What's wrong with intelligent design?

[liberalogic]

1. I can see the logic behind your compromise idea. I would accept that, if the opportunity had been given to me. However, the thing that stands in the way is the principle. Evolution has not been conclusively proven, at least to my standards and a fair amount of persons on this board. And if ID has not been proven, why is it considered inappropriate? I suppose you could classify this as equality. Evolution isn't proved, yet it is tought in school. ID isn't proved, yet it isn't tought in schools. Do you see the inequality here?

2. My point was that the ID idea has been around for a long enough time that I consider it to be valid. I never said anything about Christianity, which I would agree has had its rough spots, that by no means prevents me from being a Christian, however.

1.
It's true that evolution hasn't been "conclusively proven," and I mean 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt true, but at the same time, the evidence that supports this theory (from embryological evidence of change to chemical evidence to molecular evidence) is so extensive that it dwarfs any amount of evidence that anyone can provide for ID. So while you say that they may be unequal because they both may not be conclusively proven to be true, evolution is much closer (due to the evidence) to being true.

ID is devised from logic and faith; while those two ideas can be powerful, they are not evidence that proves it to be true or moves it any closer to the truth itself.

2.
To me, just because something has been around a while doesn't make it right. MOST (not all, but most) people inherit their religion from their parents. It is a value that is instilled early because the parents of their parents did it to them. It's a chain that gives the individual little room to question what's really out there. So I'd say that part of its survival is due to "ineritance" shall we say.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So your evolution makes testable predictions? Tell me, what feature will humans evolve into?
Creationism, in reference to Christian theology, does make predictions. Ever heard of the Apocalypse? Of course it is not testable, but how can you test the events that end the world?

Thats' funny, I've read genesis, and I don't recall mention of the apocalypse in it.


Here are a list of the sucessful observational predictions of evolution

# Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
# Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
# Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
# Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
# Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
# Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
# Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

Though I'm sure you could find many other successfully predicted observations if you bothered to look, which you will not.

 

[Annie]

Thats' funny, I've read genesis, and I don't recall mention of the apocalypse in it.


Here are a list of the sucessful observational predictions of evolution

# Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
# Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
# Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
# Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
# Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
# Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
# Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

Though I'm sure you could find many other successfully predicted observations if you bothered to look, which you will not.

And you are so wise to be able to attempt to slam around a 16 year old! Wow, you da man. NOT.

Please posit the problems you see, scientifically with evolution. Honesty is one of the signposts, don't you agree.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And you are so wise to be able to attempt to slam around a 16 year old! Wow, you da man. NOT.

Please posit the problems you see, scientifically with evolution. Honesty is one of the signposts, don't you agree.

I wasn't even aware, nor do I care, what his age is. His unfounded opinions have nothing to do with his age. There are plenty of older people just as misguided as him.


There is no scientific problem with the general theory of evolution. The idea that life was once simpler and then became more complex is more than adequately supported by observation, as much as anything is in science. Hence life evolved from simple to complex. The particular mechanism is a separate issue. Darwin first proposed a continuum of evolution, in which life continuously evolved at about the same rate. This would predict many more transitional forms than are actually found.

Gould came along and proposed that evolution occurs in rapid spurts over gelogically short periods of time. In Darwins day, not as much about geology was known. By the time Gould came around, we have found out that the Earth has gone through rapid (rapid in a gelogical sense) changes in climate several times in the past. This would cause a rapid change in the criteria of what caused an animal to survive or not, and hence rapid evolutionary changes would happen. This fits with the observation that there are transitional forms in the record, just not very many compared to the number of stable forms.


As far as what "problems" evolution has, punctuated equilibrium in particular, I'm not altogether sure there are any. More evidence is being gathered to support it, everyday, and there still isn't any solid evidence against it. Where's the problem?

 

[Annie]

I wasn't even aware, nor do I care, what his age is. His unfounded opinions have nothing to do with his age. There are plenty of older people just as misguided as him.

I won't disagree with the fact that there are older people that are wedded to fallacious ideas, though you've yet to prove any such thing regarding evolution. I will not argue for ID, though you again have not debunked it. As for your 'not caring, I doubt any of us are surprised. On the other end of the spectrum, many of us 'conservatives' do go out of our way to discern the age of those that disagree with us. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that you keep losing in the elections? We EDUCATE, not smack down.

You have shown yourself to be a nasty sort of person though, for attempting unsuccessfully, to smack around someone young who hasn't come close to completing their education. On the otherhand, he shows much more curiousity than you, making it more probable that when he reaches your age, he will be smacking the likes of you, with merit.

Whether or not I agree with your position, you are proving yourself such an extremist that you should be a posterboy for why your position will fail, regardless of merits.You are the type of person, that drives moral, but questioning people away from considering your position.

There is no scientific problem with the general theory of evolution. The idea that life was once simpler and then became more complex is more than adequately supported by observation, as much as anything is in science. Hence life evolved from simple to complex.

Wrong, that is the theoretical premise, is not fact. Otherwise it would be called a 'law.'

The particular mechanism is a separate issue. Darwin first proposed a continuum of evolution, in which life continuously evolved at about the same rate. This would predict many more transitional forms than are actually found.

I guess this is that whoops moment? You might have said this was one of the 'holes', later addressed by Gould?

Gould came along and proposed that evolution occurs in rapid spurts over gelogically short periods of time. In Darwins

whoops forgot the apostrophe.

day, not as much about geology was known. By the time Gould came around, we have found out that the Earth has gone through rapid (rapid in a gelogical sense) changes in climate several times in the past. This would cause a rapid change in the criteria of what caused an animal to survive or not, and hence rapid evolutionary changes would happen. This fits with the observation that there are transitional forms in the record, just not very many compared to the number of stable forms.

Right, once they can get all those missing pieces. At the same time, there isn't enough from Jay Gould to really move this up to a higher level. That's one problem with science, the building of evidence...

As far as what "problems" evolution has, punctuated equilibrium in particular, I'm not altogether sure there are any. More evidence is being gathered to support it, everyday, and there still isn't any solid evidence against it. Where's the problem?

LOL! While I may or may not give credance to punctuated equilibrium, that is by far the least sustainable, at this time, addendum to evolution, by fact, wouldn't you agree?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I won't disagree with the fact that there are older people that are wedded to fallacious ideas, though you've yet to prove any such thing regarding evolution. I will not argue for ID, though you again have not debunked it. As for your 'not caring, I doubt any of us are surprised. On the other end of the spectrum, many of us 'conservatives' do go out of our way to discern the age of those that disagree with us. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that you keep losing in the elections? We EDUCATE, not smack down.

ID is not debunkable. It is untestable That's what i've been saying all along. That's why it isn't science.

Here's another example of a theory which is untestable:

"The entire Universe was created 10 seconds ago, and everything was put into place, including our memories, to make us believe the Universe is actually older than it is"

The above theory a) is not testable b) you can't prove it wrong, no matter how hard you try! It corresponds with observation, yes, but it isn't testable. It makes no specific predictions about observation. Hence, not science.

You have shown yourself to be a nasty sort of person though, for attempting unsuccessfully, to smack around someone young who hasn't come close to completing their education.

I wasn't even aware of his age. Like I said, I don't care how old he is. He's got just as much right to be right or wrong as anyone else.

On the otherhand, he shows much more curiousity than you, making it more probable that when he reaches your age, he will be smacking the likes of you, with merit.

If you are referring to the question of whether or not ID is a science, then he will be the first to do so.

Honestly, I don't see how his ability to argue is any worse than anyone else on this board. You aren't giving him enough credit. He's wrong, on this issue, but his debating skills seem to me to be just as good as yours. You're the one giving him hell for his age.

Whether or not I agree with your position, you are proving yourself such an extremist that you should be a posterboy for why your position will fail, regardless of merits.

Holding that ID isn't science is not an extreme position.

The post which seemed to set you off so much is one where I listed the successful predictions of evolution. How is that extremism !??!?

You are the type of person, that drives moral, but questioning people away from considering your position.

By what, providing him a list of things which support my position and a website to go to read about it?!? Are you serious ?!?! Are you drunk?

Wrong, that is the theoretical premise, is not fact. Otherwise it would be called a 'law.'

No, its a statement of observed fact. We observe that life is less complex as we look further back into the fossil record. That is not a theory, that is an observation.

An observation is never called a "law". And the distinction between "theory" and "law", well, there really isn't one. You may have gotten that idea from a poorly written 5th grade science book, but there is no univerally accepted definition of when a "theory" becomes a "law." it is irrevlant if something is called a "law" or a "theory" what is relevant is whether or not it can successfully predict factual observation - which evolution does.

I guess this is that whoops moment? You might have said this was one of the 'holes', later addressed by Gould?

Sure. This is how science progresses. Someone comes up with a theory, the theory is tested, and often it is found to fail a test at some point. Then the theory is revised. If it can't be revised in a way that will fit observation, it is altogether tosses out, though this is rare.

This method has been used for about 500 years now. You owe most modern inventions to science, as modern technology more often than not stems from science (though admittedly sometimes technology occurs "by chance")

While I may or may not give credance to punctuated equilibrium, that is by far the least sustainable, at this time, addendum to evolution, by fact, wouldn't you agree?

How so? It matches observation. Gradualism does not. I mean, I suppose it could turn out to be mere coincidence that we aren't finding many transitional forms, and it might turn up there are more than we thought.

A question I have is how these transitional forms correspond with known periods of climatic disruption. I'll have to look into that.

 

[Annie]

ID is not debunkable. It is untestable That's what i've been saying all along. That's why it isn't science.

Here's another example of a theory which is untestable:

"The entire Universe was created 10 seconds ago, and everything was put into place, including our memories, to make us believe the Universe is actually older than it is"

The above theory a) is not testable b) you can't prove it wrong, no matter how hard you try! It corresponds with observation, yes, but it isn't testable. It makes no specific predictions about observation. Hence, not science.




I wasn't even aware of his age. Like I said, I don't care how old he is. He's got just as much right to be right or wrong as anyone else.



If you are referring to the question of whether or not ID is a science, then he will be the first to do so.

Honestly, I don't see how his ability to argue is any worse than anyone else on this board. You aren't giving him enough credit. He's wrong, on this issue, but his debating skills seem to me to be just as good as yours. You're the one giving him hell for his age.



Holding that ID isn't not science is not an extreme position.

The post which seemed to set you off so much is one where I listed the successful predictions of evolution. How is that extremism !??!?



By what, providing him a list of things which support my position and a website to go to read about it?!? Are you serious ?!?! Are you drunk?



No, its a statement of observed fact. We observe that life is less complex as we look further back into the fossil record. That is not a theory, that is an observation.

An observation is never called a "law". And the distinction between "theory" and "law", well, there really isn't one. You may have gotten that idea from a poorly written 5th grade science book, but there is no univerally accepted definition of when a "theory" becomes a "law." it is irrevlant if something is called a "law" or a "theory" what is relevant is whether or not it can successfully predict factual observation - which evolution does.



Sure. This is how science progresses. Someone comes up with a theory, the theory is tested, and often it is found to fail a test at some point. Then the theory is revised. If it can't be revised in a way that will fit observation, it is altogether tosses out, though this is rare.



How so? It matches observation. Gradualism does not. I mean, I suppose it could turn out to be mere coincidence that we aren't finding many transitional forms, and it might turn up there are more than we thought.

A question I have is how these transitional forms correspond with known periods of climatic disruption. I'll have to look into that.

Ok, got it. Theory=law. Right. What an asshat. If you read a bit, you would know what I thought regarding ID and science. You would know Semper Fi's age. You would know education levels in general.

Carry on in your own delusional, prejudiced world. You are so much wiser than all the others who post here. Right. What a fucktard, it's now known that you come here for Glory in your own mind. Just imagine, something you must be good at, in some level of the universe, there are mice bowing to you!

 

[Gunny]

Ok, got it. Theory=law. Right. What an asshat. If you read a bit, you would know what I thought regarding ID and science. You would know Semper Fi's age. You would know education levels in general.

Carry on in your own delusional, prejudiced world. You are so much wiser than all the others who post here. Right. What a fucktard, it's now known that you come here for Glory in your own mind. Just imagine, something you must be good at, in some level of the universe, there are mice bowing to you!

Damn, you didn't leave much of him.

I'd rep ya' if I could.

People that bully kids suck.

 

[liberalogic]

True. bullying kids sucks, but whether or not we're kids or adults shouldn't matter. I'm pretty young myself and I stand by what I say: if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I deserve to hear it just like anyone else here; if I'm right, I'm right. And if I don't understand something because of my age, I'm willing to admit it. But other than that, don't differentiate between a kid and an adult.

 

[Annie]

True. bullying kids sucks, but whether or not we're kids or adults shouldn't matter. I'm pretty young myself and I stand by what I say: if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I deserve to hear it just like anyone else here; if I'm right, I'm right. And if I don't understand something because of my age, I'm willing to admit it. But other than that, don't differentiate between a kid and an adult.

Wrong you are which is seriously, not in any condescension, a factor of your age. Just like Semper Fi, but from the other end of the spectrum, you are more aware than many of your age of current events. You are seriously trying to make sense of it all. I respect that, I've tried to treat you with respect, while arguing strenuously for my take on things.

On another thread, you said that you wished you'd had a teacher like me. That in itself is an agreement that I made some sense, somewhere along the line. It doesn't mean you agree with me politically. Probably if you were in my class, we would have 'spirited discussions' with neither of us coming out bruised. That was my point.

 

[Semper Fi]

Wrong you are which is seriously, not in any condescension, a factor of your age. Just like Semper Fi, but from the other end of the spectrum, you are more aware than many of your age of current events. You are seriously trying to make sense of it all. I respect that, I've tried to treat you with respect, while arguing strenuously for my take on things.

On another thread, you said that you wished you'd had a teacher like me. That in itself is an agreement that I made some sense, somewhere along the line. It doesn't mean you agree with me politically. Probably if you were in my class, we would have 'spirited discussions' with neither of us coming out bruised. That was my point.

I have to agree with Liberalogic (something I thought i would never do). If I wanted to converse with people my own age, I wouldn't have joined USMB. While I have drawn attention to my age, I never have once hid behind it. I'm running with the big dogs so treat me like a big dog. Now in teh Chat section, go ahead and poke fun at me been a teeny all the time you want, that's what that's there for. But here, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and tell me about it.

 

[Annie]

I have to agree with Liberalogic (something I thought i would never do). If I wanted to converse with people my own age, I wouldn't have joined USMB. While I have drawn attention to my age, I never have once hid behind it. I'm running with the big dogs so treat me like a big dog. Now in teh Chat section, go ahead and poke fun at me been a teeny all the time you want, that's what that's there for. But here, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and tell me about it.

Hey, I hear ya! I do understand yours and Liberlogic's POV. What I'm speaking of has zero to do with either of you, as being the 'oldster' here, I get to call my POV regarding you and others. I would not condescend to 'young ones', as that would not further discussion or their learning. However, I do notice that both of you and some others, now gone, younger members, are open to other points of view, which is right, reasonable, and just.

See, what you may see as condescension or slamming, actually is trying to see if you can see the other side. Too many older people, I hope not, but fear, myself, do not fully contemplate other positions.

 

[Semper Fi]

Hey, I hear ya! I do understand yours and Liberlogic's POV. What I'm speaking of has zero to do with either of you, as being the 'oldster' here, I get to call my POV regarding you and others. I would not condescend to 'young ones', as that would not further discussion or their learning. However, I do notice that both of you and some others, now gone, younger members, are open to other points of view, which is right, reasonable, and just.

See, what you may see as condescension or slamming, actually is trying to see if you can see the other side. Too many older people, I hope not, but fear, myself, do not fully contemplate other positions.

I fully undertand that and appreciate it.

And, this may take the nobility out of what you just said, but a lot of times to gain an upperhand in a refutation, elements of an opposing argument need to be examined, in order to thoroughly identify the weaknesses ad strike at them. That, and sometimes the quest for knowledge in order to establish my official stance on an issue, is the cause of a lot of speculation amongst both sides. For myself, anyway.

 

[Annie]

I fully undertand that and appreciate it.

And, this may take the nobility out of what you just said, but a lot of times to gain an upperhand in a refutation, elements of an opposing argument need to be examined, in order to thoroughly identify the weaknesses ad strike at them. That, and sometimes the quest for knowledge in order to establish my official stance on an issue, is the cause of a lot of speculation amongst both sides. For myself, anyway.

Which is why I would argue those on the left, to explain themselves to YOU or for myself and other more conservative members, to do the same with younger liberal posters. Slamming, because we are 'older', thus have more 'history', serves neither you or us.

 

[Semper Fi]

Slamming, because we are 'older', thus have more 'history', serves neither you or us.

That's definately true. However I dont recall any situation where that was evident in such extreme cases that it needs to be brought forward. I see what your saying though and agree.

 

[-Cp]

1.
It's true that evolution hasn't been "conclusively proven," and I mean 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt true, but at the same time, the evidence that supports this theory (from embryological evidence of change to chemical evidence to molecular evidence) is so extensive that it dwarfs any amount of evidence that anyone can provide for ID. So while you say that they may be unequal because they both may not be conclusively proven to be true, evolution is much closer (due to the evidence) to being true.

ID is devised from logic and faith; while those two ideas can be powerful, they are not evidence that proves it to be true or moves it any closer to the truth itself.

To help stop you from continuing to talking "out of your ass" - you may want to actually go study ID and see that it IS very factual:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

2.To me, just because something has been around a while doesn't make it right. MOST (not all, but most) people inherit their religion from their parents. It is a value that is instilled early because the parents of their parents did it to them. It's a chain that gives the individual little room to question what's really out there. So I'd say that part of its survival is due to "ineritance" shall we say.

Something you all need to consider - is both sides have the exact same evidence to work from - the fossils...

Those who can't stand the thought of a divine creator who longingly desires a personal relationship with them are presupposed to somehow "proving" to themselves that he doesn't exist. For them to give any creedence to God for anything might make them have to confront their own sins and pride. And they're soo full of themselves, that'd be impossible for their brains to do.

Those who've accepted Christ's attonement for their fallen state - know beyond reason that he's real and the power God has to change one's life for the better obviously created this world, the universe and everything we know to be true.

 

[Gunny]

I have to agree with Liberalogic (something I thought i would never do). If I wanted to converse with people my own age, I wouldn't have joined USMB. While I have drawn attention to my age, I never have once hid behind it. I'm running with the big dogs so treat me like a big dog. Now in teh Chat section, go ahead and poke fun at me been a teeny all the time you want, that's what that's there for. But here, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and tell me about it.

There is a difference between being told you're wrong and being insulted out of hand. If ST wasn't such a condescending, nasty jackass in his every post, he probably would not have drawn comment.

Your age limits your wisdom/experience, and it IS a factor that needs to be considered in order to have an honest discussion. That is NOT treating you "special." It is treating you for who and what you are.

 

[liberalogic]

To help stop you from continuing to talking "out of your ass" - you may want to actually go study ID and see that it IS very factual:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/



Something you all need to consider - is both sides have the exact same evidence to work from - the fossils...

Those who can't stand the thought of a divine creator who longingly desires a personal relationship with them are presupposed to somehow "proving" to themselves that he doesn't exist. For them to give any creedence to God for anything might make them have to confront their own sins and pride. And they're soo full of themselves, that'd be impossible for their brains to do.

Those who've accepted Christ's attonement for their fallen state - know beyond reason that he's real and the power God has to change one's life for the better obviously created this world, the universe and everything we know to be true.

1) I read through that link that you posted and it gave me absolutely nothing to prove its validity. There is no scientific way to prove or even come close to proving "that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause." There were no "facts" there, just bullshit coated in sophisticated language.

2) Now I have been extremely respectful to the beliefs of Christians. I have no desire to change their beliefs, even if I disagree with some of it. But how dare you tell me and others who believe in evolution the following:

"For them to give any creedence to God for anything might make them have to confront their own sins and pride. And they're soo full of themselves, that'd be impossible for their brains to do."

I resent your comment because YOU don't know what other people believe. You really think we're full of ourselves? That we don't have the "brains?" Actually, we do, we have more brains than you will ever have because we are seeking to find a truth that is not limited by religion.

I've never said that the idea of creationism is wrong because I've tried to be as respectful as possible to all Christians here, but your remarks really get to me because it is that blind faith, that idea that there is NO room for thought beyond Christ and God, that hinders any argument that you can post.

And I've even gone out of my way to say that since evolution interferes with the basis of many religions, I do not think it should be required for students who truly object to it. On the other hand, ID, a method that is based on bullshit "evidence" (and yes, I did read that link thoroughly) with RELIGIOUS implications (yes, that's on the link as well), DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS. And it's funny because I was watching a documentary on the Dover School District decision about ID and the scientist who was interviewed said that mainstream scientists (95% of scientists) do not think that ID is a science. Even one of my science professors (who happened to be very conservative) said that ID is nonsense. It is a broadly defined theory that is being twisted to apply to creationism.

As I've said before: keep Christ in your heart, not in the policies of my government.

 

[Hobbit]

I read through that science book that I had to learn from in school and it gave me absolutely nothing to prove its validity. There is no scientific way to prove or even come close to proving "that all life as we know it may be the product of a cosmic accident." There were no "facts" there, just bullshit coated in sophisticated language.

 

[Gunny]

I read through that science book that I had to learn from in school and it gave me absolutely nothing to prove its validity. There is no scientific way to prove or even come close to proving "that all life as we know it may be the product of a cosmic accident." There were no "facts" there, just bullshit coated in sophisticated language.