<p><a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact[/url]”>http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact</a></p>
<p>In the early days of neo-Darwinian theory, the chief rival theory (after the available data from Darwin itself had been sifted for forty years) was that of Lamarck/Lysenko. The falsifiable hypothesis was that if non-inherited traits acquired through environmental requirements could then be inherited by offspring, then the Darwinian theory of natural selection would no longer explain the available data. Scientists worked with this one for 20-30 years, without being able to explain the data obtained. Other falsifiable elements included the inability to explain from the paleontological evidence the straight-line development of species. The work of Eldredge-Gould and a host of others, over a 40-year period and on multiple species, found that the theory of natural selection itself was essentially sound, but that theories around a steady-state rate of change needed to be revised, and they were, based on the notion that ecologies exhibit stasis as well as species, and that natural selection can still (over time) reward genomes that are “economically fit” for changing environments. </p>
<p>I could go on, but the point to be made is that Darwinian evolutionary theory has itself evolved in the natural process of science. Parts of the theory were not only falsifiable, but have been falsified, over time.</p>
<p>FS - thank you for the proof that I am God. Since I am already all-knowing, and am capable of producing chaos, I didn’t require it. ;)</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>“I (an intelligent being, I hope ) can design a random or chaotic number sequence that could indicate nothing about the designer nor demonstrate anything in the way of design.”</p>
<p>Just because it is possible for an intelligent person to produce something like a pseudo-random number generator that does not appear to contain any information about the designer is no reason to discount ID. Physical evidence in the universe that cannot be accounted for by random initial conditions and processes is a SUFFICIENT BUT NOT NECESSARY proof of the existence of an intelligent designer. While it is theoretically possible for an intelligent designer to create a universe that looks random and disordered, that does not appear to be the case with our universe and hence is completely irrelevant.</p>
<p>“Physical evidence in the universe that cannot be accounted for by random initial conditions and processes is a SUFFICIENT BUT NOT NECESSARY proof of the existence of an intelligent designer.” </p>
<p>I’m curious - what is this physical evidence, and why is it that it cannot be accounted for?</p>
<p>Pafather -</p>
<p>You are misreading me. I have no problem with God, nor even with the idea of intelligent source. Since neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories, as they have changed through time, have been able to account quite well for “seeming design”, the extra actor might indeed exist, but is unnecessary for the account. </p>
<p>I find it unnecessary to find a falsifiable hypothesis for an intelligent source. If it floats your boat, or mine, that’s okay with me. It may even be true (I happen to think it is, but that’s irrelevant). It just isn’t science.</p>
<p>Kluge - it all amounts to the idea that there is “irreducible complexity”. Demsky and others of the ID crowd tried to find them in various places (immune systems, etc.), but in many instances, virtually as soon as they thought they’d found them, another scientist would pop up and “reduce it” for 'em.</p>
<p>I was trying to figure out how you can tell the difference between “I am unable to account for this complicated thing in front of me” and “the thing in front of me can’t be accounted for.”</p>
<p>Maybe it’s all in how hard you’re trying to find one answer or the other…</p>
<p>Yup.</p>
<p>We have in our Friends Meeting folks would be described as Quaker Agnostics. They don’t say, like many agnostics, that the existence of God is unprovable, or unknowable, only that they don’t know - one way or the other - yet. ;)</p>
<p>What has happened over time is that the “Darwinian agnostics” have pushed the theory, falsified elements, and moved it along to a point infinitely richer than when Darwin first proposed natural selection in its grossest form. That’s what the beauty of science is all about.</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>“I’m curious - what is this physical evidence, and why is it that it cannot be accounted for?”</p>
<p>The physical evidence I am referring to is the current state of the universe, in terms of the various complex chemical species and life forms that exist. I have no problem with some aspects of microevolution through genetic mutations, etc. But the idea of a random mass of material undergoing a big bang and then having expanded and evolved over time to include complex molecules and life that ultimately led to what we see today is extremely unlikely, from a scientific standpoint. </p>
<p>Once you have complex life forms that can reproduce and undergo mutations, I understand how you can have a variety of different complex life forms (I am not sure if microevolution can account for ALL of the variety we now have, but I will argue that later). But the INITIATION of the complex chemical compounds and life forms is a difficulty for evolutionists. I have not seen a sufficient description of this process, including reasonable supporting numerical computations based on physical laws and random initial conditions, presented by evolutionists.</p>
<p>'Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence … Intelligent design is an explanation of… ’ this is part of what is to be explained to student in Dover science classes</p>
<p>Scientific Theory is not lower case “theory”…what a joke</p>
<p>And its in Biology Class- that is science class, gee, who would have thunk it</p>
<p>Gee, I guess some of us people who were concerned that philosophy would be taught as science were just concerned for no reason…</p>
<p>And, no matter how much it is denied, Intelligent Design is faith based and implies a Creator. No getting around that. And a creator is religion. Does the Creator/Intelligent Designer- the people who want to teach that as science, and yes, it is going into the science classes, don’t have an answer to what the IDer is, or was, looks like, anything, but they teach it as science and that this ID created things, but will not answer the inevitable question of what the IDer is. If ID answers the questions and says Evolution is not complete, ID doesn’t answer those questions either. It just says, well, it was some grand idea, and voila…like magic, just have faith, believe it even though there is no proof, just faith</p>
<p>Faith is fine, its not Science</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>“You are misreading me. I have no problem with God, nor even with the idea of intelligent source.”</p>
<p>I know you have prevously indicated that you are a Quaker. Your current description sounds like you are a deist, in that you believe that God may have set up the world but doesn’t affect it anymore.</p>
<p>Here is a non-scientific question. </p>
<p>Do you believe that in the past few thousand years that the laws of physics (the actual laws, not just our imperfect approximations of them) have ever been violated. In other words, do you believe in miracles? For example, has anyone ever been miraculously healed?</p>
<p>Do deists pray? And if so, why?</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>In case you haven’t noticed, no one is responding to your posts on this thread anymore. It is apparent that your mind is made up, and you never appear to learn anything from other’s responses to your questions. Mini and Kluge at least ask questions that one can answer. You can feel free to sit back smugly and condescendingly and convince yourself that you won the debate, while the remainder of the discussion goes on.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is fair to question anyones religious practices and make assumptions about what they believe. That is rude. And irrelevant. </p>
<p>My religious beliefs have been questions and I have been judged on this thread. That must stop.</p>
<p>And if Intelligent Design is not about God or Religion, these questions about other specific faiths are rude and irrelevant. </p>
<p>What does Mini’s religious beliefs have to do with what you posters have said is not a religous theory? If Intelligent Design is not religous or God based or Faith based, than our religious beliefs are not important.</p>
<p>“Once you have complex life forms that can reproduce and undergo mutations, I understand how you can have a variety of different complex life forms (I am not sure if microevolution can account for ALL of the variety we now have, but I will argue that later). But the INITIATION of the complex chemical compounds and life forms is a difficulty for evolutionists.”</p>
<p>I agree. Another problem is that “evolution” has too many meanings. Some use it to just mean change over time, as in finch beaks or such changes; others to mean all life coming from one original cell; others to mean the development of life itself… It is hard to discuss something when everyone is not necessarily using the same meanings. Not all of those meanings have the same amount of evidence in their favor.</p>
<p>We are apparently talking past each other, so I am leaving the conversation for the time being. Time for a break… (Maybe I should slip over to Sinner’s Alley for another root beer!)</p>
<p>I don’t care that no one answers me anymore. I really don’t. It seems I ask questions that people refuse to answer. Either its religion or science, whatever. Chicken out. Prove me wrong. Show me how Intelligent Design in not religion. Until then, I will ask the question over and over.</p>
<p>If you answer the questions great. Until then I will ask away and show that you won’t answer the question that is fundamental to the debate.</p>
<p>You discuss ID as if it is proven science, and then, it is discussed as beyond science.</p>
<p>Ignore me. Fine. I can take it. But continue to evade the questions about ID that you support. If you can’t answer a simple question if Intelligent Design is based on religion, that proves my point. Don’t bother tallking to me. I have been doing some research, I have found more faults with ID and its supporters and their backgrounds in science, of which their are many questions.</p>
<p>Not answering the questions shows more about your beliefs in ID than mine.</p>
<p>I think what is hard for people that believe in ID and creationism to swallow is the probability that the various complexities of life would evolve. That is because 6 billion years is really hard to fathom. 6 billion (6,000,000,000) is a long long time, and as I said, there is evidence to suggest that prelife earth’s environment was favorable for spontaneous generation.</p>
<p>Likewise, some people find it hard to believe that something as complex as a human eye evolved. Well, human didn’t just suddenly evolve eyes. It probably evolved gradually, from simple photoreceptors (such as the ones of a planaria) incrementally.</p>
<p>And some people dispute the validity evolution because they say that they cannot see it today. Well evolution and natural selection is happening everyday. Think about insecticides. When an insecticide is first introduced to an insect population, it may wipe out 99% of the insects. A second application of the poison doesnt wipe out nearly as many of the insects. This is because after the first application, the insects that are resistant to the insecticide are left to reproduce. As Campbell says it, evolution is an editing process. Most people I believe are misinformed and think that organisms evolve (i.e., morph to adapt to the environment). This is untrue, because it is populations that evolve.</p>
<p>Pafather says: “Once you have complex life forms that can reproduce and undergo mutations, I understand how you can have a variety of different complex life forms (I am not sure if microevolution can account for ALL of the variety we now have, but I will argue that later). But the INITIATION of the complex chemical compounds and life forms is a difficulty for evolutionists.”</p>
<p>And Susantm says: “I agree.” </p>
<p>But… we’re not talking about a process which directly conflicts with what we think we know about chemistry and physics, etc. - just a very complicated, and perhaps rare set of circumstances leading to the creation of those complex chemical compounds and, yes, life, that we’re not in a good position to study and don’t know a lot about - yet. Are we really in a position to declare that it could not have happened through “dumb” means? Could never occur by a one in ten trillion set of circumstances? Could only have happened by the act of God? Or are we just sort of at the same stage as medievel alchemists studying chemistry - struggling along as best we can, seeing the world through a glass, darkly?</p>
<p>The problem I have with intelligent design is that it’s a dead end. God did it. No point in studying any further - I ain’t God. Don’t play in that league. The essence of intelligent design is, as citygirlsmom keeps saying (and you guys keep trashing her for) is an intelligent designer. And not just garden-variety intelligent. Not even College Confidential intelligent. God-level “intelligence.”</p>
<p>Are we really in a position to declare that it could not have happened through “dumb” means? Could only have happened by the act of God?</p>
<p>“Dumb means and act of God” could mean exactly the same thing, either an intelligent being that set off a chain of random and chaotic events we now call evolution, or no such being and the evolution of a design that makes some kind of sense to the mere mortals to be found within it. Intelligence does not mean design, and design does not necessarily require intelligence.</p>
<p>It lacks explanatory power, even when it makes us feel good.</p>
<p>Anyway, no one really answered why we need to teach ID in the classroom. Why isn’t phrenology or divination taught in school? (I know I’m being a bit repetitive, but no one gave me an answer.)</p>
<p>The repetitive answer is that no one has said we need to teach ID in the classroom.</p>