Einstein Versus Darwin..........

[Bonnie]

Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
May 30, 2005
By Tom Barrett

Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the world do not blindly accept Darwin’s THEORY of evolution? Would it shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance? Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?

It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.

Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the national teacher’s union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).

Darwin’s theory is just that – a theory. It has never been proven, and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin’s THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.

Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in “Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium,” (see LINK below) Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

In the last paragraph of his essay, “The World as I See It,” Einstein wrote, “I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” While Einstein referred to the Designer as “Reason” rather than “God,” his writings make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer crafted our universe and all that is within it.

On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals, reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what He said He did in Genesis: He created everything according to His plan.

On page 293 of his book, “The Origin of the Species,” Darwin stated that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a “missing link”, a fossil that was clearly part one species as well as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the years to fake evidence to prove Darwin’s theory, the “missing link” has never been found.

Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin’s theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, “In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin.”

The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK, “What’s the Big Secret?” below.) The school board in Dover announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform their students that other theories existed besides evolution. A New York Times article states, “A statement is read to biology students asserting that Darwin’s theory ‘is not a fact,’ urging them ‘to keep an open mind’ and pointing them to the seminal book on intelligent design, ‘Of Pandas and People.’ Students are allowed to leave class when it is read.”

Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science classes?

It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer “God”, they recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe could not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by an intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by their evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their beliefs.

Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing theories are not worthy of the title “Scientist.” A Wall Street Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg, who holds two PhD’s in biology, was the editor of a Museum publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted effort is underway to ruin his career.

more

http://conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910&PHPSESSID=21e257ba99440af07f62007fb905f65c

 

[ThomasPaine]

Now Darwin could kick Einstein's butt through "survival of the fittest", however, I'm thnking, and my money's on Einstein, that Albert would find a left hook of extreme "relativity" and coldcock the way outta him.

 

[USViking]

Einstein did NOT believe in a personal God who intervened in human affairs, or took any interest in human life, so he is not an ideal authority for those who who claim intelligent design necessarily contradicts evolution.

And he certainly DID believe in a universe and Earth which were millions if not billions of years old, which would further damage his position for those who hold an inerranist view of Biblical revelation.

 

[IControlThePast]

Now Darwin could kick Einstein's butt through "survival of the fittest", however, I'm thnking, and my money's on Einstein, that Albert would find a left hook of extreme "relativity" and coldcock the way outta him.

People need to get their facts strait. Herbert Spencer (also famous for Social Darwinism), a rival of Darwin's, was "survival of the fittest."

On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals, reptiles, fish, fowl and so on.

Wrong, Darwin said Evolution was non-directional.

This has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a “missing link”, a fossil that was clearly part one species as well as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the years to fake evidence to prove Darwin’s theory, the “missing link” has never been found.

Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, and Ambulocetus are a few examples of transition fossils.

Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science classes?

The author comes close to understanding! If it is to be debated, it is in humanities because ID is unscientific.

Would it shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design

It would shock me to hear someone claim ID was a scientific theory because it fails to meet Occam's Razor, falsifiability, and the Intelligent Designer is neither observable or repeatable. It isn't taught as a valid counterpart because it fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, and is unscientific.

 

[ThomasPaine]

People need to get their facts strait. Herbert Spencer (also famous for Social Darwinism), a rival of Darwin's, was "survival of the fittest."



Wrong, Darwin said Evolution was non-directional.



Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, and Ambulocetus are a few examples of transition fossils.

The author comes close to understanding! If it is to be debated, it is in humanities because ID is unscientific.

It would shock me to hear someone claim ID was a scientific theory because it fails to meet Occam's Razor, falsifiability, and the Intelligent Designer is neither observable or repeatable. It isn't taught as a valid counterpart because it fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, and is unscientific.

The arrogance of lefties never ceases to amaze me...

 

[IControlThePast]

The arrogance of lefties never ceases to amaze me...

posts don't have.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The arrogance of lefties never ceases to amaze me...

I don't see your refutation of ICTP's points.

 

[nosarcasm]

The arrogance of lefties never ceases to amaze me...

weak reply

 

[Hobbit]

Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, and Ambulocetus are a few examples of transition fossils.

I've seen several so-called transition fossils. Many of them have proven to be creatures that still exist while others look more like a sort of hybrid. Is the platypus the missing link between ducks and beavers? I think not.

The author comes close to understanding! If it is to be debated, it is in humanities because ID is unscientific.

No more so than evolution.

It would shock me to hear someone claim ID was a scientific theory because it fails to meet Occam's Razor, falsifiability, and the Intelligent Designer is neither observable or repeatable. It isn't taught as a valid counterpart because it fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, and is unscientific.

Evolution fails to meet the same. The idea that such complex creatures just sort of happened is hardly the simplist solution. That's like proposing that a 747 appeared in a junkyard because a tornado went through and the parts just sort of fell into place, except the 747 incident is far more likely. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by falsifiability, but many many fossils claiming to be the missing link ended up being manufactured and the rest have been disproven as above. Also, evolution isn't observable or repeatable. We can't go back in time and see fish turning into frogs, nor can you reproduce it in a lab. Even if it were true, the process seems to take such a long time that repeating it within the life span of a single person would be impossible.

 

[no1tovote4]

It is just as scientific to work to disprove a theory as it is to attempt to prove a theory. To say that ID is not "scientific" is politic and based on personal opinion rather than actual survey of scientific method.

If we cannot find evidence that something was created by intelligence then Archeology is a waste of our time, you cannot prove that a pot of clay was not made by chance rather than by intelligent design.

Searching for evidence of Intelligent Design, and thereby proving one theory while disproving another theory, is just as scientific as attempting to prove that Evolution is the way life was created.

 

[Hobbit]

Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, and Ambulocetus are a few examples of transition fossils.

I've seen several so-called transition fossils. Many of them have proven to be creatures that still exist while others look more like a sort of hybrid. Is the platypus the missing link between ducks and beavers? I think not.

The author comes close to understanding! If it is to be debated, it is in humanities because ID is unscientific.

No more so than evolution.

It would shock me to hear someone claim ID was a scientific theory because it fails to meet Occam's Razor, falsifiability, and the Intelligent Designer is neither observable or repeatable. It isn't taught as a valid counterpart because it fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, and is unscientific.

Evolution fails to meet the same. The idea that such complex creatures just sort of happened is hardly the simplist solution. That's like proposing that a 747 appeared in a junkyard because a tornado went through and the parts just sort of fell into place, except the 747 incident is far more likely. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by falsifiability, but many many fossils claiming to be the missing link ended up being manufactured and the rest have been disproven as above. Also, evolution isn't observable or repeatable. We can't go back in time and see fish turning into frogs, nor can you reproduce it in a lab. Even if it were true, the process seems to take such a long time that repeating it within the life span of a single person would be impossible.

 

[IControlThePast]

I've seen several so-called transition fossils. Many of them have proven to be creatures that still exist while others look more like a sort of hybrid. Is the platypus the missing link between ducks and beavers? I think not.

A transition fossil is an intermediary evolutionary stage. The ones I listed are a blending showing descent by modification. They are for birds, horses, and whales respectively. None of the ones I listed are still alive, but if they were it wouldn't change anything. A species can be an intermediary and still not go extinct.

No more so than evolution.

Actually Evolution is falsifiable, observable, testable, and does not violate Occam's Razor.

Evolution fails to meet the same. The idea that such complex creatures just sort of happened is hardly the simplist solution. That's like proposing that a 747 appeared in a junkyard because a tornado went through and the parts just sort of fell into place, except the 747 incident is far more likely. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by falsifiability, but many many fossils claiming to be the missing link ended up being manufactured and the rest have been disproven as above. Also, evolution isn't observable or repeatable. We can't go back in time and see fish turning into frogs, nor can you reproduce it in a lab. Even if it were true, the process seems to take such a long time that repeating it within the life span of a single person would be impossible.

Occam's Razor says that you shouldn't make more axioms or assumptions than needed. Evolution can explain modern conditions with less assumptions than ID.

Your analogy is incorrect because plane parts in the first place don't appear spontaneously. You're using a form of Paley's complexity argument where he used a watch instead of a plane. Here's another analogy for you. We can say "We don't know how the Egyptians built the Pyramids, but we think they used these construction methods" and still be Scientific. You can't Scientifically say instead that Aliens (or the Creator) simply placed them there.

Falsifiability means the theory can be proved false. You can't prove either way that there is or isn't a Creator, so that's why ID is unfalsifiable.

Evolution is observable, albeit indirectly. Using the fossil record, and even better comparitive genetics, we can observe Evolutionary pathways, justly like Atomic Theorists can't directly see atoms, but can detect their movement by the paths they leave leave through vapor clouds in the particle accelerator. Now we can directly observe and prove microevolution.

I haven't seen you indicate anywhere that the fossils I listed were fake or false.

 

[Hobbit]

A transition fossil is an intermediary evolutionary stage. The ones I listed are a blending showing descent by modification. They are for birds, horses, and whales respectively. None of the ones I listed are still alive, but if they were it wouldn't change anything. A species can be an intermediary and still not go extinct.

A species can also look like two different animals and not be intermediary. A platypus is not the missing linke between ducks and beavers.

Actually Evolution is falsifiable, observable, testable, and does not violate Occam's Razor.

Evolution cannot be proven false with our current methods. If you disagree, then list evidence that can be obtained scientifically that would, in your mind, disprove evolution.

Occam's Razor says that you shouldn't make more axioms or assumptions than needed. Evolution can explain modern conditions with less assumptions than ID.

First off, that's an interpretation of Occam's Razor, which actually states that "the simplest solution is often the correct one." Still, let's go with your interpretation. To believe spontaneous creation and evolution, I must assume that a) DNA, a chemical so complex that man can't even interperet it, much less make something simliarly complex, just fell together by accident b) that the DNA structure of an animal can change so drastically that it becomes incompatible with its parent species and c) that such a change happened in such a way as to leave virtually no supporting fossil evidence. In order to believe in intelligent design, I must simply assume that there is something out there somewhere capable of creating something this complex and that they thought it was a good idea. It's like the progress of astronomy. You start out with the base assumption that there is no God, or anything else, really, and come up with an incredibly wild, unprovable theory that's complex beyond reason, much like the astronamers of the middle ages came up with their theories based on the Earth being stationary. As soon as they threw off the base assumption, things became exceedingly less complex.

Your analogy is incorrect because plane parts in the first place don't appear spontaneously. You're using a form of Paley's complexity argument where he used a watch instead of a plane. Here's another analogy for you. We can say "We don't know how the Egyptians built the Pyramids, but we think they used these construction methods" and still be Scientific. You can't Scientifically say instead that Aliens (or the Creator) simply placed them there.

First, for the plane. Let's say that every part that is required for a 747 is already in the junkyard. It still far more likely for a 747 to appear after a tornado than it is for DNA to spontaneously assemble. Now, on to the pyramids. Sure, it's scientific to speculate what methods were used. In fact, several theoretical methods have been thought up as to how the pyramids were contructed, some of which have been debunked. Now, while I'm not suggesting that aliens built the pyramids, there are many theories, and to teach one to the exclusion of all others would be folly. However, imagine this. Let's suppose that Egypt failed as a civilization and its entire population simply relocated with the desert nomads or the jungle natives or over to mesopotamia, leaving the ancient civilization abandoned. Centuries later, someone stumbles across these huge pyramids. Centuries of sandstorms and other natural forces have destroyed all evidence that anyone ever lived there. In the absence of any evidence supporting the existance of the creators of the pyramids, would you then conclude that they were somehow formed naturally. Maybe they were a freak geological occurance or an anomaly of asteroid burn pattern. No, the truth is that something like the pyramids shows too much workmanship to conclude that they just happened. Scientists would conclude that there was some sort of civilization that occupied the area at one time and they created the pyramids. The only evidence supporting the existance of the creators would be the creation, just as the only evidence supporting the existance of the one who created us is the creation that He (her/it, if you prefer) left on this planet.

Falsifiability means the theory can be proved false. You can't prove either way that there is or isn't a Creator, so that's why ID is unfalsifiable.

It's possible to prove there is a creator. He simply must show Himself, which I believe he will. Given that simple fact, I don't have to prove a creator can be disproven. Many scientific theories can be proven, but not disproven.

Evolution is observable, albeit indirectly. Using the fossil record, and even better comparitive genetics, we can observe Evolutionary pathways, justly like Atomic Theorists can't directly see atoms, but can detect their movement by the paths they leave leave through vapor clouds in the particle accelerator. Now we can directly observe and prove microevolution.

Oh, microevolution, or, as I like to call it, adaptation, is a wonderful thing that I believe in. Why else would people living in cold climates be all hairy while people living in sun-baked climates were given natural, protective pigmentation. I simply do not believe in the creation of new species that way. Also, evolution, not being directly observable, leaves it open to misinterpretation of the evidence, and with so little hard evidence supporting it, that's a distinct possibility.

I haven't seen you indicate anywhere that the fossils I listed were fake or false.

Oh, I think they're real fossils, but I think they're more akin to the platypus, a strange creature that appears to be some sort of chimera, than a missing link.

Now, just to let you know, I'm not trying to convert you to ID theory. I'm simpy trying to show that it is a valid, alternate theory to evolution. In my mind, it makes more sense, but I'll not argue the point beyond simple plausibility. That goes in a different thread.

 

[IControlThePast]

A species can also look like two different animals and not be intermediary. A platypus is not the missing linke between ducks and beavers.

Nobody is saying that Platypus are the missing link between ducks and beavers. It is not consistent with an evolutionary intermediate stage. It has venom even. Evolutionists think that it is a very exotic and different animal because of Geographic isolation in Australia.

Evolution cannot be proven false with our current methods. If you disagree, then list evidence that can be obtained scientifically that would, in your mind, disprove evolution.

If comparitive genetics showed species were drastically different, if we didn't have much indirect evidence (comparitive genetics and fossil), if God came down and told me Evolution was false, if reproduction didn't create variation, or if microevolution was disproven are a few things.

First off, that's an interpretation of Occam's Razor, which actually states that "the simplest solution is often the correct one." Still, let's go with your interpretation. To believe spontaneous creation and evolution, I must assume that a) DNA, a chemical so complex that man can't even interperet it, much less make something simliarly complex, just fell together by accident b) that the DNA structure of an animal can change so drastically that it becomes incompatible with its parent species and c) that such a change happened in such a way as to leave virtually no supporting fossil evidence. In order to believe in intelligent design, I must simply assume that there is something out there somewhere capable of creating something this complex and that they thought it was a good idea. It's like the progress of astronomy. You start out with the base assumption that there is no God, or anything else, really, and come up with an incredibly wild, unprovable theory that's complex beyond reason, much like the astronamers of the middle ages came up with their theories based on the Earth being stationary. As soon as they threw off the base assumption, things became exceedingly less complex.

A) Evolution is about how DNA changed, not how it was first created. That is primordial biochemistry. Evolution just tracked supposed changes in DNA after it existed. Man can interpret it; we finished the human genome project. Man can also create it synthetically through PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction).

B) It does not take a drastic change to become incompatible. Our DNA is 99% similar to that of a monkey.

C) Evolution is better supported than Tectonic Theory or Atomic Theory.

There is no part of Evolution that says that there is no God. God could have put the first organisms on Earth, which then evolved, and he could have guided how they evolved.

The Creator is undoubtedly complex as well if only he can make these complex objects, what created the Creator?

First, for the plane. Let's say that every part that is required for a 747 is already in the junkyard. It still far more likely for a 747 to appear after a tornado than it is for DNA to spontaneously assemble. Now, on to the pyramids. Sure, it's scientific to speculate what methods were used. In fact, several theoretical methods have been thought up as to how the pyramids were contructed, some of which have been debunked. Now, while I'm not suggesting that aliens built the pyramids, there are many theories, and to teach one to the exclusion of all others would be folly. However, imagine this. Let's suppose that Egypt failed as a civilization and its entire population simply relocated with the desert nomads or the jungle natives or over to mesopotamia, leaving the ancient civilization abandoned. Centuries later, someone stumbles across these huge pyramids. Centuries of sandstorms and other natural forces have destroyed all evidence that anyone ever lived there. In the absence of any evidence supporting the existance of the creators of the pyramids, would you then conclude that they were somehow formed naturally. Maybe they were a freak geological occurance or an anomaly of asteroid burn pattern. No, the truth is that something like the pyramids shows too much workmanship to conclude that they just happened. Scientists would conclude that there was some sort of civilization that occupied the area at one time and they created the pyramids. The only evidence supporting the existance of the creators would be the creation, just as the only evidence supporting the existance of the one who created us is the creation that He (her/it, if you prefer) left on this planet.

Pyramids do show too much workmanship to have just happened, but think back to the analogy and the methods by which they were built and equivalent to Evolutionary processes. Evolution accepts that there might be a Creator or there might not, but doesn't make that there is or isn't an integral assumption the theory is based on, and that is why it fits better under Occam's Razor than ID.

I thought the Creator appeared to a bunch of people too, but then they just all started fighting each other over it .

It's possible to prove there is a creator. He simply must show Himself, which I believe he will. Given that simple fact, I don't have to prove a creator can be disproven. Many scientific theories can be proven, but not disproven.

How exactly does one prove ID? You can't observe or repeat tests on ID, and it violates Occam's Razor, so it's not technically a theory. There's really not even a research division for it. It can't be proven or disproven. The evidence it offers just tries to refute Evolution, but that would just make it a logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. Even if ID proved Evolution was false, it didn't then prove that ID was true.

If you find a rational proof for a God, then you will be a very rich, famous, and well liked man, although I don't know what it would do to the concept of faith. Many have tried but none have succeeded.

Oh, microevolution, or, as I like to call it, adaptation, is a wonderful thing that I believe in. Why else would people living in cold climates be all hairy while people living in sun-baked climates were given natural, protective pigmentation. I simply do not believe in the creation of new species that way. Also, evolution, not being directly observable, leaves it open to misinterpretation of the evidence, and with so little hard evidence supporting it, that's a distinct possibility.

It is much more well supported than Tectonic Plate theory or Atomic Theory. There is a lot of indirect evidence supporting it. There are over 25 transition fossils, plus the wealth of information from comparitive genetics.

Now, just to let you know, I'm not trying to convert you to ID theory. I'm simpy trying to show that it is a valid, alternate theory to evolution. In my mind, it makes more sense, but I'll not argue the point beyond simple plausibility. That goes in a different thread.

I don't know if that would be possible after I declared a Bio Major :tng:.

 

[no1tovote4]

How exactly does one prove ID? You can't observe or repeat tests on ID, and it violates Occam's Razor, so it's not technically a theory. There's really not even a research division for it. It can't be proven or disproven. The evidence it offers just tries to refute Evolution, but that would just make it a logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. Even if ID proved Evolution was false, it didn't then prove that ID was true.

If you find a rational proof for a God, then you will be a very rich, famous, and well liked man, although I don't know what it would do to the concept of faith. Many have tried but none have succeeded.



It is much more well supported than Tectonic Plate theory or Atomic Theory. There is a lot of indirect evidence supporting it. There are over 25 transition fossils, plus the wealth of information from comparitive genetics.



I don't know if that would be possible after I declared a Bio Major :tng:.

If life was found that could not have evolved and must have been created, it would prove that ID was not only a Theory, but a truth indeed.

The assumption that there would be no way to tell that something was created is simply wrong. If that were true the entire science of Archeology would be a worthless adventure, we would be unable to tell if a pot were a natural or created artifact. Much of the sedimentary dating we use would also be worthless as it had its start in Archeology.

That the entire Theory of ID is based on disproving another theory does not make it so it isn't science as the scientific process involves disproving as well as testing a theory. It may be we find that it was both direct creation and evolution working in concert. The testing of the theory would involve finding organisms that were simply too complex to evolve through small steps and testing whether evolution could actually create those through the small steps needed to support the theory would be one way to disprove it, and test it. Finding an organism with three complex parts that work in concert, but would not work unless all three evolved at one time, then testing to see if the small steps necessary could have created all three at once is one of the ways that they are attempting to test their theory. And that is just one of the ways that it could be tested.

I personally believe that the Creator used evolution to create life, that the theory will be borne out through science, I have a personal belief that science is simply discovering the way the Architect did it, not a way to prove the Architect did not exist. However, attempting to argue that those who are testing an alternate theory are not practicing "science" is simply wrong, they would be practicing science even if all they were doing was attempting to disprove evolution, and we may find that they, in the end, are borne out by the science.

 

[IControlThePast]

If life was found that could not have evolved and must have been created, it would prove that ID was not only a Theory, but a truth indeed.

But how do you prove something has been created? The only evidence of "We can't think of any other way it could have happened" doesn't mean that a theory is right.

The assumption that there would be no way to tell that something was created is simply wrong. If that were true the entire science of Archeology would be a worthless adventure, we would be unable to tell if a pot were a natural or created artifact. Much of the sedimentary dating we use would also be worthless as it had its start in Archeology.

These things were created by humans. We can't tell what the Creator created. We have no really accurate history or "anthropology" equivalents for determining what the Creator made.

That the entire Theory of ID is based on disproving another theory does not make it so it isn't science as the scientific process involves disproving as well as testing a theory. It may be we find that it was both direct creation and evolution working in concert. The testing of the theory would involve finding organisms that were simply too complex to evolve through small steps and testing whether evolution could actually create those through the small steps needed to support the theory would be one way to disprove it, and test it. Finding an organism with three complex parts that work in concert, but would not work unless all three evolved at one time, then testing to see if the small steps necessary could have created all three at once is one of the ways that they are attempting to test their theory. And that is just one of the ways that it could be tested.

The disproving doesn't make it unscientific, but it makes it an argument, not a Theory.

Those can deal blows to Evolution, but it is difficult to say that just because we didn't find the link yet it doesn't exist. Cooption is an important part of Biology that deals with existing features becoming used for new purposes, so not all three have to be created at once, but could become adapted for different use. Several of the famous "irreducibly complex" mechanisms, like eyes and the bloodclotting cascade, have been shown to be a product of evolutionary pathways, and many more are going through the process.

Evolution may be wrong, but it won't be disproved scientifically by ID. ID is a fundamentally logically flawed scientific argument. It arises with the "who created the creator" problem. The Creator must be irreducibly complex to create irreducibly complex systems by ID arguments. An uncaused creator reduces the theory to Creationism, and also violates the starting assumption that a designer is needed for every complex object. The other solution is allowing for an infinite string of Creators, but when you allow an infinite amount of objects, the arbitrarily impossible probabilities supposedly needed for complexity developing on its own will lead to an irreducibly complex object assembling itself by chance.

 

[Hobbit]

ID is a fundamentally logically flawed scientific argument.

Only if you first assume that there is no God. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existance of God, making that a very invalid assumption. Science does not assume something false just because it cannot be proven. If your opening assumption concerning God is that there may be a God, a being of infinite power that has an infinite existance, then you can say to yourself, "Ok, assuming there isn't a God, spontaneous creation and evolution probably got us here, but if there is a God, then it makes much more sense that he created such complex beings." Other than that, the possibility of another being that was created spontaneously designing us to be their masterpiece of biotech is about the only other ID explanation, which is a bit farfetched.

 

[IControlThePast]

Only if you first assume that there is no God.

Well I used ID theory to disprove itself, so I did make the starting assumption that there is a God.

You cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existance of God, making that a very invalid assumption.

I know, theories that rely on the existence or non-existence of a God to work, like ID, are based on a scientifically invalid assumption. Evolution does not rely on either of these.

Science does not assume something false just because it cannot be proven.

Science wants evidence through the Scientific Method for something to be a theory. It doesn't assume something Scientific if there isn't evidence.

If your opening assumption concerning God is that there may be a God, a being of infinite power that has an infinite existance, then you can say to yourself, "Ok, assuming there isn't a God, spontaneous creation and evolution probably got us here, but if there is a God, then it makes much more sense that he created such complex beings."

Both of these work under Evolution. If there is a God, he created such complex beings through Evolution, see.

Other than that, the possibility of another being that was created spontaneously designing us to be their masterpiece of biotech is about the only other ID explanation, which is a bit farfetched.

If God is infinite in existence, how did he get there in the first place? He is undoubtedly irreducibly complex. Everything irreducibly complex requires a Creator by ID.

 

[Hobbit]

If God is infinite in existence, how did he get there in the first place? He is undoubtedly irreducibly complex. Everything irreducibly complex requires a Creator by ID.

Maybe by your definition of ID. God, being an infinite being, has always and always will exsit. Now, in our understanding of the universe, that's impossible, as everything must have a beginning. However, isn't it equally possible that our knowledge of the universe is simply to limited in scope to understand and comprehend everything in it?

The problem I have with evolution is that it's a theory with no more supporting evidence than ID (25 allegedly intermediary fossils among millions of species isn't much to go on), and while an interesting theory, is typically taught as unrefutable fact not for any scientific reason, but instead out of an effort to "disprove" God. You say that if there is a God, he guided evolution. I say that God simply made similar beings. You may fully believe evolution for different reasons, but that's my main beef with it.

 

[manu1959]

why is id atributed to a god? is it not possible that evolution, and survival of the fittest are subsets of id?