);

for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);

for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();

for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddSkinCovering();

CreateDepression();
for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddSkinCovering();

CreateBigDepression();
for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddLens();

CreateBigDepression();
for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddLens();
AddLensMuscle();

There, in beautiful C++ we have the evolution of the eye. And in such small steps as we might not complain about.

The problem is that I'm leaving out all kinds of stuff. I'm calling all these functions and haven't actually done anything to define them. If they consist of a single line of code, we might potentially be fine. However, in some cases they are clearly made up of many lines of code. While the steps may at each step be more benefical then the last, these steps are clearly not reasonable sized pieces.

This definition of irreducible complexity, when applied to a model of our world, would mean that the extinction of a species would destroy everything else. But, since we have destroyed lots of species and we're still here, that's clearly not true.

Having a valid Deus Ex Machina to solve everything we can not explain properly (yet) is an easy escape for the lazy.

The model of our world is not relevant because we are talking specifically about biology. This definition is not meant to encompass any system, only biological ones.

This statement shows the existence of an axiom that controls how things are studied--we cannot explain things in purely evolutionary terms right now but some day in the future we will be able to because we know that only naturalistic processes can account for everything. This automatically excludes the possibility of intelligent intervention meaning you are not open to that possibility.

Edit:

Yes, and the things that are left out are very important. The details that are glossed over (left out) are things that actual experimental data shows cannot be true or at best are mathematically impossible.

Circular reasoning? "You don't believe in intelligent design because you don't want to believe in it"?

[edit]

How's "extinction of a species" not part of a biological system?

Nope. I'm merely suggesting that intelligent intervention is not allowed to be considered when trying to explain how things currently are. That is why they try so hard to find naturalistic explanations. But when naturalistic explanations cannot be found they merely push the problems into the future hoping that some day they will be solved instead of considering alternative explanations.

I may have misunderstood what you meant.

This is in regards to biological systems such as blood clotting or the eye not the ecosystem.

But then we're back to my point. If we consider intelligent design valid, then everytime we can't explain anything we must give up and say: "someone decided it should be like this, so we don't need to worry anymore". Newton did it when he couldn't explain why the orbits of planets are elliptical or something, but hundreds of years later, Einstein found a valid explanation, so let's not stop trying.

Yes, by all means don't stop trying to find the naturalistic explanations. I have not problems with these things being researched. I only have problems with the established "science" community promoting as facts things which have not been proven.

It irritates me when they teach people in school that people came from apes which came from lower animals when they can't actually scientifically prove it. They give a big picture and the many missing details make it unlikely to be true but we await further research to be sure. In the mean time let's go ahead and tell them it's true.

Then perhaps ID advocates should stop promoting it since there are NO facts backing it.

Define facts and show me how the amount of "facts" supporting evolution amount to more than the "facts" of ID. I'm betting that the "facts" that support evolution contain many "many missing details mak[ing] it unlikely to be true" as I stated above. I keep hearing about "facts" but noone is actually putting any facts up for review on the evolutionary side of the argument. We've actually discussed some ID "facts" but nothing from the evolution side has been detailed enough to be any use.

And I stick with my previous statement that neither is science going by the list of requirements I posted before and so neither should be taught in public schools.

I am not supporting evolution, just making a rebute.

Courtesy of the dictionary:

God( which everyone knows ID is based on), has never been demonstrated to exist or has ever been documented by an observing party.

I'll accept that God has not been demonstrated to exist. But remember that God has not been demonstrated to not exist either so this fact (or lack thereof) does not deal a blow to ID.

Under the definition you give, evolution is not a fact. Unfortunately the term evolution is used so loosely that they can say it is a fact (natural selection + mutations = change over time = evolution) then switch what they mean by "evolution" moving it into the realm of macroevolution which is not demonstrable and has been shown to be mathematically impossible.

The usefulness, or lack thereof, does not really determine whether something will be passed on. What decides, is the ability of the organism to survive and propogate with the change. Remember, evolution doesn't strive for "the best".. it goes for "good enough".

Playing devil's advocate and assuming the eye couldn't work without all of its properties, what's to say the different components of the eye "evolved" independantly, merely remaining dormant until they all got together at the same time and made a functional eye, at which time the creature was able to start making use of it? Or perhaps, some of the eyes' components were used elsewhere, until they changed function and became the eye.

As I see it, Irreducible Complexity would only come into play when a good portion of the components would be a fatal without the rest of the components. And even then, asuming the non-fatal components weren't in place first.

No? Or are you simply unaware of them? It goed something like this:

A mutation generates a strain of creatures that has a patch of photosensitive cells. This gives them an edge over their blind cousins and they are selected over them for survival. Now some of these newly sighted organisms will have larger patches of photoactive cells or a larger cluster of nerve cells dedicated to sending and processing that information. At some point, it turns out that it is advantageous to have the photosensitive cells receded to prevent them from damage upon impact or during combat. Amazingly enough, it also turns out to be profitable to have them sitting in a cavity with a pinhole on the outside because the picture becomes sharper. Having a transparent layer of cells that can form a lens is an obvious other step that can be taken prior to this one (and probably should be), but we don't have to take it here since we know of creatures that don't have lenses and the principle has been demonstrated.
All of this works because they are small modifications and variations on a theme that is already present.*
I'm an amateur, by the way; if you want a more detailed or full account you'll have to find a professional willing to discuss the matter.

Either way, it's possible to deduce from other hints and observations that a system has evolved rather than been designed. I'll just cite Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestors Tale in case you want to read about them.

*) Is this same line of reasoning fruitful for those preexisting patterns from which we build the eye? This is an area of active research and it boils down to understaning the complexities of multi-cellular organisms and the ways in which cells can specialised and be build up of bacteria. There've been some pretty astonishing experiments, see The Ancestors Tale and references therein.

I personally don't find the analogy helpful at all. Maybe because I'm not a computer scientist.

That's not a problem. You've simply downscaled the complexity and reduced the problem to a set of smaller problems that need to be solved.

... which is a hint that you have not reached the bottom line and that they could be reduced further, or at least you should try.
Even if one particular scenario can be shown not to work that isn't enough: for the argument to be decisive you have to show that all possible paths that try to reduce the system lead to a contradiction. There needs to be only one counter example to render the argument void.

Let's leave the existence or non-existence of god out of this. Obviously, if there is no such entity there is no room for intelligent design, but it's never possible to show through observation that something does not exist because at most you'll be able to say that you didn't see it.
All that you can do is to put bounds and limits and statistical errors on the observations and see if they are consistent with observations.

EDIT:
KC, please make it clear somehow from that quotation in what context I was saying that. People might think that I was making an argument in favour of the eye being irreducible.

Statistics. If part of an organism has no function, then as far as natural selection is concerned it isn't there. Random mutations will destroy such systems on a surprisingly short timescale. We tend to think of mutations occuring very slowly, but for DNA strands that don't have phenotypic effects that affect the fitness for survival the mutation rate is observed to be much higher. Unless all of these systems would spontaneously come into being in the right shape at the same time things like these are impossible. In the chance of this happening is zero (or mor ecorrectly, infinitesimal to the point where we don't expect it to happen in the lifetime of the universe).
Imagine a space where each axis represents one phenotypic property of an animal (or one gene complex, but the precise formulation of what it is isn't that important). The spontaneous generation of the eye would be doing a random jump from one part in this space and landing in precisely the right spot for an eye to have evolved. Compare it to being set down in a random spot on the surface of the Earth and finding yourself in your own back yard, only in a space which has many more dimensions.

With computer simulations we can also provide evidence:
[url http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp]

Listen up.

Evolution has fossil, genetic, and other evidence to back up the theory. Evolution is one of the most robust theories within the scientific community.

Intelligent Design is based on assumptions, mainly that organisms are too complex to be random chance. This is an opinion with no scientific basis. There's no concrete proof that organisms are too complex. Not only that, to say that evolution is random chance shows a clear misunderstanding of the evolutionary theory. Without proof of an "intelligent designer," the hypothesis lacks the evidence it requires to make such a claim.

OK, assuming you think that the evolutionary theory doesn't hold up, that doesn't mean intelligent design is right by default. Saying that organisms are too complex to be random chance doesn't mean that intelligent design must be the answer. First you have to proove the existance of this intelligence, which no one has ever done.

I said it before and I'll say it again...

Evolution is not a random process.
There's almost no random chance in natural selection.

Has been shown to be mathematically impossible? When, where, by whom? Would you care to point us to a paper where someone attempts such a proof?

I havent read the last some posts but if ID believers say that the world and life is too complex to be formed by combining random and natural selection then why do genetic algorithms work?

Humans don't come from apes, humans and apes share a common ancestor. There are fossile records that can be used as proof of it, and I'm sure no school will teach you that apes magically become humans.

ID has not been proven to be true either, should we take it as a fact?

The fact that we can't demonstrate that a certain point is false does not make that point immediatly true. That kind of thinking is often used when trying to prove religious things, but it doesn't make sense. By that logic, the fact that we have no evidence of god makes ID immediatly wrong.

But this severely limits the ability of a trait to stick because if it is not a clear-cut advantage random changes in the next generations are highly likely to prune it out. Even if it is an advantage it is still possible for it to be eliminated. This makes it highly improbable.

Highly improbable and shown to be mathematically impossible.

This ignores the whole problem of how the components got there in the first place.

This is pretty much the highest level of detail ever gone into on the subject that I've seen (comparable to statements made by the experts). The missing details are never shown because they cannot be explained naturalistically. The genetic changes required to go from one step to the next are staggering and no mechanism has actually been demonstrated by which these changes could occur. Experimental evidence in other irreducibly complex systems trying to prove how they can come about naturalistically show the contrary as is shown in this paper.

As stated above, these smaller problems have been shown to not be solvable using only naturalistic means.

Yes, I was trying to say that myself.

Precisely why all the parts will not develop independantly.

This computer simulation is not remotely realistic.

So we need to have a way to interpret the information coming into the eye? Hmm, now this is interesting.

Where's the details? What does that 1% change entail? Also, I think that 1% is very generous considering actual changes are far less in real life.

Where are these fossils? Give me the actual data. Genetics does not support macroevolution and it has been demonstrated that macroevolution could not be possible in purely naturalistic settings in actual experiments. Also, "other evidence" isn't saying anything.

And evolution is based on similar assumptions, mainly that complexity in organisms must have developed by random chance.

<quote>
OK, assuming you think that the evolutionary theory doesn't hold up, that doesn't mean intelligent design is right by default./quote]

I'm not saying that ID is right by default. I'm simply saying the evolution is wrong.

It seems my memory failed me here. I found this, but it only talks about how evolution cannot explain how life began. This talks about currently known evolutionary mechanisms (excluding natural selection which is covered here) and how they are not sufficient to provide the changes required for macroevolution.

Again, show me the data. The "proof" will most likely be wild conjecture that is required in order to explain the evolutionary story because evolution is accepted beforehand.

Genetic Algorithms

Likewise for evolution which is why I'm saying it shouldn't be taught in school eigher. The whole topic of origins should just be left out because it is not a scientific study but more a philisophical/religious one.

I now red the previus posts.

Then what should they teach?

So, what facts can you give for and against ID theory? What about evolution theory?

[edit]
And please can you, Todd Cope, answer why do genetic algorithms work?
[edit2]
I will read that text, thanks

If you are goes to make statements like this then back them up!
(You are also ignoring the large timescale in macroevolution, making lab experiments difficult. But that does not mean it can 'not be possible')

Computer simulations can use a model of evolution to show natural selection. It might not be identical, but it shows how very small changes over many generations produce a large scale change. They are an important tool and should not be dismissed so lightly.

What is the difference between breeding dogs or other animals and macro evolution?

Neither. Origins should not be touched in science class.

There are not facts for either. The evidence is interpreted to support either side based on axioms.

Have you read this paper yet?

Breeding merely sorts and destroys existing information in the genome. It does not add new information. In order for macroevolution to be true, new information has to be introduced and this has never been demonstrated. On the contrary, experiments always show that information is merely shuffled and/or reduced with each successive generation.

Re: Macroevolution

Have you looked at this comprehensive page yet?

Thanks! I will read that.

Oh, I'm sure that many things that could be realised are not. All that goes into natural selection is that there is an edge that give some better chance of producing more offspring with a similar trait. It's a problem of timescales: the timescale at which a certain change propegates through the gene pool and the timescale at which it gets destroyed by random mutation. If the former is shorter than the latter, you expect the trait to spread. And guess what? You can actually track gene flow through a population and measure these rates.

That doesn't matter too much. Most of evolution deals with variations on a theme and the scenario cannot be swept under the rug as easily as you made it appear.

I'm not going to sift through a 45-page article for that. Why don't you give a simple example and explanation of how this is shown?

Meh, if you already have something like a central nervous system it's not a big leap. Nerve impulses are nerve impulses, after all, so the change is probably minor early on. Humans who are born blind can use their visual cortex to augment their processing of audio signals. Obviously rewiring a nerve cluster to process different types of information isn't a difficult task.

Hey, do you want us to explore the posibilities of a proof-of-concept or not? In other words, do you want ID to be studied with scientific methods or don't you?

Go to a museum? Or hif you have the energy, dig up a millions-of-years-old sea-bed and see for yourself? There you'll find your fossils. Or do you mean that fossils provide clues for evolution? Or do you mean that fossils only show discrete steps in evolution as opposed to a continuum? If the latter is your gripe, I will cite ring species again.

Ok, first: define macroevolution, just so we know we're talking about the same thing.
Macroevolution, to me, means evolution as observed on a geological timescale. As opposed to microevolution which we can observe on a human-comprehensible timescale.
Given this distinction, it's obvious that we can't do an experiment that directly observe macroevolution because we don't live long enough (and actually haven't even been around enough as a species capable of asking and thinking about these things).
Now then: is macroevolution something different from microevolution integrated over a (large) timespan? This is something which Richard Dawkins takes some time to address in The Ancestor's Tale and there seems to be discussion about it in the community. Personally, I see no reason why it should be anything other than that. I recall coming across some numbers that estimate the timescale at which macroevolution would be expected to emerge from integrated microevolution and it's actually shorter than the rate at which macroevolution is observed from the fossil record. I'll have to look where I read that precisely if you don't care to search for the reference yourself.

No, that's not what it's saying. There's nothing random about natural selection. Individual mutations are random, evolution is not. It's chaotic and unpredictable, but that isn't the same as random chance.

Excuse me if I ask for a refereed paper published in a scientific journal rather than a link from a page that has as a headline `Upholding the authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse.'

I'm sure it's based on something. Too bad that page gives no links to original papers (or else I missed them).

Genetics. A fairly fine-grained collection of hominid fossils that are more similar to other apes as you go further back in time. If you want a litterature reference, The Ancestor's Tale devotes its opening chapters to the subject.
Oh, one more things, just so we're clear on this: if one assumes evolution and can use it to explain an evolutionary scenario for an observation, then this is not circular reasoning as you seem to think: it's a self-consistency check and a check that the data is concistent with the interpretation of theory.

No, questions of the reason of the universe and the meaning of life are outside the scope of science. The properties and responses of biological systems are not because they can be studied by scientific means: asking precise empirical questions, doing experiments, observing, forming a model, making a theory, making predictions, asking new questions, doing new experiments,... etc.

EDIT:
another point I'm somewhat hesitant to bring up, but I'll do it anyway.
For those of you who argue for ID from a religious background or because the bible says otherwise, you do realise that there are bible passages that specifically state that the Earth stands still?
When Copernicus published de Revolutionibus no one was much concerned about his heliocentric model because as far as anyone cared it was just another mathematical model to describe planetary motion. In everyone's mind, Copernicus had a problem anyway because if the Sun was the centre of everything, then how could the Moon orbit the Earth?
When Galilei observed the four large moons of Jupiter and observed that this was a non-problem (if Jupiter could carry moons along while in motion around either the Earth or the Sun, then the Earth could do the same with the Moon) the church suddenly did care. Galilei was told to shut up and de Revolutionibus was placed on the Index and censored, and it remained so until well into the 19th century.
The story of a desperate Galilei telling unwilling bishops to look through his telescope for themselves and observe with their own eyes rather than blindly following what the bible told them is probably apocryphal. Nevertheless, consider this for a moment: is your scepticism founded by reason and observation or by religious preconceptions on what the truth should be like?

How does this say anything about macroevolution? You are talking about natural selection which I fully accept as fact.

You're still not saying anything.

You don't have to. It's in the first few pages.

Even if I give you that, having a nervous system in the first place is assumed. This assumption requires that there could be a way for this nervous system to have developed naturalistically if you are to believe evolution.

I am talking about the discrete steps as opposed to the continuum. I'm still reading the article Richard Phipps pointed out which talks about these things. Again, macroevolution is assumed so the fossil evidence makes way for story-telling to fill in all the holes. Also, ring species is talking about natural selection.

The key word is "observed." Macroevolution has not been observed nor can be. And by macroevolution I am talking about the concept that new systems and structures can be added over time to organisms to make less complex organisms become more complex organisms.

While I have not read the book I suspect that the hominid fossils converging with apes further back in time is merely story-telling and there are no actual fossils that show this. Fossils may be shown but do they really show what Dawkins is trying to claim?

The problem is that evolutionary scenarios have to be painted. They are not observed in the actual evidence but merely assumed. This assumption leads to the story-telling.

Agreed. But what is actually observed, and what is merely story-telling is never differentiated. The story-telling part needs to go bye-bye.

This is not the issue. Discrediting the Bible does nothing to the actual arguments that are taking place here.

Story telling? Do you purposely ignore all scientific work and fossil evidence that has been uncovered?

It constantly is through the fossil record, unlike ID.

While I would love to google up some evidence of fossil records, I have to go to work now.

Well, since I have not been shown this scientific work and fossil evidence yet I can still say that it is mere story-telling. So far I have not been shown anything that answers to my claim. All works I have researched so far provide no actual scientific evidence. I'll review any works that I have access to. The one RP linked to is quite long but I'm in the process of reading it. I'm on section 3.1 right now and so far no real evidence has been displayed.

Again, show me.

This is an appeal to authority. You discount the validity of the arguments simply because of their source. If what that page says can be demonstrated to be false then you can toss it out.

If one of the students is a Buddhist, for example, does he have to hear Christian "propaganda"...?

Last post before I'm off to other things than my computer, so I'll make it a short one.

It doesn't. It was a response to `this severely limits the ability of a trait to stick because if it is not a clear-cut advantage random changes in the next generations are highly likely to prune it out'. Which also doesn't talk about macroevolution because that, by definition of the term, does not happen between two generations.
Also consider this: if a mutation of any property is unlikely, what is the probablity that a furtunate mutation is mutated away again in the next generation? In other words, what are the odds of the same property mutating two times in a row?

Oh, aside from mutation - you don't need big mutations for natural selection to work. Variations such as already exist on the level of individuals is enough for selection to work (as has been observed in the Galapagos Finch).

I'm saying that `you're not saying how they got there' is no rebuttal to `eyes evolved from previously existing components'. Sure, you decompose the problem in smaller problems which raise new questions, but what's the problem in that?
Do we have to explain how to get from bacteria to multicellular organisms before we can discuss the evolution of the eye, or can we study the evolution of the eye taking multi-cellular organisms as a given and treat their origin as a seperate problem?
(Just to be clear, that's a rhetorical question, the answer of which is `no').

Such as single celled organisms forming a conglamoration that becomes a multi-cellular organism? Or... what?

If you haven't read the book, don't make assumptions on how it's written. Actually, most of the evidence discussed in the book is based on genetic studies (`molecular evidence') rather than fossils.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask this: are you familiar with how science works? In a scientific paper the experimental data is always discussed seperately from the conclusions that are drawn from them (and if they're not, then the referee had better reject the paper).
Either way, you cannot present the data without then discussing it and interpreting it or showing how it fits (or doesn't fit) with theory.

(I neglected to comment on this above):

I'm an amateur and an expert would undoubtedly do better, but what steps would you like to have spelled out? To me, I made it quite clear and explicit how those steps I did not resolve would be resolved.

My point was not to discredit the bible, but to set the stage for the parabel that leads up to the question I asked at the end:

If one of the students is a Christian does he have to hear evolutionary propaganda?

How does this lead to a finch becoming some other different kind of animal in the future? Already existing information is being selected from. No new information is added.

No. I'm saying macroevolution refers to a simple organism, over thousands and millions of generations, adds new structures and functions that lead to new and more complex organisms.

But the conclusions are biased from the get-go. Macroevolution is assumed to be true beforehand and then stories are made that show how the evidence "fits" the theory. And since there are always ever-smaller problems to solve, when something doesn't fit with evolution they don't begin doubting evolution but simply appeal that future discoveries will prove them right.

How does a mutation generate a new type of cell such as a patch of photosensitive cells?

If the nervous system is already in place how does it develop the ability to process the information from the photoactive cells?

Where did the information come from that tells the photosensitive cells to recede?

This assumes that the nervous system simultaneously develops the ability to interpret what this picture means.

And ID is so called "real science"? Wheres your evidence?

Because its to hot of an issue? Thats hardly a reason to stop investigating. Where would we be if the "curch" had actually succeded in keeping various scientists quiet?

The pot calling the kettle black. You have yet to show any edvidece for your claims, besides that "The universe is too complex for it to have happened without help, so it MUST have had help". What is "too complex"?

In your oppinion maybe. You seem to be totally ignoring several hundred years worth of scientific study.

But then its the only "source" of "information" creationists can claim.

Let me see if I understood that. "I have not seen the edvidence, so it must be incorrect.". Sounds fishy.

You first!
Really now, TONs of edvidence has been put up for evolution, and some rather in depth easy to understand examples. Yet not ONE piece of scientific evidence has been put forward for Creation/ID besides "Life is too complex, so it had to have had help!".

You may not belive it, but I'm of the oppinion that it all had to have started somewhere. We can go back to say, the Big Bang, but where did that come from, etc. Yet no quantifiable edvidence has ever been put forward for creationism (as in, God crated man, etc). I'd absolutely LOVE it if someone could.

edit:

Quantifiable edvidece is the term I think you're looking for.

Random mutations. Remember? if a mutation helps the organism survive, it gets passed on. Simple concept actually.

External stimuli. All organisms are constantly changing to fit thier environment (including the other organisms arround them). If one changes, so must the other, adnausium. Also, large disasters are known to speed things up. Like a volcanoe eruption, or a meteroite hit, etc.

Got Dam It!

For the 5th time already in this thread...

Evolution is not based on random chance!
Natural Selection is not random.

And I'll post some evidence supporting evolution later on, when I'm less tired.

Isn't Bible just some fairytales collected, translated and rewritten by hundreds of different people during several hundreds of years? Why should anyone take it differently from e.g what brothers Grimms wrote?

What should change? A cell just starts getting a different kind of input, the signalling and signal processing system will probably not change much at first. Later on it evolves to function better.

A simple example of brain "reconfiguration":
I red from a rather old scientific book from '60s that said when some test subjects were given glasses that turned everything they saw upside down they adapted to it in a short while and soon they saw through these lens upside up. When the lenses were removed again they saw things upside down and yet again they adopted to it quicly.

Another example of "reconfiguration": A person was in an accident, and the vision part of the brain was damaged, and after a relatively short period of time the person's brain rewired itself to use a different part of the brain to interpret the data coming from the eyes.

Also there was one person* who got shot in the head and lost almost half of her brain. She couldn't walk ever again but most of the tasks that the missing part of the brain did transferred to the healthy part.

*) I'm not quite sure if it was a female or a male. I think it was female.

I know, I said I'd go do other things (like sleep)...

It leads to a finch becoming a different type of finch (different shape of the beak, different colour pattern, different tail length, different endurance when it comes to flight...) in the short run. What sort of animal it can lead to in the long run is impossible to extrapolate because evolution is chaotic. So let's try amphibians turning into reptiles instead.
This is one possible scenario, a model if you will, for how the mechanism works in a nutshell:
This involves eggs with a shell that don't dry up in the sun and a horned skin that keeps the animal from doing the same. It's not hard to see that an amphibian A with a slightly tougher skin can stray slightly further from the water than it's cousins and stay away longer. This gives it an edge because it can then hunt for food with less competition (it's descendants will face competition from eachother, but we'll ignore that as it's irrelevant to the argument). Fast forward several generations. We now have a group of animals, descended from amphibian A that are better adapted at living on land for extended periods of time due to natural selection. Perhaps they no longer hunt for food near water (if they do, individuals moving further away face less competition in hunting, giving them another edge). Having to go back to water to water to lay eggs is a nuisance to them because it means they have to go away from their hunting ground. They need to optimise the division of their time between time spend laying eggs and time spend hunting. Some individuals try to lay eggs closer to their hunting grounds, possibly in smaller pools or puddles. If the eggs dry out or their young cannot find food there, they die out. But if the eggs do not dry out because they have a slightly tougher shell, say, and the young do manage to survive and grow up, they have an advantage: they don't have to go so far back to the water to lay their eggs, meaning they can spend more time hunting for food, meaning their competition position is better. Fast forward again through several generations of selection for tough hides and eggs with shells that evaporate less heat. At this point, the remote descendants of A are no longer dependent on water for their reproduction: they can lay their eggs in a dry environment and the young that hatch from them have a fair chance of growing up to adulthood.
But these remote descendants of A are no longer amphibian! They're reptiles, some other different kind of animal.

If that was an explanation, it doesn't make it much clearer. How is this qualitatively different from a single cell organisim evolving to live in colonies (sponges come to mind as an example for what the end result might look like)?

Ok, you're not getting away with that one. Cite explicit proof of that claim.

By story, do you mean a `model' or `scenario' such as I wrote above? If so, you need to learn the distinction between a made-up fabrivation out of the blue and a scientific model or scenario. You cannot seriously discuss science if you do not grasp this distinction.

It's called outlining avenues for future work and pointing to the points of the research that could be refined. You'd rather they shut up and don't do this?

A cell was supposed to give a signal based on the concentration of a certain molecule. By a mutation the cell stops producing this molecule but instead produces one that is slightly different. This is not recognised and the cell does not give a signal. But curiously enough, interaction with photons causes a change in the molecule that changes it into the molecule that the cell was supposed to respond to.
Bingo, photosensitive cell. Not saying that's how it went, but just scetching a possibility.

The signals are of the same type as other nervous signals. It doesn't need to develop any special ability to process the information.
The question is analogous to how the human brain can use the visual cortex to process audio information: a nervous system is a general data processing unit.

There is no information that tells the photosensitive cells to recede, nor does it make sense to suppose there would be.
Natural variations in the shape of the creatures leads to some individuals in which the photosensitive cells are slightly receded from the surrounding tissue (we're talking invertebrates here). This is an advantage because the precious photosensitive cells are less likely to be damaged in a fight or collision. So this property is prefered by natural selection.

Not at all. Suppose you're wired to flee if you see a shadow. Say you're wired in such a way that your nervous system directly translates the signal from the photosensitive cells that detect a shadow into motion away from that direction.
If the picture is sharper, less cells are triggered and you have a more accurate sense of where the object forming the shadow is. This gives you an advantage because it means you can move away from it more directly, so it's selected for.
Actually, there's a simpler (but more schematic) explanation: if any individual is more capable that any other individual at determining where the threat is coming from, then that gives you an edge.
If there is no selection pressure for pinholes, some individuals have narrower cavities than others just by differences between individuals. Now say an individual evolves the ability to use the slightly sharper picture from his randomly narrower cavity. He has an edge. Those of his or her decsendents with a narrower cavity or a better ability to process the image have a larger edge... fast forward and you get a runaway process.

These are all fairly simple senario's for how natural selection can explain such observed properties. Don't allow yourself to be limited by your imagination of how things could have happened.

EDIT: no flames, people. Let's keep the debate civilised.

This sort of thing has even been shown to work in SILICON. One group made a chip that could rewire itself. After a while, it redesigned itself. It was faster, and was more efficient, even part of it was blocked off due to (IIRC) interfearance.. If I could find a link, I'd give one

edit: I'm pretty sure it was on slash dot a couple times.. I'll see if I can't find it..

Some mutations lead to an increased risk of disease or make the creature weaker than before. Why would an intelligent designer make such errors if he know the outcome in advance?

Why do people keep bringing the Bible up? We are simply trying to determine if evolution hold up to scrutiny.

But if the signal processing system does not change at first then the improved image has no benefit to the organism. Random genetic drift will in all likelihood ensure that no such thing will happen.

I get this! I extrapolated the underlying random genetic change into natural selection which was a mistake.

You are talking about the human brain which is virtually the most complex thing in existence. Because this function exists in our brains (the ability to adapt to an upside down image) does not equate to that function being able to arise when it wasn't there in the first place.

I'm not saying ID is real science. I'm just saying evolution isn't.

I never said anything about the hotness of the issue, only that neither theory has merit to be studied in science classrooms. The church has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

"Too complex" is when no known mechanism exists which can account for the complexity arising on it's own.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've looked at a lot of evidence in the past which led me to make up my mind that evolution isn't true. If someone could show me actually evidence to convince me otherwise I would change my mind. Unfortunately, so-called evidences on the side of evolution (at least what I've come across) have not convinced me. I find the evidences very weak and relying too much on story-telling.

So what you are saying, we can discredit the Bible and because it's the only possible information source all of a sudden ID theory is falsified. Bear in mind that ID makes no appeal to the Bible for any of it's ideas.

Yep, it sure does. But I've seen what evolutionists call evidence and decided that it doesn't fit within the idea of actual evidence.

Really, I read all the stuff that has been posted to support evolution on this thread and none of it actually supports the idea of macroevolution. Not even RP's link, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution."

Big Bang is not science either. But that is another topic entirely.

Since no mutation has ever been demonstrated to increase the genetic information in the genome this will not work. Choose another mechanism.

This is dodging the issue. Natural selection does nothing but act on the existing information in the genome.

I have to say that I don't think you are really wanting to look at the evidence. We have shown you increasingly complex evidence and short of having a PHD in biology there is little else we can say. However would any evidence really be good enough for you? Would you not always want finer and finer detail? If so, is that because of your personal beliefs?

I'll quote you on this one:

And then I'll quote me:

The genome itself is modified durring the random mutations that eventually lead to Natural Selection.

Ok, from what I gather, the one main book used to "teach" ID, had been slightly modified, and was previously used as a pro creationism book. ID == Creationism, and Creationism is something right out of the bible. And while the Bible has many good things to say, Its no scientific manual.

Ok, tell me if you agree with these premises:

a) The genetic code in organisms is responsible for their biology.
b) Altering the genetic code can results in changes to this biology.
c) Random mutations can change, add, or delete sections of that genetic code.
d) Natural selection can bring improvements in creatures.

I'd say you don't believe that any more than slight improvements are possible via evolution.. right?

EDIT: Also some ID articles and evolution critiques if you are interested..

I'm convinced that the holes will not be filled in by evolution theory. Does personal belief hinder me from seeing the evidence for what it is? I don't think so. My beliefs have changed a lot in the past few years because I find evidence and reason to change them. If I found evidence of evolution I would believe it.

I remember when I took astronomy in college. They taught the big bang and evolution as fact. They gave certain evidences which did nothing short of convince me that creationism as I had been taught in church was wrong. I was very immature then but later (finally) developed the ability to understand that what I'm told is not always true. Going back over these evidences today I am utterly unconvinced that evolution is true.

What is the nature of the modification? Does it ever lead to new information being added?

You are saying that because a creationist came up with an idea it is inherently wrong. There are many forms of creationism that are not in the Bible, also. The arguments that you say ID borrowed from a creationist writing do not appeal to the Bible.

a) yes
b) depending on what you mean by changes
c) change and delete yes, add no
d) improvements in a creature do not equal improvements on the genetic level

I'll surely read those, but it will be nothing new I'm sure. I've read so many of these it's not even funny.

The genome itself IS the information. So in a way, it can add information, through changing.

edit:

Like the great Spagetti monster. ALL HAIL THE GREAT SPAGETTI MONSTER!

Changing doesn't add anything. It only acts on what is already there.

Yes! I keep seeing this but I need to read about it.

Single 'letter' changes and duplication of sequences. This happens in the replication process. Do not also forget the possibilty of so-called junk DNA accumulating which can later be altered and used and also viral genes.

EDIT: Copy errors do increase the amount of genetic information, which can then be changed through mutation. In fact we have a vast amount of junk genes compared to some other species..

And we have all given you evidence.

If you accept the premises I listed earlier than you must be assuming that an intelligent designer is manipulating the genes to create more complex and successful forms of life.

If so, how do you account for junk dna, negative mutations, 'flawed' and inferior designs, etc..?

For example, hawks have better eyesight than we do, dogs have a better sense of smell. Why do we not if through ID?

Just because traditional creationists assume every life form was created by god and take Bible as their evidence with all that six days/ages and no-death-before-people-sinned kinds of things.
Perhaps the question really was a bit too harsh and flammable. Hopefully it doesn't cause too much trouble.

Care to bring some specific examples? I would like to see those.

Also, let me remind you of the second post in this thread. Quoting the fist link that came from the given link:

Perhaps someone should have had to educate that man about ID/creationism and evolution. I would love to hear some of the things that teacher would have had said.

How can you say it doesn't if you know what mechanism is used in meiosis to reproduce DNA?
If it is impossible then can you tell me why?

[edit]

could you give me some evidence about creationism that you are still holding up? Statements made so far don't sound much like an evidence to me.

So if you change something, you're left with the exact same thing? The realm of genetics is fairly low level, akin to Quanum Physics/Chemistry, Did you know, if you changed ONE part of the molecule that makes up cheese whiz, you get the plastic used in regular "black" trash bags?

Change the charge of one of the electrons in a molecule, and you will get something quite different. What happens when you add a Oxygen molecule to Carbon Monoxide? Or An Oxygen molecule to a Hydrogen Monoxide? You get lovely Water.

You can't possibly claim that changing something so basic as parts of a DNA molecule won't give you something "new".

BTW:

So.. I'd say copy errors are pretty common, or our ID is pretty poor!

Forgot to add the link.

Behold, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster

[edit]
Can anyone say, or better yet proove, that FSM is in any ways more wrong than ID, creationism or evolution?

[edit2]
Some more theories to teach at schools under the name of ID:
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Invisible Green Dragon

And in physics class they surely shouldn't miss the intelligent falling theory

Examples please. Please point me to an actual experiment that shows that junk DNA accumulates and can later be used for some other function. All the experimental data I've been exposed to shows that these things don't happen in practice.

I'm not assuming a designer did anything. I'm saying evolution did not do it because I've seen no evidence to convince me otherwise.

So-called junk DNA is being shown to have use as more data comes in. I don't know what is meant by negative mutations. Prove that the design is flawed. Inferior designs, such as the human eye being wired "backwards", are not really inferior. Noone has actually come up with a better design.

"Why" is not a relevant question. That is clearly philosophical in nature.

HoHo, I've already said we don't want to teach ID in school.

Sure it is, the argument here is ID, so far the design has been anything BUT intelligent.

We can't even begin to create anything as amazing as what is seen in the biological world and yet we consider ourselves intelligent. If we can't do it then that makes us unintelligent. Still, you are not substantiating evolution's claims.

Also, ID does not claim that things are as good now as they were when whatever intelligent cause decided to act. Natural selection only serves to take away information over time so "flawed design" could be said to be a prediction of ID.

Or our understanding of the function of the genes within the genome is severly lacking. To do what evolutionist like to do and appeal to the future, I can say that all that junk DNA will one day be found to have function.

Just because we HAVEN'T done it, doesn't mean we CAN'T.

Relatively. Though aparently we are only the 3rd most intelligent spiecies on the planet.

Almost certianly, but its code will probably have mutated, to become usefull.

Sure!

[url http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg18625045.400]

Evolution is a method of natural selection. If you don't believe in this or that small changes can lead upto large changes then you must believe in some kind of designer.

You can't have your cake and eat it!

Cystic Fibrosis is a good example here:

I presented examples of birds which have better eyesight. Other animals have superior abilities in other senses.

Do you think we can really improve on DNA? It is the most efficient information storage medium in existence. I doubt anything better is even possible.

This shows that the so-called junk DNA actually has function. Also, it never specifies if the two strains of voles came from the same parent vole. If not then the difference of the length of the DNA sequence could be accounted for by information loss instead of gain. If they came from the same parent, did the parent have more total information than the final strains which were used in the experiment?

I don't understand this statement. If you are trying to say natural selection leads to evolution you are only partially right. Natural selection leads to changes but does not add new information.

Who says all organisms need to have the best of everything to function the way they are supposed to?

No counters on what I said? Or did you convieniently miss it all? Changing information gives you different information, aka NEW information.

Sorry? Copy Errors? As I've said before (and as TF said).
It's part of our genome through repetitive copied sequences.

Actually, this blindness to the new information sounds like you have read up on ID points and are arguing from them..

EDIT: You made no mention of the negative mutations I highlighted either.

Then if they could function better, but don't.. where is the designer?

Are you saying that by the time we discover what it does it will be doing something because it mutated while we were looking for the function? This does nothing to substantiate the claim the certain DNA is junk. You are just assuming it is junk because we haven't found out what it does yet.

Am I blind for not seeing what is not there? In real experiments the mechanism which is purported to explain how evolution could be possible has not been demonstrated. This makes evolution at best an hypothesis awaiting further testing.

Well, showing a negative mutation hardly seems like good support that mutations can account for upward movement toward more complex organisms.

No. Far from it. I never once said there even existed "Junk DNA". I did however say that the genome can and will change.

Yep, but will it change in a way that is required for evolution to be true? What I said about new information still stands.

Can you show some of that data?
Some conclusions have been made after mapping and comparing human and mouse genome here

Who are "we"?
That is true, you don't. But there are some (deeply religious*) people who do want to teach it. If there wouldn't be such theory then there would be no problems with deciding wheter to teach it or not.
*) What do you think are the chanses of a not religiously biased person to teach creationism?

I would like to ask what is you think about teaching those other religions in ID classes I gave links to? I know you personally wouldn't teach stuff that cannot be proven but it seems like others do.

Also, qouting yourself:

We can't directly proove many things. Why should anyonr belive that molecules are made up of atoms and atoms of nuklei and electrons? If not then how can we prove it to them with something better than theory? What should have been tought 50y ago? If we can't get any better facts than some test results and theories based on them then why not drop that part of physics from school program?

Has my fever gone up too much or I just don't get it.

Perhaps the creator is playing something like Black & White or anything from the Sim* series and is kind of evil

Have you heard any lifeforms that have been to outer space on their own free will? What about cloning or using artifical body parts? Compared to what we had 80 years ago I say unless we blow ourselves to stoneage the next 100 years will get interesting. Those creations are not yet as big as creating AI or artificial new life forms but seeing the speed of scientific development I think that might not be too far.

Only proof for ID I've seen so far consists of trying to say evolution is false and that everything is so complex that only possibility is that someone created it.

A little side note:
I personally would like that religion would be tought at schools, just not in science class. History would be much better place. I'm especially interested in budism, hinduism and islam, I would like to know more about them to not have superstitions about people of these faiths.

It doesn't much matter. Evolution is the current theory, which has been based upon a couple of hundred years worth of study. If some new data comes to light that contradicts Evolution to a large enough degree that it renders the evolution theory "false", then a new hypothesis, and eventually theory will be put forward. This is how science works. Otherwise, the "evolution" theory will be modified to fit the parameters that have been observed thus far.

ID however is based upon people's religious beliefs in that the universe is far to complex for it to have just "been".

edit:
I personally believe the proper solution to the "problem" in whatever state what was, was to institute religious classes, instead of pushing religious propaganda onto science classes.

In my opinion science fails in communicating to the public what the state of science actually is. Scientists are awefully fond of boasting about their discoveries, but we never hear about the open questions or surprising experimental results that continue driving research and investigations.

Consider 1905 when Einstien had his 'miracle year'; there were several open questions in science that were fairly widely known; 'black body radiation', 'brownian movement' of particles in solution when viewed under a microscope, the 'photo electric effect', and the variation in the observed orbit of Mercury compared to the calculated orbit. Most of the general population was familiar with these phenomena. Einstien explained them all with mathematics from first principals.

Today, what are the open questions in science? We certainly don't hear about them; so far as the laymen is concerned pretty much everything is known; we've 'sequenced the human genome' so we must know quiet alot, right? Not hardly. It turned out that reading the genetic code is about .001% of the problem in understanding life. The laymen may also assume that the only thing missing from cosmology is the 'unified field theorem' ie theory of everything. They won't have heard about the surprising observations from COBE and (edit)WMAP; the universe is much younger than supposed even 10 years ago, and it may not even be of uniform composition thru out.

In my opinion, science and science education in this country have done it to itself. Scientists set themselves on a pedastal and portray themselves as shamans of the religion of science and ID and creationism are the harvest they reap.

Sadly, I agree with that. Science is viewed as an "ocult" of sorts by many people. The very foundation of science is supposed to be its questionability. Unlike with religion where the asking of questions is taboo.

OMG!!!!

TF and I agreed on something!!!!

[/hug]

Not really. I haven't kept track of where I got all this information (mostly I'm going from memory) but I did link to one paper which, while it's main topic is irriducible complexity, talks about some experimental data. Also, the data RP presented is not concise enough to draw any clear conclusions.

I'll read the link you gave after I finish this post.

Unless creationism can be taught without appeal to any religious text a religiously unbiased person cannot teach it. That is where ID seeks to differ from creationism, it does not appeal to religious texts for support.

Move those into a philosophy/religion class if you want them taught. Appeals to religion do not belong in science class. If ID winds up being taught and religious questions arise then open discussion of different viewpoints should be allowed.

The difference is the parts of physics studied in school are repeatable and testable ideas. They can be shown to work. Evolution has not been experimentally shown to be possible. If it had I'm sure I could easily find information on it but all the information I've seen is somehow lacking. That kind of evidence would end this once and for all.

I'm simply saying that this information-increasing mechanism has been proposed but never experimentally demonstrated.

Could be.

Even if we ever get to the point that we can create artificial life it only goes to show that an intelligen cause can create life not that natural processes can make it.

Who says I'm trying to prove ID? I'm only trying to show that evolution isn't true. I fully don't expect to convince anybody. I think I said something like that in my first post on this thread. Anyway, there's no harm in endlessly discussing the details, except maybe time consumption. It's kind of fun and a good intellectual excercise.

Interestingly, studying these is mandatory in college (at least where I went).

I asked questions about Christianity and came up with a completely different religion than standard Christianity. It is only taboo to religious people who think that questioning is equivalent to doubt which is equivalent to not believing which is the opposite of what they are supposed to be doing to be "saved."

But it is known without a doubt that universe self organizes more complex systems from smaller components; quarks to proton/nuetrons to atoms to organic molecules etc... Also you probably don't know that 'information' has a definable thermodynamic relationship; ie information is energy.

So far as 'creating life' to me this is an aspect of sciences arrogance and misleading the publice.

If your goal is to 'prove evolution is wrong' your not going to do it. In fact I've not read the real scientific definition of evolution in this thread, so do you guys even know what your talking about? Evolution is 'change in allelic frequencies over time'. That has been proven unequivicably.

Speciation, as Everet linked, has been shown. So you need to disprove those findings, with out hand waving and without invoking a 'beard in the sky' (thanks X-G). Then you'll have something.

Is there any link to this information? Interestingly, what I've remember about thermodynamics states that order is lost over time.

This definition of evolution is different than what most people understand evolution to be talking about. I am discussing the common conception of what evolution is.

You and I agree that speciation has been shown. But the mechanisms by which speciation occur only sort already existing information. No experiment has ever been done that shows an actual information-increasing mechanism that is purely natural (meaning no intelligent manipulation to aid it).

And this is the '2nd law of thermodynamics' and it is true for a closed system. But the planet Earth isn't a closed a system, there are geological, solar, tidal, and extra-solar sources of energy being inputed into this system. You people always get that wrong. See the link above for information theory.

Then what is the 'common definition' of evolution you're working from? That man came from apes? No scientist will support that. They'll say we have common ancestor. I require you to come up to a standard level in this discussion, I won't argue vaguaries and suppositions.

So what would you consider to be 'increase in information'? The fact that bacteria develope immunity to to antibiotics? The fact that that structures in the human brain can be traced to genetic sequences that can be traced back to a population of early humans in northern europe? This argument is a red herring.

This is the main point I'm trying to refute. The common conception of evolution implies common ancestry for all living organisms. This has been hypothesized but not experimentally shown.

Developing a new trait such as an immunity can give the illusion of new information. In reality certain information is lost or moved which happens to give the organism some kind of benefit. As for tracing back genetic sequences, this further demonstrates that the traced sequences already existed in the "early humans" and shows nothing of how that information arose in the first place.

Common ancestry is an entirely separate issue from 'creating information'. Common ancestry is clearly shown by examining the genetic code of DNA polymerase. DNA polymerase is a protein involved in duplicating DNA before cells divide. Every cell on the planet has it. This is a VERY important protein, if it changes very much at all, it's functioning will be wrecked and the organism will die. But it does change over time because some changes don't effect the operation of the protein. (edit; this isn't right, I should be talking about rRNA here, but the result is the same)

So by examining the changes in the genetic code for this protein and performing statistical analysis on the differences it can be shown that, yes, we all come from Eukaryotic bacteria. Relative lengths of time between major branches in the evolutionary tree can be observed as well.

There is an argument here, but your not stating it. It would be better to question how DNA came to be the vehicle for information storage in cellular operation in the first place. That is an open question.

But what your really asking is 'how do new traits develope'? Be it antibiotic resistance or bipedalism, or oxygen breathing etc... Random variations in genes give rise to new proteins which allow new abilities at the cellular level and consequently at the organism developmental and macro level.

There are several examples of this today besides antibiotic resistance in bacteria;

1) nitrogenous psuedo bacteria live as parasites in the root cells of legumous plants (soy beans) allowing them to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and gain the competitive advantage of 'self fertilizing'. This is also thought to be how we come to have mitochondria today.

2) Cycle cell anemia enfers a survival advantage with respect to maleria in people who are afflicted with it.

3) Alot of genetic based diseases like cystic fibrosis are lethal, but could concievably incur a reproductive advantage to those who have it in some extreme environment (if anyone had a perverse enough imagination to conceive it I suppose).

edit; I'm just countering your questions point by point here, that's not really my goal. My goal is to show you that there are answers to these questions you're raising, but the answers aren't easy and they are places where science has succeeded. There are more questions like I showed above in reference to 'how is dna the information carrying device in life'.

The really key point to me is that the universe as we know it today is miraculous. We know alot more now than we did 100 years ago. The magnitude of the miracle grows more profound with how much more we learn. Personally, I believe in a God, and a creator of some sort. This thing is just too amazing. Is God a beard in the sky or a fundamental property of the universe that permeates everything (the force luke...)? There's something going on and we're a part of it. That's were it gets spiritual to me.

I'm amazed that this is still open. Matthew must be very busy.

I'd say its because it hasn't turned into a flame war yet.

The issues are closely related. How does saying every cell contains a certain mechanism prove common ancestry? An intelligent designer would not have "reinvented the wheel" many different times when one mechanism was sufficient to perform the necessary task.

Again ignoring the information problem. Charting the differences between organisms hardly shows common ancestry. It simply points out that there are holes yet to be filled in.

I have a problem with this because it has not been shown experimentally. Random variation leads to antibiotic resistence but only by shuffling, moving, or losing existing information. Developing bipedalism requires that the pedals are there to begin with.

In a normal environment, sickle cell anemia offers a disadvantage. Only if you are in places where malaria is a problem could this offer any kind of advantage.

But how does something lethal/harmful show progress? Showing that they can survive in some perverse imaginative environment better than a healthy person doesn't really prove anything. I've never said mutations do not occur. They just aren't enough to explain the rise of new biological structures.

Environments change when they do, disadvantages can become advantages.

This is were I quit, you violate Occam's razor by invoking a designer. That's unacceptable to me, but acceptable to you.

I regard the rest of your response as being obstinate and will no longer address it.

I did not appeal to a designer. I was merely pointing out that common ancestry isn't the only (or even a good) explanation of the data. I'm not saying there is an intelligent designer. There is no solid case for common ancestry. What this might imply is not part of the discussion.

You are saying basically that common ancestry must be true because a designer cannot be accepted as a possibility which is why I brought up axioms earlier in the thread.

And throwing out my responses doesn't do anything to prove me wrong.

I think I'm done here for the day. I've been on the computer way too long and I've gotta get some sleep.

It's quite clear that some people are incapable of reading comprehension and avoiding strawmen. As such, it's quite pointless to keep thread thread going.