The ID Scientist pointed out that there is a genetic code in our cells much like that of a computer, which we all know needs a programmer to create the code. A
False analogy.
He might as well say that since all matter is "programmed" to be attracted to all other matter, there must be a programmer.
Of course, that's an equally false analogy, as there's nothing to indicate that natural laws need a "programmer."
I just find it fascinating that because we are learning more about what makes us human, it has caused us to look at the gaps of evolution and consider an intelligent designer.
Um, I think you have that backwards. The more we've learned, the less need we see for a designer.
Anyway, I think it's great that you want to learn more. Sadly, I think you're going to mainly stick to biased nonsense like the Discovery Institute rather than what mainstream science is discussing.
To someone with only a passing knowledge of evolution, the junk coming out of the Discovery Institute probably sounds convincing. To those who have dug deeper, it quickly becomes apparent what bunk it all is.
P.S. If you'd like a good reading list, just ask.
P.P.S. As I said in the post below, the "programming" he is talking about is DNA, and if someone doesn't know what DNA is, then they have little room to offer an opinion on modern evolutionary theory.
Yup. Totally agree with this post from beginning to end. Im still not a Republican though.
andy,
Even in my suburban ignorance I know what DNA is. I watched the OJ trial after all...
Once again, we are arguing two different things. You have every right to say that it is a false analogy and the ID Scientist has every right to say why he doesn't believe it is.
I think I have made it clear that I believe in evolution. I have held fossils in my hands that are millions of years old. There is no doubt in my mind that species evolved over billions of years. To believe otherwise is silly imo.
But I have offered no opinion on modern evolutionary theory other than I agree with what I do know of it. Isn't that a good thing in your opinion? Or am I wrong to think that??? Isn't it someone like myself who should be asking questions? Isn't that what learning is all about?????
Andy, your starting to stumble here. Heh.
dave, only a matter of time my dear...
some people need to keep in mind that ID does not propose either evolution by natural means alone or ID. They believe chance and natural selection have played a role but that some biological systems are too complex to be explained by naturalism alone and indicate the work of intelligent design. Hint hint, regarding falsification/refutation.
Mark,
Right. Even though I am woefully ignorant of so many things as Andy poined out, it seems to me that evolution and ID are not discounting one another. Evolution explains how things evolved as best as science can explain so far. ID seems to focus on the parts evolution has not yet been able to explain.. like how the Big Bang happened or why it occurred if it occurred. And also how something so complex as our genetic code could have come to be.
ID seems to focus on the parts evolution has not yet been able to explain.. like how the Big Bang happened or why it occurred if it occurred.
Evolution doesn't try to explain the Big Bang, so it has no place in this discussion.
Of course, the ID crowd certainly does not talk about the Big Bang either. If you read the leaders of the movement, Dembski and Behe, they are focused on the complexity of life (Dembski on the spontaneous rise of information and Behe on irreducible complexity).
Both, sadly, revert back to little but personal incredulity. Behe, for example, can argue that he thinks a particular flagellum is too complex to have come about through evolution, yet evolutionary theory does provide the mechanisms (redundancy, co-evolution, adaptive use, etc).
Behe's entire argument is, as I said, personal incredulity.
Anyway, if you want a reading list so you can actually see what science has to say about both topics, as opposed to what the Discovery Institute with their wedge agenda have to say, just let me know.
Isn't saying that evolution has not yet been able to explain mean the same thing as they are not explaining it????
If God is the Intelligent Designer of the universe then of course it would follow that that would explain how the Big Bang theory occurred.
We don't know how it occurred. Which is part of the reason we are having this discussion.
Andy, if you are so sure of the science then you shouldn't be afraid of those who question it. You should welcome it.
I am sure of my belief in God. It doesn't bother me when people like you question whether God is real or not. I welcome the discussion. It gives me a chance to discuss those beliefs. You should feel the same way about this. It is giving you the chance to discuss evolution and why you discredit ID.
It seems to me that it is the argument that you don't want.
And sure. Send me some links. I would love to read them.
I am all about the science now dude!!
Oh, I love this stuff, or I'd have simply written it all off a long time ago.
I think discussing it philosophically is great. I also think, as you know, that if you want to talk science, ID isn't - as of yet - going to fly in that arena.
And I'm not talking links, m'dear, I'm talking books. Lots of'em. 
Oh, well I actually read those too!! Give me the titles sweetie!
Everyone,
Be sure and click on the comments on the post below..Intelligent Debate continues.
Andy and Goldeneagle are having a really good debate about how we scientifically come to the conclusions we have come to. Which is exactly the kind of debate I wanted to read.
Thanks Sparkle. andy is very intelligent.
This whole debate reminds me of the movie "Contact" ... which just started watching again.
I find the debate fascinating and frustrating. On one side are people who have been fooled into believing there is a scientific theory of intelligent design. On the other side are people saying they'd like to see this scientific theory because so far nothing has been offered. There's a third side, the Discovery Institute, which fooled the first group into believing there was a scientific theory, but now says there is no scientific theory yet, but in the mean time children should be taught about the controversy.
Ok Ron,
I posted this over at Andy's blog. I had never visited the Discovery Institute's website, but Andy got me curious. The following are some of the Senior Fellows and some that signed a dissent from Darwinism through the Discovery Istitute. As you can see these are no uneducated fools. You will have to do better than that Ron, to convince me that their observations and anaylsis has no value.
Robert J. Cihak, M.D., was born in Yankton, South Dakota. He received his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, where he studied under the philosopher Eric Voegelin. He earned an M.D. degree at Harvard Medical School (1962-66), and did postgraduate medical training and academic work as a surgical intern at Stanford Medical Center (1966-67), diagnostic radiology resident at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston (1967-70) and Assistant Professor of Radiology, U. New Mexico Medical School, Albuquerque, (1970-71). He then practiced diagnostic radiology in Aberdeen Washington until his retirement in 1994.
Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle.
Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.
Patricia M. Lines (JD, University of Minnesota; PHD, Catholic University of America) is Discovery Institute's adjunct fellow specializing in education issues.
Just a few examples. The following is just a few examples of those who have signed a scientifitic dissent from Darwinism:
Henry Schaefer--Director, Center for Quantum Chemistry, Univ. of Georgia
Russel Carlson--Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Univ. of Georgia
Michael Behe--Professor of Biological Science, Lehigh Univerity
David Chapman--Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Frank Tipler Professor of mathematical Physics, Tulane University.
John A. Davison Emeritus Associate of Biology, Univ. Of Vermont.
Mae-Wan Ho--PHD Biochemisty, Hong Kong University.
RWS - I'm not trying to convince you of anything. No offense, but you don't understand what science is. It's not a democratic process. It's entirely based on expertise in the subject matter and standards of evidence, logic, methodology, and ethics. Offering a list of scientists demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues of expertise, evidence, logic, and methodology. If I could demonstrate that you were actively ignoring evidence against your viewpoint, then I'd add ethics to the list as well.
You may be right that I don't know what science is, but I am betting the people I listed above certainly DO.
But I suppose you know more than they do, right?
I am not ignoring evidence, I just haven't SEEN ANY. Give me some evidence. All you have done is say that it isn't science. You haven't demonstrated why.
umm..that was me.
One other thing. My whole point was that if someone like me who has no interest in science could become interested because of this debate, then isn't that a good thing?
Your dismissal of that with.."you don't know what science is so away with you" attitude is exactly what ticks me off about the evolution crowd. I don't disagree with ya'll, but you just don't want the discussion to be had.
Which makes me question your motives, not the Discovery Institute's.
Way to go Sparkle. I love these people who always think they are experts in their field and have such a low opinion of others. When it comes to debates or discussions, it's a method used to avoid answering tough questions.
I am a scientist and I welcome anyone's interest, regardless of where they are starting from. Almost anything can be explained in layman's terms. And trust me, there are a lot of things I'm ignorant about too. Ignorance is usually due to a lack of interest, as you have said.
So Ron Zeno, how are they fooling us? Can you be more specific? Just point one thing, if you don't mind ...
Sparkly, as someone who works in the higher education biz (Duck U.), please take it from me that having a Ph.D, or being a professor (which just means that you teach at a college or university) does not bar one from being a fool.
Just because a list of people who have signed a petition supporting ID has a bunch of letters after their names doesn't add any special legitimacy to the argument. It just means that, for all their brilliance, they have to imagine some Power Higher Than Us Did It All. Really, they should know better.
Ron Zeno, although the scientific process does have its noble quslities, it is also very much driven by politics and money by very intelligent people who in the end have to use their wisdom and opinions to make judgments ...
Case in point, Global Warming. How did this one go anywhere? How about "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny"? This was accepted a Biogenetic Law and appears in many school text books and even evolutionists agree that this is no longer true.
The ID came from a appeared in a peered reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, that is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. Evolution has a few holes as this paper identified. Evolution can't explain the formation of more complex life forms. Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. Evolution certianly cannot explain the origin of life since it is by definintion a term that describes changing from one state to the next.
I suspect that the resistance to ID has more to do with its loose association with religion. All this talk about the scientific process and formalities is just a smoke screen to avoid searching for the truth.
WD, as far as those with higher education degrees also being able to be fools, I would say that that is also true for the other side.
Wonderduck, there will be brilliant scientists on the other side who disagree with ID. How are these scientists more legitimate?
Are you saying it is impossible for ID to occur? If so, please explain.
Is anyone sick of the ID/evolution debate yet???
Yes.
Actually it isn't this debate I'm sick of, it's any time Bush says anything at all related to religion, and secularists go ape-sh#t, 0 to 60 is 2 seconds, full-blown freak out mode.
Complaints about their tender little sensibilities, and their paranoid rants about "theocracies" have become very tiresome.
You don't like Christians. Message received, duly noted. Shut up already.
So, from now on the secret meetings will be held twice a week, Tuesdays and Thursdays, the Mosiac Law sub-committee luncheons are 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month, and I don't even care if they know about them now.
Dave....
Labeling arguments as "personal incredulity" is just a cheap way to avoid refuting the actual content of the arguments offered.
Dave,
You must have missed Karl's memo where he said not to publicize the change to the meeting schedule.
Labeling arguments as "personal incredulity" is just a cheap way to avoid refuting the actual content of the arguments offered.
Um, no, it's a way of classifying the contents of an argument that boil down to "I don't see how that could happen, therefore it must be God."
Try to keep up, Mark. This is basic logic.
"Wonderduck, there will be brilliant scientists on the other side who disagree with ID. How are these scientists more legitimate? Are you saying it is impossible for ID to occur? If so, please explain."
I'm not saying they're more legitimate. I'm just pointing out that trotting out a list of "edumacated peepol" and thinking that it should make a difference in the way others think about a topic is, to be blunt, dumb.
Am I saying that ID is impossible to occur? Heck no. I'd have to be God to know the answer to that question, and if I was God, everybody would have feathers.
However, I don't personally believe in (a) God, so I don't think that ID is valid, either, as one needs the other.
"but I am betting the people I listed above certainly DO.
But I suppose you know more than they do, right?"
When it comes to differentiating between science, pseudoscience, and antiscience, yes, I seem to know more than them, or at least I'm not using my expertise to fool others.
My point is that you don't appear to know what science is. Giving a list of people that support your viewpoint doesn't change that.
Let's look specifically at one issue: expertise. What expertise is needed to identify science? Perhaps being a scientist isn't too far a stretch? Let's use that single heuristic to examine RWS's list to see what experts are there just based upon what info RWS provided. It turns out the first three don't fit this simple criteria:
Robert J. Cihak - A philospher and doctor.
Stephen C. Meyer - A historian and philosopher.
Patricia M. Lines - No indication of what her PhD is in. I wonder why they would withhold such important information for assessing her expertise?
If I knew you were familiar with logic, I'd say that your list is an appeal to authority. Either way, it's certainly supports my claim that you've been fooled.
"Your dismissal of that with.."you don't know what science is so away with you" attitude is exactly what ticks me off about the evolution crowd. I don't disagree with ya'll, but you just don't want the discussion to be had.
Which makes me question your motives, not the Discovery Institute's."
Sorry you felt my arguments are dismissive. My motives are quite clear, but then so are the Discovery Institutes. Both are easily assessed by those interested in doing so. I'm helping people understand what science is. The Discovery Institute is trying to fool people into believing that religious arguments are science.
"Almost anything can be explained in layman's terms."
I'd like to see science explained so.
"So Ron Zeno, how are they fooling us? Can you be more specific? Just point one thing, if you don't mind ..."
Plenty here: http://www.talkdesign.org/
"The ID came from a appeared in a peered reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington"
Nope. It's a nice case of how authors try to get around standards of ethics though: http://www.biolsocwash.org/
id_st..._statement.html
"there will be brilliant scientists on the other side who disagree with ID. How are these scientists more legitimate?"
They are actually doing science. Again, it's not the people that are important, but whether or not they're actually doing science.
' "Almost anything can be explained in layman's terms."
I'd like to see science explained so.'
Fair enough, WD. I realize not everyone believes in God. Thanks for keeping an open mind that ID is not impossible. That's what I have been trying to point out.
I separate belief in God and ID as a scientific theory. Belief in God is a religious belief. It is a belief I hold dearly.
ID as a scientific theory has to be proven using credible scientific methods. It would be irresponsible for scientists to simply say, "We believe in ID, therefore, it exists." ID should not be used as some type of catch-all in the scientific community. I think it's irresponsible to say that since ID involves some type of intentional, intelligent approach to complex life forms, that we cannot consider it. Why not? If the only reason for dismissing ID is that it is somewhat coupled to God and religion, then that's wrong. As long as ID is subjected to the same scrutiny as other theories, then why not consider it. ID also doesn't necessarily mean that God exists, only that there was intelligent intervention.
Again, does every cosmological theory have a testable hypothesis? Not that I know of. Mathematics allows conjecture but it does not prove a phenomenon exists. String theory does not prove that cosmological strings exist even though the mathematics suggest it. There is no testable hypothesis that I know of that will prove that cosmological strings exist. Why is string theory considered science? BTW, I believe that string theory is science but it fails the same criteria that ID fails.
Since evolution cannot explain the origin of complex species and the Cambrian explosion, why is it given a pass? BTW, I believe evolution exists but I do see problems with it.
No ID critic has yet answered my specific questions. Why?
Yes, Ron, the ID paper was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. That cannot be denied.
Thanks for the statement. I wasn't aware of it. The statement makes me wonder more about the society than the author.
If the society has such impeccable credentials, how did this happen? If we are to be suspicious of Sternberg, why shouldn't other members' credibility be questioned? How do we know that the society isn't just making up excuse because they can't take the heat? There's a lot of politics in academia.
Again, I will remind you that the scientific community failed when it accepted the "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" theory -- I've forgotten its actual name. Even evolutionists agree that it is wrong. Can we agree that the scientific community has failed in the past and that its sacred processes and criteria are not perfect? BTW, I am a strong proponent of our scientific community but I don't think they are perfect.
WD/Ron: "Almost anything can be explained in layman's terms."
What I meant by this is that there are several magazines, such as "Scientific American" and "Discovery" that explain scientific progress in more easily readable form. The articles usually include simple analogies and graphic examples. These magazines differ from journals that typically go into formal mathematical detail.
Ron: They are actually doing science. Again, it's not the people that are important, but whether or not they're actually doing science.
I'm not sure I fully understand your point here. I also don't understand your criticism of Sparkle. The people she listed have impressive resumes. To say that they are not "doing science" -- whatever that means -- does not make sense. BTW, did you read the credentials of the other people she listed? My point was that we will see intelligent people on both sides, period. To assume that one side or the other is more legitimate is biased.
Ron: To say that Sparkle does not know science is wrong and arrogant. Sparkle has been much more articulate on scientific issues than some of the PhDs I've had to work with. She cuts right through crap unlike some of the pseudo-academics who mumble on and on and never get to the point. Don't get me wrong, I've worked with some brilliant scientists as well. Anyone should be able to question scientific issues regardless of their background.
The ID critics are making the very mistake that they accuse religious followers of doing; bringing in religion.
Religious followers have every right to BELIEVE that ID may help prove that there is a God. I am one of those religious followers. That belief will not prove there is a God.
Scientists have a duty to pursue the truth. To exclude ID as a possibility because it might be assoicated with religion is dishonest. Scientists should apply the same criteria to ID and all their other theories. To do otherwise is wrong. I am also in this group too.
I have pointed out other theories that fail to meet the same criteria as ID. Yet, I see no ID critic able to provide an explanation for any of those theories.
You must have missed Karl's memo where he said not to publicize the change to the meeting schedule.
He used the Rove Mind-Beam(TM) to send it out but I was wearing my WWJD tin foil hat that evening, my bad.
goldeneagle - when someone clearly demonstrates they are unable to differentiate science from pseudoscience, then they don't know what science is.
Ever read anything on sites like http://www.talkdesign.org/? Do you not understand it, or do you just ignore it? Are you hoping everyone else will do the same?
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I'm trying to be considerate even as I point out people are being conned. Sorry if you don't like the message.
Science is very, very complicated. If you like to think otherwise, you're fooling yourself and opening yourself to scams. Hopefully, despite pressures to the contrary, we can teach our children better than we've been taught. Hopefully, soon, they'll shake their heads in wonder at how anyone could have been fooled by intelligent design creationism.
What a shame. Ron, why don't you answer any of my specific questions and show me where I'm wrong? Apparently you can't and instead resort to insulting me. All this shows is that you can't answer specific questions because if you could, you would show me where I'm wrong.
I looked at the website and will read some of the material. Thanks. It doesn't have any more or less credibility than any other sources ... just more smart people with different views.
I also doubt that you have a technical background at all. I've never seen anyone technical refer to science in such a general manner like you do. Technical types like me are notorious for drilling too far down into the details.
One final question since you failed to answer any of my specific questions: is intelligent design impossible? I won't hold my breath.
Apparantly part of my response up above got eaten by HaloScan. What my post was supposed to say was:
"Almost anything can be explained in layman's terms."
I'd like to see science explained so.'
Gravity is the attractive force applied between one (or more) items and another (or multiple) items.
See, it's easy! Now you try!
"Fair enough, WD. I realize not everyone believes in God. Thanks for keeping an open mind that ID is not impossible. That's what I have been trying to point out."
I don't know everything. Just because I think it's a bunch of hogwash with no scientific background to it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Just like, as I mentioned before, it's not impossible that the universe is carried on the back of a Giant Space Lemur.
Until someone generates some scientific basis for ID (or the GSL), though, I'll stick with reality-based ideas.
WD,
I read your gravity example and I'm not sure why that is considered complicated.
I'm disappointed to find out you don't know everything. I thought you did ... just kidding. I can't tell you how much I'm forgetting on a daily basis.
And I can see you have a bias against Giant Space Lemurs! How embarassed will you be if this turns out to be the truth. Please, be more serious. The GSLs don't appreicate this attitude!
Seriously, WD, what would you think if there was some intervention by an intelligent entity who intervened in the development of life on earth? Isn't this possible? ID doesn't mean that it has anything to do with God, just that there was some sort of intelligent intervention. Is this impossible?
Evolution has some serious holes and we have to look at other theories. Using religion to avoid considering scientific theories is intellectually dishonest, whether we BELIEVE in it or not.
I've said this a hundred times: YES, it's possible. Just because I don't think it's TRUE doesn't mean it isn't possible. Provide me with some actual evidence and I'll even change my opinion on whether it's true. But you're not doing that, you're just saying "isn't it possible?"
Yes, it's possible. And I'm not biased against the Giant Space Lemurs at all; I'd be tickled pink if it turned out to be true!
Evolution may have holes in it, but there are also a lot more facts to back it than there are for ID.
Not being able to provide scientific evidence of "X" does not mean that "4" is true.
Pointing out that the theorey of evolution is not flawless as the evidence sits today does not offer any scientific evidence of Intelligent Design.
Could somebody please sum up the scientific evidence behind Intelligent Design on this site so that we have some idea what is being discussed here.
From what I know (which is not a whole lot) Intelligent Design is premised on the fact that if we can't figure out the answer looking at the evidence, then the answer must be that an intelligent third party was involved. This does not seem like a good basis for a theory proposed to be tested on in our high-schools.
Good merciful toadstools! Jandrew and I actually agree on something!
Commenting by HaloScan
