Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

[geauxtohell]

Truth is not determined by many people believe in it. Was there anyone out there who believed in heliocentric system before Copernicus? Did that mean that before Copernicus the system was different?

And just because the authorities can put you in jail for saying it, it doesn't change what is there. Putting Galaleio in jail does not change the fact that the earth moves. Especially if you are reading Hemingway.

As I age, what little evidence I see for design in the system shows less evidence of intelligence than sadism.

I believe in God, and I believe in evolution. Therefore, logically, I have to adhere to some belief in some form of ID. However, here is the difference: I recognize the limitation in the scientific method and that allow "God In The Gaps" to creep into our scientific process will screw everything up. To me, this is about preserving the methodology that governs how we define the natural world in a scientific concept. It is beyond the scope of science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Objectivity is the key to sorting out the truths of reality, whether it's an inward philosophic perspective, or bench experiments. Which is most suitable to understanding origins, and our ordained position therin? Both have their place. From my perspective, it is an overview and analysis of what is before us. Biology is in our face. With better diagnostic tools, we can now discern much more than in the past. But we still face an enigma; how to objectively analyse what we see. Teleology or no, that is the question. In order to arrive at a logical conclusion, we must strive for objectivity.

A foundational principal of Skepticism (atheism) is objective and rational thought. This goes back to Plato, Socrates and beyond. David Hume claimed to be a leader in rational thought, although from his writings, I see bias and prsupposition sprinkled throughout. And not just he, we all have presuppositions and biases. Religous bias is one, but a staunch adherance to Darwinst thought is another. The first could be by indoctrination or a religious experience; the second via academic indoctrination primarily. Neither should be a starting point for seeking truth.

I frankly have neither. So when I am accused of having religious bias, I just chuckle. I believe in an overseer, and in fact have had encounter type experiences, many in fact. But my position on ID is purely based upon observation. And my views are subject to modification.

As a biomedical engineer, and having studied genetics, anatomy, and some physics and math, I see virtually everything that is non random from a design perspective. But I know there are those who do not, will not, and buy into darwinian logic carte blanche. To me, this constitutes a stubborn refusal to at least consider that life is the intentional outcome of directed activities.

And yeah, the design flaws of the human body often times lead one to wonder what sort of intelligence guided this process.

I see all designs as less than perfect, or subject to revision/ modification. But as we all know, biologic system function well. Since vertebrate forms are only temporary anyway, and since they do work well, why nitpick? They are merely temporary vehicles for the 'real' self, a spirt form of some sort.

Regarding eyes in particular, the degenerate args I hear are silly and sophmoric. If I can zip through traffic while talking with someone in the car, glance at a chick in another car or on the sidewalk, handle an iphone, and all at a rapid pace, I'd say the eyes/ brain were functionaing well.

Or signt integrated to bodily functions in boxing or soccer, running to catch a ball in the outfield with sun in your eyes, or catching a ball between first and second while keeping your eye on the runner. And then I hear that the eyes are bad designs! B S

On top of that, I am dismayed (but not surprised), the dishonest institutions like the Discovery Institute would be run by a bunch of "born again" lawyers and other soft science (at best) eggheads that don't deem it necessary to allocate a bulk of their funding into any research and instead dump their efforts into trying to sway public opinion. They have no interest in science, they are simply a political action committee in wolves clothing.

I see a new crop of design proponents in the wings. They may accept a religious orientation or not, but they will not be agenda based due to a priori religious indoctrination. No, like I, they will be rationalists, even skeptics, but skeptical of ordained and imputed beliefs no matter which side is represented by those beliefs.

Given the Internet as a resource, some will be of the 'new atheist' ilk, but the others will be design theorists, and will not accept darwinian tenets in the classroom. They just won't. And in sense, I feel for the profs who will have to deal with them ...

A pretty good and thoughtful post. I'll try and get to it when I have time to give it the same time and degree of thought that you put into it.

 

[52ndStreet]

And these "Professionals Scientist" , were they around all those millions of years to observe Darwins theory of evolution?.

Why ask silly rhetorical questions? There are a lot of things in nature we can't directly observe. We can't directly observe ATPase making ATP, yet we can design experiments to figure out how it works. If we limited science to what is directly observable, the field would narrow dramatically.

As an aside, if you subscribe to ID, then you accept evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species, you just think that some supernatural force was guiding the process.

In that vein, no one observed that process either. In light of that, your point is even more silly.

It becomes unworkable scientifically when you realize and accept that you can't falsify a deity and you can't observe (either directly or through experiments) the existence of a deity and their contribution to ID.

That's the point you guys seemingly don't get.

Where is the facts of the theory of evolution

Easy to find. I am not going to do your homework for you. Especially when you'll just ignore it. Again, evolution is the mechanism ID uses to explain the origin of man. Your problem (if you adhere to ID) isn't evolution, it's whether the process of evolution was guided or happened randomly in nature.

that these so called "Professional Scientist" claim to have ??.
That can explain all the biological complexities that we see on the Earth today!!?
Did all these complex creatures all evolve from ameoba slime?, please give me a break Darwins theory is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.!!

Darwin's theory only proximately resembles modern evolutionary theory. Darwin was hardly the first to come up with the idea of species evolving over time. His main contribution was the concept that fitness drives speciation, which is still recognized as the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. If your claim is that Darwin's theory is absurd in certain places, few would argue with you. He had no good mechanism to explain genetics. Hard to fault the guy since he came up with this in 1859 (actually, he came up with it 20 years before that).

Thus, if you think Darwin's theory is what is being taught in evolutionary biology classes now as the most current explanation for the origin of species, you are completely ignorant on this topic.

In fact, based on your posts on the matter, I don't think you understand the differences between ID, Darwin's Theory, and the Modern Synthesis Concept of Evolution.

Not surprising.

My point is you seem to be defending Darwins theory as the Holy grail of human existence here on planet Earth!, when it is not!. As you so stated the man had no tie in explanation for the complexities , and mysteries with regard to Human DNA, RNA, human and living organism protein specialization and species differentiation.
He could never link his theory to all the many different variations of life forms we see today.! So now you people are trying to link ID with Evolution , with this "modern synthesis Concept of Evolution" , which is just trying to mix in Darwins theory with some
other legitimate explanation.If Darwin's theory is so full prof it should be able to stand on it's own merits.!

It seems now that we have a theory that may point to a God, many scientist get uncomfortable.
And yes I do know the differences between all the other theory, and that is why I am sticking with Intelligent design.!!

 

[geauxtohell]

My point is you seem to be defending Darwins theory as the Holy grail of human existence here on planet Earth!, when it is not!. As you so stated the man had no tie in explanation for the complexities , and mysteries with regard to Human DNA, RNA, human and living organism protein specialization and species differentiation.
He could never link his theory to all the many different variations of life forms we see today.! So now you people are trying to link ID with Evolution , with this "modern synthesis Concept of Evolution" , which is just trying to mix in Darwins theory with some
other legitimate explanation.If Darwin's theory is so full prof it should be able to stand on it's own merits.!

It seems now that we have a theory that may point to a God, many scientist get uncomfortable.
And yes I do know the differences between all the other theory, and that is why I am sticking with Intelligent design.!!

You don't have a point. This post is so full if misstatements that I don't even have time to correct them all. Your ignorance for what you are arguing for is astounding. You are seemingly unaware that ID embraces evolution as the mechanism. They are more than happy to use evolution as the "how" they just want to use "Intelligent Design" as the "why". Science itself is completely uninterested in the "why" over this issue. Perhaps you should research what some of the ID proponents have actually said and believe before looking like a further buffoon. And, no, you most certainly do not (if you posts are any indication) know the difference between what Darwin said versus what we adhere to right now versus intelligent design.

The "Modern Synthesis" is not linked to ID. Quite the opposite. ID tried to bastardized a legitimate scientific theory to make a "God in the gaps" argument that is completely un-scientific. No where in any scientific theory is it permissible to say a supernatural force guided a natural process.

If you reject the mechanisms of evolution, you'd be better off sticking with a creationist view of the world.

Other than that, there is plenty of scientific work on the emergence of nucleic acids and amino acids that date back to the early 50s.

Once again, I won't do homework for a closed mind.

Finally, and again, I have never defended "Darwin's Theory" as the "Holy Grail". As I have noted, Darwin had a lot of problems with his theory. However, the cornerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different.

So many of you ID proponents spout out such crapola, which shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and then have the moxie to wonder why we don't take you seriously.

 

[Old Rocks]

Darwin was the pioneer. And an absolutely wonderful naturlist. It was a wonder that he did get as much right as he did, considering the science of that day and age.

 

[Father Time]

I saw a show the other night about the how scientist were at a lost to explain the tremendous amount of new species of animals and plants that suddenly appeared during the Cambian period millions of years ago on Earth.

They stated the info from the fossils , puts in question Darwins theory of Evolution. Darwins theory states that species developed from small single cell life forms , to more
complex advanced life forms. "From the bottom up".

The intelligent design theory, which the Cambian period in the Earths development shows,was from the "Top down". Which showed that they were many complex life forms already developed, that then evolved into more complex life form. And this indicates some form of intelligent design with regards to life forms here on Earth.

The program stated that Darwin could never fully explain the abundance of new life forms
that were on the Earth during this Cambain period. And he felt it would eventually challenge his theory of evolution and natural selection.

I for one accept the intelligent design theory. It seems more logical and practical for todays world and for the world of the past.

Any other opinions?

So you're saying it was a combination of both or what?

 

[Father Time]

Moreover the theory of evolution does not explain tissue and protein differentiation
withing the millions of species here on Earth.! The evolutionary process can not
explain how tissue differentiation works withing the context of the evolution!?.
Biomechanics of today have not fully explained this process.!!??
Or how the process is controlled or initiated.!!?

Sure it does. Is it a 100% explanation? No, of course not. No one ever claimed that evolution didn't have holes in it.

It still trumps attributing everything to a mystical being that, for some reason, decided to make tissue that likes to go rogue and produce cancer.

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human
existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

Well the alternative, ID/Creationism does not qualify as science. It has holes in it a plenty too.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sure it does. Is it a 100% explanation? No, of course not. No one ever claimed that evolution didn't have holes in it.

It still trumps attributing everything to a mystical being that, for some reason, decided to make tissue that likes to go rogue and produce cancer.

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human
existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

Well the alternative, ID/Creationism does not qualify as science. It has holes in it a plenty too.

I think 52nd just realized that "ID" uses the same evolutionary process for the explanation of the origin of species that science uses.

And thus, all of his bitching and moaning about the problems of evolution are also innate to ID and thus, his conspicuous absence.

And once again, it is so hard to take people who don't know what they are talking about seriously.

 

[52ndStreet]

My point is you seem to be defending Darwins theory as the Holy grail of human existence here on planet Earth!, when it is not!. As you so stated the man had no tie in explanation for the complexities , and mysteries with regard to Human DNA, RNA, human and living organism protein specialization and species differentiation.
He could never link his theory to all the many different variations of life forms we see today.! So now you people are trying to link ID with Evolution , with this "modern synthesis Concept of Evolution" , which is just trying to mix in Darwins theory with some
other legitimate explanation.If Darwin's theory is so full prof it should be able to stand on it's own merits.!

It seems now that we have a theory that may point to a God, many scientist get uncomfortable.
And yes I do know the differences between all the other theory, and that is why I am sticking with Intelligent design.!!

You don't have a point. This post is so full if misstatements that I don't even have time to correct them all. Your ignorance for what you are arguing for is astounding. You are seemingly unaware that ID embraces evolution as the mechanism. They are more than happy to use evolution as the "how" they just want to use "Intelligent Design" as the "why". Science itself is completely uninterested in the "why" over this issue. Perhaps you should research what some of the ID proponents have actually said and believe before looking like a further buffoon. And, no, you most certainly do not (if you posts are any indication) know the difference between what Darwin said versus what we adhere to right now versus intelligent design.

The "Modern Synthesis" is not linked to ID. Quite the opposite. ID tried to bastardized a legitimate scientific theory to make a "God in the gaps" argument that is completely un-scientific. No where in any scientific theory is it permissible to say a supernatural force guided a natural process.

If you reject the mechanisms of evolution, you'd be better off sticking with a creationist view of the world.

Other than that, there is plenty of scientific work on the emergence of nucleic acids and amino acids that date back to the early 50s.

Once again, I won't do homework for a closed mind.

Finally, and again, I have never defended "Darwin's Theory" as the "Holy Grail". As I have noted, Darwin had a lot of problems with his theory. However, the cornerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different.

So many of you ID proponents spout out such crapola, which shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and then have the moxie to wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"The conerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different."

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.What caused humans to diverge from these so called Apes or Primates?
Intelligent design , answers many of the gaps in Darwins theory, and the Big Bang theory. Many of these scientist are atheist , and just don't want to hear any theory that may point to the existence of God. This is the main issue that they and you, don't want to accept.

 

[geauxtohell]

My point is you seem to be defending Darwins theory as the Holy grail of human existence here on planet Earth!, when it is not!. As you so stated the man had no tie in explanation for the complexities , and mysteries with regard to Human DNA, RNA, human and living organism protein specialization and species differentiation.
He could never link his theory to all the many different variations of life forms we see today.! So now you people are trying to link ID with Evolution , with this "modern synthesis Concept of Evolution" , which is just trying to mix in Darwins theory with some
other legitimate explanation.If Darwin's theory is so full prof it should be able to stand on it's own merits.!

It seems now that we have a theory that may point to a God, many scientist get uncomfortable.
And yes I do know the differences between all the other theory, and that is why I am sticking with Intelligent design.!!

You don't have a point. This post is so full if misstatements that I don't even have time to correct them all. Your ignorance for what you are arguing for is astounding. You are seemingly unaware that ID embraces evolution as the mechanism. They are more than happy to use evolution as the "how" they just want to use "Intelligent Design" as the "why". Science itself is completely uninterested in the "why" over this issue. Perhaps you should research what some of the ID proponents have actually said and believe before looking like a further buffoon. And, no, you most certainly do not (if you posts are any indication) know the difference between what Darwin said versus what we adhere to right now versus intelligent design.

The "Modern Synthesis" is not linked to ID. Quite the opposite. ID tried to bastardized a legitimate scientific theory to make a "God in the gaps" argument that is completely un-scientific. No where in any scientific theory is it permissible to say a supernatural force guided a natural process.

If you reject the mechanisms of evolution, you'd be better off sticking with a creationist view of the world.

Other than that, there is plenty of scientific work on the emergence of nucleic acids and amino acids that date back to the early 50s.

Once again, I won't do homework for a closed mind.

Finally, and again, I have never defended "Darwin's Theory" as the "Holy Grail". As I have noted, Darwin had a lot of problems with his theory. However, the cornerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different.

So many of you ID proponents spout out such crapola, which shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and then have the moxie to wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"The conerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different."

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.What caused humans to diverge from these so called Apes or Primates?
Intelligent design , answers many of the gaps in Darwins theory, and the Big Bang theory. Many of these scientist are atheist , and just don't want to hear any theory that may point to the existence of God. This is the main issue that they and you, don't want to accept.

The main issue actually, which you don't want to accept, is that science is intentionally mute on the existence of God, whether pro or con. Therefore, ID is not a scientific theory. You can call it philosophy or a world view, but you can't call it science.

Many scientists are religious (my favorite is Dr. Ken Miller), they simply realize that the scientific method doesn't allow for the supernatural in explaining natural processes (science would be a fool's errand otherwise).

That's the issue. Not whether ID is true or false, because that question is entirely outside the scope of science to answer.

BTW, evolutionary theory never stated man evolved from apes. Just another idiotic misconception you have that demonstrates you have no earthly idea as to what you are talking about. There are plenty of answers to all your other questions, but I refuse to do homework for someone who is not interested in learning.

 

[52ndStreet]

You don't have a point. This post is so full if misstatements that I don't even have time to correct them all. Your ignorance for what you are arguing for is astounding. You are seemingly unaware that ID embraces evolution as the mechanism. They are more than happy to use evolution as the "how" they just want to use "Intelligent Design" as the "why". Science itself is completely uninterested in the "why" over this issue. Perhaps you should research what some of the ID proponents have actually said and believe before looking like a further buffoon. And, no, you most certainly do not (if you posts are any indication) know the difference between what Darwin said versus what we adhere to right now versus intelligent design.

The "Modern Synthesis" is not linked to ID. Quite the opposite. ID tried to bastardized a legitimate scientific theory to make a "God in the gaps" argument that is completely un-scientific. No where in any scientific theory is it permissible to say a supernatural force guided a natural process.

If you reject the mechanisms of evolution, you'd be better off sticking with a creationist view of the world.

Other than that, there is plenty of scientific work on the emergence of nucleic acids and amino acids that date back to the early 50s.

Once again, I won't do homework for a closed mind.

Finally, and again, I have never defended "Darwin's Theory" as the "Holy Grail". As I have noted, Darwin had a lot of problems with his theory. However, the cornerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different.

So many of you ID proponents spout out such crapola, which shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and then have the moxie to wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"The conerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different."

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.What caused humans to diverge from these so called Apes or Primates?
Intelligent design , answers many of the gaps in Darwins theory, and the Big Bang theory. Many of these scientist are atheist , and just don't want to hear any theory that may point to the existence of God. This is the main issue that they and you, don't want to accept.

The main issue actually, which you don't want to accept, is that science is intentionally mute on the existence of God, whether pro or con. Therefore, ID is not a scientific theory. You can call it philosophy or a world view, but you can't call it science.

Many scientists are religious (my favorite is Dr. Ken Miller), they simply realize that the scientific method doesn't allow for the supernatural in explaining natural processes (science would be a fool's errand otherwise).

That's the issue. Not whether ID is true or false, because that question is entirely outside the scope of science to answer.

BTW, evolutionary theory never stated man evolved from apes. Just another idiotic misconception you have that demonstrates you have no earthly idea as to what you are talking about. There are plenty of answers to all your other questions, but I refuse to do homework for someone who is not interested in learning.

Darwin's theory did state that humans must have evolved from a common ape or /primate ancestor.I have heard this claim many times sir!, so don't try to make any changes to what he has stated, and what many scientist have stated, who support Darwin's theory of evolution.!!

 

[Father Time]

My point is you seem to be defending Darwins theory as the Holy grail of human existence here on planet Earth!, when it is not!. As you so stated the man had no tie in explanation for the complexities , and mysteries with regard to Human DNA, RNA, human and living organism protein specialization and species differentiation.
He could never link his theory to all the many different variations of life forms we see today.! So now you people are trying to link ID with Evolution , with this "modern synthesis Concept of Evolution" , which is just trying to mix in Darwins theory with some
other legitimate explanation.If Darwin's theory is so full prof it should be able to stand on it's own merits.!

It seems now that we have a theory that may point to a God, many scientist get uncomfortable.
And yes I do know the differences between all the other theory, and that is why I am sticking with Intelligent design.!!

You don't have a point. This post is so full if misstatements that I don't even have time to correct them all. Your ignorance for what you are arguing for is astounding. You are seemingly unaware that ID embraces evolution as the mechanism. They are more than happy to use evolution as the "how" they just want to use "Intelligent Design" as the "why". Science itself is completely uninterested in the "why" over this issue. Perhaps you should research what some of the ID proponents have actually said and believe before looking like a further buffoon. And, no, you most certainly do not (if you posts are any indication) know the difference between what Darwin said versus what we adhere to right now versus intelligent design.

The "Modern Synthesis" is not linked to ID. Quite the opposite. ID tried to bastardized a legitimate scientific theory to make a "God in the gaps" argument that is completely un-scientific. No where in any scientific theory is it permissible to say a supernatural force guided a natural process.

If you reject the mechanisms of evolution, you'd be better off sticking with a creationist view of the world.

Other than that, there is plenty of scientific work on the emergence of nucleic acids and amino acids that date back to the early 50s.

Once again, I won't do homework for a closed mind.

Finally, and again, I have never defended "Darwin's Theory" as the "Holy Grail". As I have noted, Darwin had a lot of problems with his theory. However, the cornerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different.

So many of you ID proponents spout out such crapola, which shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and then have the moxie to wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"The conerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different."

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.

Because, as I understand it, we did not evolve from modern day apes, rather we share a common ancestor which is now extinct.

 

[geauxtohell]

Darwin's theory did state that humans must have evolved from a common ape or /primate ancestor.I have heard this claim many times sir!, so don't try to make any changes to what he has stated, and what many scientist have stated, who support Darwin's theory of evolution.!!

You are woefully ignorant of this issue. Darwin never stated that and neither did any scientist. Even if evolution did claim what you state it does (which it does not), ID would have the same problem since it uses evolution for it's mechanism of the origin of species.

 

[geauxtohell]

You don't have a point. This post is so full if misstatements that I don't even have time to correct them all. Your ignorance for what you are arguing for is astounding. You are seemingly unaware that ID embraces evolution as the mechanism. They are more than happy to use evolution as the "how" they just want to use "Intelligent Design" as the "why". Science itself is completely uninterested in the "why" over this issue. Perhaps you should research what some of the ID proponents have actually said and believe before looking like a further buffoon. And, no, you most certainly do not (if you posts are any indication) know the difference between what Darwin said versus what we adhere to right now versus intelligent design.

The "Modern Synthesis" is not linked to ID. Quite the opposite. ID tried to bastardized a legitimate scientific theory to make a "God in the gaps" argument that is completely un-scientific. No where in any scientific theory is it permissible to say a supernatural force guided a natural process.

If you reject the mechanisms of evolution, you'd be better off sticking with a creationist view of the world.

Other than that, there is plenty of scientific work on the emergence of nucleic acids and amino acids that date back to the early 50s.

Once again, I won't do homework for a closed mind.

Finally, and again, I have never defended "Darwin's Theory" as the "Holy Grail". As I have noted, Darwin had a lot of problems with his theory. However, the cornerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different.

So many of you ID proponents spout out such crapola, which shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and then have the moxie to wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"The conerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different."

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.

Because, as I understand it, we did not evolve from modern day apes, rather we share a common ancestor which is now extinct.

Yes. Thank you. That is what the theory states.

 

[geauxtohell]

52nd,

If you are really interested in this issue and the answers to a plethora of your questions, I recommend this book:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263493591&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.) (9780061233500): Kenneth R. Miller: Books[/ame]

Which will do the issue much more justice than I can. Dr. Miller is a practicing Catholic and believes in God, but explains why ID is not science (and why it is important to prevent it from being so).

You'll understand my crankyness over this issue. I spend a lot of time on it, and it gets stale to continually respond to ID talking points that you guys bring in from other websites that are completely laughable.

 

[52ndStreet]

"The conerstone of it is sound and has been preserved, which is why he is credited with the theory, even to this day, though it is much different."

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.

Because, as I understand it, we did not evolve from modern day apes, rather we share a common ancestor which is now extinct.

Yes. Thank you. That is what the theory states.

"This common ancestor has convieniently become extinct" , is this the so called "missing link" , so then if you have many "missing links" Darwin's theory can not be
fully accepted by the scientific, and non scientific community, as being credible.
I know I , many other people with intelligence will not accept Darwin's theory.
Case closed.!

 

[Father Time]

Because, as I understand it, we did not evolve from modern day apes, rather we share a common ancestor which is now extinct.

Yes. Thank you. That is what the theory states.

"This common ancestor has convieniently become extinct" ,

You really don't know much about natural selection do you?

 

[myloem]

Yes, the idea of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden seems silly. But, to me so does the universe beginning with the Big Bang. What was right before the bang, another bang? Also astronomers have been saying for a while that the universe is expanding. Expanding into where? There has to be something else besides Adam and Steve and the Big Bang.

 

[geauxtohell]

"This common ancestor has convieniently become extinct" , is this the so called "missing link"

In fact, there are many missing links.

In fact, their fossils are being discovered all the time.

In fact, you don't need an complete A-Z fossil progression to see what is going on. Kind of like (unless you are a dullard), you don't need every letter filled in on "Wheel Of Fortune" to solve the puzzle.

In fact, even if the fossil record was complete, you'd still find a reason to reject it.

Let's not act like this is about the fossils to you, shall we?

, so then if you have many "missing links" Darwin's theory can not be
fully accepted by the scientific, and non scientific community, as being credible.

The non-scientific community can believe what they want. The scientific community overwhelming excepts evolutionary theory based on the fossil record and a plethora of other data that you will also reject.

I know I , many other people with intelligence will not accept Darwin's theory.

Good for them. Personal opinions are not terribly germane to this issue. Evolutionary Biology will march on whether you believe it or not.

Case closed.!

You wish.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes. Thank you. That is what the theory states.

"This common ancestor has convieniently become extinct" ,

You really don't know much about natural selection do you?

Not one iota. The demonstrated ignorance (and I use that in the strictest definition of the term) by those on here who claim to know what they are talking about is astounding.

 

[geauxtohell]

Objectivity is the key to sorting out the truths of reality, whether it's an inward philosophic perspective, or bench experiments. Which is most suitable to understanding origins, and our ordained position therin? Both have their place. From my perspective, it is an overview and analysis of what is before us. Biology is in our face. With better diagnostic tools, we can now discern much more than in the past. But we still face an enigma; how to objectively analyse what we see. Teleology or no, that is the question. In order to arrive at a logical conclusion, we must strive for objectivity.

A foundational principal of Skepticism (atheism) is objective and rational thought. This goes back to Plato, Socrates and beyond. David Hume claimed to be a leader in rational thought, although from his writings, I see bias and prsupposition sprinkled throughout. And not just he, we all have presuppositions and biases. Religous bias is one, but a staunch adherance to Darwinst thought is another. The first could be by indoctrination or a religious experience; the second via academic indoctrination primarily. Neither should be a starting point for seeking truth.

I frankly have neither. So when I am accused of having religious bias, I just chuckle. I believe in an overseer, and in fact have had encounter type experiences, many in fact. But my position on ID is purely based upon observation. And my views are subject to modification.

I don't disagree with this at all. As I said, I personally accept ID. The issue is procedural to me. We have designed scientific methodology to account for the natural world that we can observe and test. We must not allow that which can not meet the definition of science to encroach upon the rules we have set to keep the venture grounded in reality.

It is beyond the scope of science to comment on the existence of God. That works both ways, so when Dawkins writes a book saying that science disproves God, he has stepped outside the scope of science as well. There is a reason that was a novel and not a peer reviewed work for a scientific journal.

As a biomedical engineer, and having studied genetics, anatomy, and some physics and math, I see virtually everything that is non random from a design perspective. But I know there are those who do not, will not, and buy into darwinian logic carte blanche. To me, this constitutes a stubborn refusal to at least consider that life is the intentional outcome of directed activities.

And yeah, the design flaws of the human body often times lead one to wonder what sort of intelligence guided this process.

I see all designs as less than perfect, or subject to revision/ modification. But as we all know, biologic system function well. Since vertebrate forms are only temporary anyway, and since they do work well, why nitpick? They are merely temporary vehicles for the 'real' self, a spirt form of some sort.

Yet that arguement belies belief in a higher power and afterlife that is the root of the dissonance. The design flaws are acceptable for you, because we are only on this earth for a short while and then on to something better.

To another person, whose view is how to "build a better machine" they are hugely problematic.

The theological question (and not scientific) is, why would an intelligent designer make something with so many flaws? What is the intelligence behind cancer?

Regarding eyes in particular, the degenerate args I hear are silly and sophmoric. If I can zip through traffic while talking with someone in the car, glance at a chick in another car or on the sidewalk, handle an iphone, and all at a rapid pace, I'd say the eyes/ brain were functionaing well.

Or signt integrated to bodily functions in boxing or soccer, running to catch a ball in the outfield with sun in your eyes, or catching a ball between first and second while keeping your eye on the runner. And then I hear that the eyes are bad designs! B S

They work well enough for your liking, because we have adapted to their innate flaws. That doesn't mean their aren't flaws in them. Why can't we hear in the full range as dogs do? Why can't we see in infrared as vipers do?

I see a new crop of design proponents in the wings. They may accept a religious orientation or not, but they will not be agenda based due to a priori religious indoctrination. No, like I, they will be rationalists, even skeptics, but skeptical of ordained and imputed beliefs no matter which side is represented by those beliefs.

Given the Internet as a resource, some will be of the 'new atheist' ilk, but the others will be design theorists, and will not accept darwinian tenets in the classroom. They just won't. And in sense, I feel for the profs who will have to deal with them ...

That may or may not be, but the new design proponents still have to get around the procedural limitations of the scientific method.