Intelligent Design and Evolution?

[frazzledgear]

Is intelligent design merely an abstact concept or is there an official, documented dogma that articulates precisely what a believer in I.D. actually believes? If it is merely an abstract concept, how can it really contradict the theory of evolution? Could not the evolutionary process be the foundation of such an intelligent design? The cynic in me views it as a largely failed politcal ploy, concocted by science-hating creationists, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts?

People constantly confuse the theory of Intelligent Design with Creationism -but they are not one and the same and do not derive from the same roots. Creationism is entirely based on religious doctrine posing as a scientific "theory" that is a simple declaration that God created everything -but it is not a legitimate or testable scientific theory at all. Creationism has no place in a science class.

The theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically based and did not come about due to any religious doctrine or due to any religious beliefs by those proposing the theory. It is a theory proposed by numerous scientists in unrelated fields of science and when it has been proposed, it is for an extremely narrow application within those fields regarding highly specific questions. It does not purport to be the right answer for every possible question in the various fields where it has been proposed, just very certain and specific questions. In most fields of science where it has been proposed, it has been proposed as being the best answer for just one or two specific questions. But those fields of science where it has been proposed include nearly every field of science.

For instance, among evolutionary biologists -yes evolutionary biologists, some have proposed that the theory of Intelligence Design best explains the sticky problem of what is called "irreducibly complex systems". (An example of a nonbiological irreducibly complex system would be a mousetrap -from which you can remove one part after another until if you remove even one more part, it won't function as a mousetrap at all. At that point, in order to still function as a mousetrap, it is now an irreducibly complex system. Remove one more part and it is just useless junk.)

One such irreducibly complex system is the the visual system. In most species, at least 34 critical parts must all be present -parts that are formed from unrelated tissues, structures, hormones and chemical production, etc. -or the system doesn't work at all. These necessary changes include part of the brain extending outside the cranial cavity, the dermis transforming to form a globe to encase that brain extension, the transformation of that brain extension to be able to receive light impulses, to the formation within the bone to protect and support the eyes, to the transformation of epidermal tissue in more than four different ways from transparent tissue that is also encased within the globe to the formation of protective covering, to the chemical changes required to carry those light impulses to the brain, AND the transformation of part of the brain itself to be able to decode and understand that message once received in the brain, etc. and I am still skipping many other critical changes that are necessary for vision to happen. It isn't a matter of a couple of bumps on the forehead turning into eyeballs and voila -a critter sees.

The theory of evolution says all the minimally necessary required parts of a visual system came about in incremental mutations over eons, piece by piece until all parts were in place and then and only then and by mere happenstance, were all those mutations exactly the ones required to work together in order to produce a functional visual system.

But in fact, the fossil record undeniably shows that visual systems showed up all at once, fully functioning -and showed up all at once in thousands of unrelated species during the very same and very short period of time (geologically speaking) -not as a result of the gradual accumulation of mutations. And it had to show up all at once fully functioning because a visual system won't work unless all the required parts are in place. So the diehards simply said well it was a MASSIVE one-time but random mutation involving all those different tissues and structures all at once -and oh, just HAPPENED to have meaninglessly resulted in a fully functional visual system and ALSO to have occurred at the very same time in thousands of unrelated species!

The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, if not outright lethal to the species and it is accepted that it is the very rare mutation that is neutral and has no effect at all, and the most rare of all mutations are those that are beneficial to the species.

Because the fossil record undeniably proves fully functional visual systems showed up all at once and not piece by piece, if it were really due to evolution and random, meaningless chance - it had to have been an event never seen before or since -the MASSIVE but totally random simultaneous and totally BENEFICIAL mutation of dozens of unrelated tissues and structures in a species while it was also occurring in thousands of unrelated species at the same time -that all just "happened" to meaninglessly produce fully functional visual systems. Easy to see why more than a few scientists find that explanation a difficult one to swallow.

So more than a few evolutionary biologists have proposed such an event is so statistically improbable to be a result of random, meaningless chance step in evolution as to be among the LEAST likely answers. And that the theory of Intelligent Design -which means it was an intentional change and not a random event -best answers this phenomenon.

Like any scientific theory, this theory can be tested for accuracy. Scientists test theories for accuracy by TRYING TO PROVE IT IS WRONG. Which means there must be MORE scientific research in order to see if there is a better answer that fits the known facts. Because the theory of evolution totally fails to do that for many very specific questions within several different fields of science - including this one. Some people have a real hang-up about evolution, as if the only possible choices are evolution or God and there can't possibly be ANY other answers to the questions we just don't know. Hogwash. The theory of evolution is a significantly flawed theory and that only means we still haven't gotten it right. Which means we keep looking instead of demanding people worship at the altar of evolution.

There are other theories under consideration at this moment trying to prove there is a natural explanation for this specific phenomenon as well as other theories proposed to explain the other specific questions in other fields of science where it has also been proposed. It isn't even a case of ID vs. evolution -but one of many theories vs. evolution. While ID focuses on the improbability of certain phenemonon being random events, other theories attempt to find a natural explanation while acknowledging it is very unlikely to be due to random chance.

One theory hypothesizes that the earth underwent a one-time, super intense cosmological exposure that affected similar tissues in unrelated species and resulted in the massive simultaneous (yet still entirely beneficial) mutations of similar tissues in all those unrelated specied -that just happened to have resulted in producing functional visual systems during the same period of time -and they are looking to see if there is any evidence to back that theory up since such exposure would still leave residual evidence it hit the earth. But if even if that theory is correct, it means visual systems were NOT due to random, meaningless steps of evolution, but entirely the result of a specific event.

The theory of Intelligent Design is just one of many new theories -one that postulates that very specific phenomena and events are statistically improbably due to meaningless, random chance and if random chance is ruled out, that only leaves purposeful intent. But it is just one of many new theories scientists have proposed and are researching - some of which also agree that random chance is highly improbable but still a natural event such as the above theory, some that still hold on to random chance mixed with specific events - and none of them are "evolution" per se. How many have your kids learned about? Or have they been taught that evolution is the only answer to questions like why visual systems suddenly showed up and a "proven" fact -when it is no such thing.

By teaching kids that scientists are still struggling to answer some of the most perplexing questions, we all benefit by it because it can only increase our scientific knowledge -and it may be one of those kids whose curiosity is sparked that makes a big contribution to our knowledge. But letting them know the truth -that we are far from having the answers will never decrease our scientific knowledge.

If the theory of ID is the wrong answer for the specific questions it has been proposed, only MORE scientific research can possibly prove it wrong -and we all gain by that discovery. But, knowing they face the ruin of their careers and reputation if wrong - no scientist has proposed the theory of ID as the best answer to a specific question or phenomenon in their field of science until they were utterly convinced there was no possible better explanation for it.

 

[frazzledgear]

Is intelligent design merely an abstact concept or is there an official, documented dogma that articulates precisely what a believer in I.D. actually believes? If it is merely an abstract concept, how can it really contradict the theory of evolution? Could not the evolutionary process be the foundation of such an intelligent design? The cynic in me views it as a largely failed politcal ploy, concocted by science-hating creationists, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts?

After that lengthy first reply, I failed to answer your question. There is no documented or written dogma that articulates precisely what a "believer" in ID believes. That is because it is not a theory like the theory of evolution that attempts to answer every possible question about the origins of life, the diversity of species and even behavior of species. Evolution is the only scientific theory that claims to answer nearly everything -while most scientific theories do not try to answer EVERYTHING, but come up with a theory to try and answer one, specific question they are researching. So a scientist may propose the theory of ID as the best and most scientifically accurate theory to answer question A, while in complete agreement that some other non-ID theory is the best and most scientifically accurate answer to question B.

So to find out why a particular scientist proposed the theory of ID to answer a specific question in his/her field of science, you must first know the specific scientific question involved and why that scientist believed he/she ruled out all other possible explanations to answer that specific question. Legitimate scientific theories aren't about "belief" in the first place because science is not a "belief" system -it is an investigatory system. The theory of ID has been offered up by scientists in nearly every field of science as a legitimate theory as the most scientifically accurate answer to highly specific questions - one that can and should be tested. Theories are hypotheses that require other scientists to test it for accuracy. And scientists can only test theories for accuracy by trying to prove it wrong -not ever by trying to prove it is correct.

And that may be why some of the evolutionists -who aren't scientists but very vocal anyway -insist that no such attempt be made to test the theory of evolution because it means trying to prove it is wrong. And they are afraid it just might be -as if the only possible choice is that evolution is true or creationism is true and can't possibly be any other answer.

But in fact, scientists propose more than 2,000 theories before getting one right. What are the odds that Darwin got it completely right for EVERYTHING right off the bat? LOL In fact, the theory of evolution is badly flawed. Darwin admitted the only evidence that would or could support his theory would be found in the fossil record and predicted the vast majority of fossils would be "in-between" species when in reality not a single "in-between" has ever been found -so what does that say about his theory when he was the one who said only the fossil record could support that theory and it doesn't? The theory of evolution fails to answer specific questions it was proposed to explain and that means we haven't gotten it right yet. But most people will never find that out unless they go on to study the advanced sciences.

 

[Diuretic]

Look, I know I'm not scientific minded so don't beat me up, I'm a tender petal

Seems to me that Darwin decided to let rip with his ideas when he was ready. Wasn't it the voyage of the Beagle and his visit to the Galapagos Islands that spurred him to think the way he did? Anyway, as I was saying, I also think that a scientist will publish ideas when they are ready even though they may at that time be unfinished. Nothing like inviting your peers to tear your ideas (and method and data and all the rest of it) apart to see (a) if your ideas are any good and (b) to improve on them.

That's how science works isn't it?

As an aside, Darwin is the name of the capital city of the Northern Territory of Australia. It's an irony because I reckon some folks up there haven't quite evolved with the rest of us, like the bloke who got on the turps one morning (yes, morning) and swam into a croc-infested area and complained when a copper shot at a croc that was about to take him! Maybe the missing links are all up there in the pub?

http://tinyurl.com/2kaqw5

The croc didn't get hit apparently, would have been a neat headline in the NT News - "Cop's Glock rocks croc". You have to say it aloud

 

[jillian]

Frazzled... while I certainly appreciate the time you took to post your ideas, the idea that ID is in any way scientific is disingenuous. ID is no more and no less than what religion has always done... attribute to a higher power what humans cannot yet explain. It serves as an effort to blur the lines between religion and science.


Now, let's look at what it really is...

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3][4] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[7][8] Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory,[9] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[10]

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[11][12][13][14] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[15] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[16] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And let's look at what the Discovery Institute which manufactured this idea of ID is:

The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis," through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[6][7][8] A federal court recently ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[9] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[10][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

So, let's call things what they are. ID is creationism by another name and it and the people who support it want to infect my child's science classes with religious dogma. So far all your fine writing, it isn't science of any type. You want your children to learn it, you are free to send them to parochial school. They'll never be scientists of course, but they'll be a huge hit in Church on Sundays.

 

[frazzledgear]

Frazzled... while I certainly appreciate the time you took to post your ideas, the idea that ID is in any way scientific is disingenuous. ID is no more and no less than what religion has always done... attribute to a higher power what humans cannot yet explain. It serves as an effort to blur the lines between religion and science.


Now, let's look at what it really is...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And let's look at what the Discovery Institute which manufactured this idea of ID is:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

So, let's call things what they are. ID is creationism by another name and it and the people who support it want to infect my child's science classes with religious dogma. So far all your fine writing, it isn't science of any type. You want your children to learn it, you are free to send them to parochial school. They'll never be scientists of course, but they'll be a huge hit in Church on Sundays.

All of the above are merely attempts to discredit this theory without having to repeat the research or try to prove it wrong. The theory of ID is not an attempt to bring science into line with certain religious dogma but I certainly agree it could be interpreted as such -because I did too. It is easy to dismiss the theory out of hand based on nothing more than the name of the theory and many have.

When I first heard of this theory, I ASSUMED it was an attempt to simply re-name Creationism and I wrote it off as such. Keep in mind -I think Creationism has no place in science or in a science classroom. But the problem many scientists had when attempting to hypothesize an explanation for specific phenomena or questions, is that their research kept eliminating or showing that random chance was among the least likely answers. If you rule out random chance -then you are confronted with a dilemma when trying to put a name to what you have most likely ruled in as the most scientifically accurate answer.

You have to remember that many of the questions being asked in science today -weren't being asked when Darwin put forth his theory because we lacked the knowledge to even ask those questions, much less try to answer them. Our greatest accumulation of scientific knowledge has happened in the last 30 years and it is during the last 10-12 years that the theory of ID has been posited by more and more scientists -not fewer.

An extremely simplistic example of the problem facing the scientists who have hypothesized this theory would be that you discover a bunch of million-year old papers (yeah, yeah forget that paper wasn't invented yet and would never hold up that long anyway if it had been) with some sort of markings on it and after much work, you realize it was a code and you have broken that code and can understand the message that was written there. But our current scientific "thinking" based entirely on a theory that is now nearly a century old claims that prehistoric papers with any kind of markings on them happened by random chance and has no meaning -because at the time that theory was put forth, we did not have the knowledge or ability to realize those markings had any meaning.

Now what really are the odds that the ink that made the markings on those papers just randomly fell on the paper -and it is sheer happenstance that it ended up making markings you were able to decipher and found made sense and conveyed a message? What are the statistical odds that those markings were randomly placed there, just by random happened to be assembled to make a meaningful and decipherable message yet the manner in which it happened was meaningless? About the same odds that if you put a million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters for 1,000 years -that among all the zillions of papers they randomly typed on, you will be able to find entire pages that when assembled together turn out to be the complete works of Shakespeare.

As a scientist who takes his work seriously, are you going to pretend that the ink randomly fell on that paper and just HAPPENED to result in a decipherable code anyway BECAUSE it is both politically correct to say so and because you fear that insisting it could only have happened due to intent and intelligent design will ruin your career?

That is the position every scientist who finally ended up positing the theory of Intelligent Design for a specific event or question they were researching has found themselves in. Are you going to be intellectually true to yourself, try to tell the scientific community that based on knowledge gained long after that nearly century-year old theory, that you are now able to identify the most likely and scientifically accurate answer that the ink was placed on that paper with the intention of making a decipherable code -or commit what amounts to a fraud in science by pretending it was a random, meaningless event that just happened to have turned out to be a decipherable message?

If you decide to be intellectually true to yourself and want to sincerely contribute your findings to science -then what the heck are you going to name the theory by which you think your research has shown those markings most likely happened? The Theory of Not Random After All?

The problem for scientists now that had used the term "intelligent design" in the name of their theory is that creationists have glommed onto it with a frenzy but only because it happens to mesh quite nicely with some of their religious doctrine. And some creationists really HAVE re-named "Creationism" and now call it "Theory of Intelligent Design", saying it is a "scientific" theory that hypothesizes that EVERYTHING in nature is due to intelligent design -but that isn't what the theory actually says. It is what creationists say by calling "creationism" the "theory of Intelligent Design". By intertwining the two, it makes it much easier to just discredit the theory and toss it out without repeating the research or trying to prove it false.

The scientific theory of intelligent design is not an all-encompassing theory that says everything in nature exists by intelligent design. It was put forth as the most scientifically accurate answer for highly specific questions posed and researched by scientists -and every scientist who has offered it as the most scientifically accurate answer for those specific questions wouldn't hesitate to say that it does NOT answer other questions in science at all.

 

[manifold]

But the problem many scientists had when attempting to hypothesize an explanation for specific phenomena or questions, is that their research kept eliminating or showing that random chance was among the least likely answers.

Complete and total bull shit.

 

[frazzledgear]

Complete and total bull shit.

And you repeated the specific research for those scientific questions where the theory has been proposed so you can show all the scientists who proposed this theory why they are full of crap? Maybe you think just SAYING it is total bs is the same as PROVING it is. If some scientist with the educational and training credentials says their research eliminated the possibilty that some specific phenomenon happened due to random chance and lays out their research showing why they came to that conclusion -your answer is "bs" as if that proves their research wrong? SCIENTISTS who have put forth this theory as the most scientifically accurate have their work to support why they reached that conclusion. What do you have to counter it?

Or have you simply dismissed it out of hand because of the fact creationists have glommed onto it and try to exploit it for their own agenda and you have some misguided notion that if someone tries to exploit a scientific theory for their own agenda, it somehow "proves" that theory has no legitimacy of any kind? In that case, the theory of global warming should have been in real trouble long ago, right? Haven't seen a scientific theory so badly politicized to suit the political agendas of so many as that one.

I totally dismissed this theory out of hand when I first heard of it -based on the name of the theory alone. I am NOT claiming that just because some scientists have proposed this theory in response to very specific scientific research that it means it is now "fact". I know no such thing -and it doesn't matter to me if it is or not. If it isn't, then whoever proves this one wrong has contributed greater knowledge for us all. No scientific research or results affect my personal religious beliefs -because my religious beliefs aren't based on science in the first place.

What do you expect from science -to disprove the existence of God or something? I look to science to discover and answer questions about how our world and universe work and function -period. I do not expect it to ever reveal the existence of God, you should not expect it to somehow disprove the existence of God because it can do neither.

It is absolutely wrong to demand that science fall in line with some religious doctrine or else demand it be rejected as "false". We have been there, done that and all we got for it was the stagnation of scientific knowledge for a couple of centuries until FINALLY enough scientists were able to show through enough research that in spite of religious doctrine, things really weren't what religion insisted they must be. It is how the species got stuck with the flat earth bs for so many years and LONG after a scientist very first hypothesized the earth was round.

I don't care at all if the theory of ID were proven to be wrong regarding the specific questions where it has been offered. Because I have nothing invested in whether it is right or wrong. My religious beliefs don't hinge on it, weren't formed based on it -all science has zero impact on them. My religious beliefs are never incompatible with science and never will be - not even the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution were proven to be totally true in its entirety (which it hasn't), not a problem for me at all. The parts of that theory that have held up with research -bothers me not at all and it wouldn't if all of it did. I value the increased knowledge we gain through research, regardless of what that research shows. But if research starts showing that we still didn't get some answers right, the solution is not to pretend we did anyway -it is to do MORE research, offer up and challenge even more theories.

Only those with an AGENDA have something invested in clinging to some theory OR when demanding that other theories offered up with the research to back it up -still be dismissed out of hand without first providing the research proving they are incorrect. Rejecting out of hand without first proving why it is wrong is exactly how humans got stuck with false information for centuries on end in the past -so you want to repeat that mistake now? Why not demand scientists PROVE those scientists who offered up research supporting the theory of ID are dead wrong instead of insisting we all PRETEND it must be wrong without any evidence it is? If there are natural explanations for those specific questions scientists have offered the theory of ID, proving it wrong is the ONLY way to find out what that real answer is!

Insisting that science must adhere to some religious doctrine is an absolute disservice to human knowledge, guarantees the propagation and adherence to false information that can only lead us astray from finding the truth. But rejecting legitimate research on the grounds it HAPPENS to fit in with some religious doctrine, is no less an absolute disservice, guarantees the propagation and adherence to false information and can only lead us astray from finding the truth. Both are incredibly stupid and ignorant demands -and BOTH are in reality just a "flat earth" mentality.

 

[jillian]

Insisting that something that can't be tested, peer reviewed or replicated is science is a disservice to science.

 

[AllieBaba]

The whole art of science, the whole driving force behind it is about taking a theory...and then attempting to prove it, or disprove it. Science is all about testing things which haven't been successfully tested before. Despite adversity, despite fads, despite peer pressure.

A consensus does not a fact make. A whole group of people can have the same WRONG idea. The "consensus" of scientists in the middle ages (I just said this in another thread, too) was that the world was flat and illnesses were caused by different humours, etc. Scientists today can still (and are still) be wrong collectively about things.

For example, the "consensus" that eggs raised cholesterol, which in turn increases the risk of heart attack. WRONG. The "consensus" that salt caused high blood pressure and should be eliminated from the diet. WRONG. The "consensus" that unborn babies are not human. WRONG. The "consensus" that we share a common ancestor with apes. WRONG. The "consensus" that we should eliminate fat from children's diets. WRONG (really, REALLY wrong, in fact). The "consensus" that we cause global warming. WRONG.

 

[Diuretic]

The whole art of science, the whole driving force behind it is about taking a theory...and then attempting to prove it, or disprove it. Science is all about testing things which haven't been successfully tested before. Despite adversity, despite fads, despite peer pressure.

A consensus does not a fact make. A whole group of people can have the same WRONG idea. The "consensus" of scientists in the middle ages (I just said this in another thread, too) was that the world was flat and illnesses were caused by different humours, etc. Scientists today can still (and are still) be wrong collectively about things.

For example, the "consensus" that eggs raised cholesterol, which in turn increases the risk of heart attack. WRONG. The "consensus" that salt caused high blood pressure and should be eliminated from the diet. WRONG. The "consensus" that babies are not human. WRONG. The "consensus" that we share a common ancestor with apes. WRONG. The "consensus" that we should eliminate fat from children's diets. WRONG (really, REALLY wrong, in fact). The "consensus" that we cause global warming. WRONG.

Have you heard the term 'paradigm shift'?

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes indeed.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes indeed.

What does it to do scientific consensus?

 

[AllieBaba]

Blows it out of the water.

 

[Diuretic]

Blows it out of the water.

Does it ever. So, is it fair to say that the scientific community is largely without dogma? I ask because since paradigm shifts exist it must be that the scientific community is open-minded enough to accept that at times current explanations for observed phenomena just don't explain well enough. What do you think? Is that a fair assumption or am I well off track?

 

[frazzledgear]

Insisting that something that can't be tested, peer reviewed or replicated is science is a disservice to science.

Because creationism says that God or a Supreme Being created everything, that can never be tested. Science isn't going to prove or disprove the existence of God, therefore it just isn't a legitimate scientific theory -it is a statement regarding religious doctrine and beliefs.

But that isn't the case when scientists have proposed the theory of ID as the most scientifically accurate answer for a particular phenomenon or question -they always have the work to back up their conclusions. It isn't as if some scientist just spouted off one day and said "I think such and such could only have happened due to intelligent design" but has nothing to back that up because that isn't how scientists propose theories.

They do the work first and see what conclusions can be reached based on that work. And that work can be proven to have been done wrong or incompletely - or that their conclusions are just not actually supported by their own work. Unlike creationists, the theory of ID has only been proposed by scientists with regard to a highly specific question that applies only to that particular question or phenomenon and have provided their work to back up their conclusions that in THIS specific case, that applies to nothing else -and on the basis of that work, they could only conclude that this particular phenomenon or question could NOT have been a result of random and meaningless chance and therefore is more likely to be a result of an intentional act.

But just for the record, this is where I happen to think scientists who have offered up the theory of ID as the best answer to a particular question have their biggest problem and the front they can be most easily challenged. It isn't with their research and work product since I don't have the credentials to challenge that and for many, since their careers and reputations are tied to it, their work is probably pretty solid. But I think their conclusions are too limited by saying if their works renders random, meaningless chance statistically improbable -that somehow means it must have been "on purpose". And I say that not knowing whether their work was also able to eliminate other options or not -it may have. So I'm just guessing that for some, it did not.

For example -at an archeological dig, we find that every single person buried there after a certain year for the next thousand years had blue eyes while those buried before that year had either blue or brown. The theory of evolution says it is random and meaningless chance it just happened to end up that and means nothing. But anyone's research is going to make that a statistically improbable event and therefore highly unlikely to be a result of evolution. But does that automatically mean since random chance is ruled out it must be due to intelligent design?

What if further research showed that on a particular day, all the brown-eyed members of that tribe went on a hunting expedition along with some blue-eyed ones -and every one of them was killed in an ambush by another tribe. That would only leave blue-eyed people left in that tribe and blue eyes are recessive, so all their children from then on would only have blue eyes and everyone buried after that would only have blue eyes. Suppose that tribe had been hit by a catastrophic illness and while many blue-eyed people died of the illness, every single brown-eyed person did too. Again, leaving only blue-eyed people from then on. Random chance of evolution is definitely ruled out -but neither of these other possibilities are intelligent design.

The fact that after a certain year everyone buried there only had blue eyes was definitely proven NOT to be a result of random, meaningless chance of evolution. It was due to a VERY specific event.

So I have no quarrel if the research produced by some scientist shows that a specific phenomenon is statistically improbably due to random chance. I have a POTENTIAL quarrel that by ruling out random chance, it means it could ONLY be a result of intelligent design unless their research also rules out other possibilities that aren't intelligent design. And truthfully, I haven't a clue whether their research really did do that or not, only other scientists challenging them can prove it did or not.

 

[frazzledgear]

Have you heard the term 'paradigm shift'?

I'm not going to discuss whether the previous poster was or was not correct about every example he used to try and make his point. But it is a fact that scientific truth is not determined by a democratic vote and never can be. At one point in our history every single scientist without exception agreed that the sun revolved around the earth. Did the fact there was 100% consensus in the scientific community mean it must have been true then? No, it only meant they were 100% wrong. Think that was the last time the general consensus among scientists was dead wrong? In fact, science has gotten it wrong MORE often than it has gotten it right -throughout our history and that has not changed and is not going to change. It is the nature of scientific discovery and we had better stop pretending whatever a scientist says is carved in stone from then on.

How many agree or disagree with a scientific theory is NOT how we determine scientific truth. It just doesn't work that way -no matter how often someone insists it does.

 

[manifold]

If some scientist with the educational and training credentials says their research eliminated the possibilty that some specific phenomenon happened due to random chance and lays out their research showing why they came to that conclusion -your answer is "bs" as if that proves their research wrong? SCIENTISTS who have put forth this theory as the most scientifically accurate have their work to support why they reached that conclusion. What do you have to counter it?

It is impossible to eliminate the possibility you claim has been eliminated. Any scientist making such an outlandish claim is either no scientist at all or has some ulterior, unscientific agenda. And legitimate scientists would pour scorn and ridicule on this particular assclown, and usually they do.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wrong. Scientists historically make wild claims and are ridiculed and ostracized by peers and public alike, then prove themselves.

Science is not democracy, and the approval of your peers means nothing if they're wrong.

 

[Shogun]

Wrong. Scientists historically make wild claims and are ridiculed and ostracized by peers and public alike, then prove themselves.

Science is not democracy, and the approval of your peers means nothing if they're wrong.

so what was the last CHRISTIAN scientist breakthrough, allie bear? What was the last piece of christian dogma to pass the criteria of the scientific method? One might have figured that the thumpers would have a full scale pilgrimage to Mount Ararat by now just to find evidence for noah's flood carving out the grand canyon!

 

[manifold]

Wrong. Scientists historically make wild claims and are ridiculed and ostracized by peers and public alike, then prove themselves.

Science is not democracy, and the approval of your peers means nothing if they're wrong.

Try to stay on topic please. Evolution is the context. It is not possible, in any way shape or form, to eliminate the possibility that genetic mutations occur randomly. Period. That's the fact part.

Now for the opinion part. Anyone that doesn't think it isn't only possible, but highly highly probable, is retarded.