Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design???

Prometheus wrote:Hi there! In comes a die-hard evolutionist.
The nr 1 problem with intelligent design is that their way of working is at the core EXTREMELY unscientific. They don't do any testing, they don't come up with hypotheses they let others test, they don't publish any papers in any journals, they don't even try to earn the scientific consencus, but go straight to the schools and schoolboards. That is not teaching the controversy, it's an intellectual kick in the groin.

i agree, i would have nothing against it if they tried to prove it through something else then philosophy and dogma

Please, please watch this if you are a creationist/ID-supporter. If you say "teach the controversy", at least look at the other side:

(for the rest of the lecture, click on the video and check the video responses)
What do you think? Comments are welcome!

hey man, welcome.

When I get a chance, I'll post some of the "data" and science behind ID.

But I can tell you now that there have been works and journals published... and every time they do, they writer's get expelled and or cast out of academia.. even after life times of working within academic science. This is one of many reason's Ben Stein and others collaborated on making the movie.. "expelled- no intelligence allowed".

They are not expelled because of Religion, or Dogma, or lack of Data. They are expelled for submitting an idea based on science and data that carries their hypothesis outside of the Darwinian ideology. Which , I think is quite sad. Freedom in academia is what allows for advancements.

great lecture... my father is trying to make me read behe's book, after a quick check at least the entire first 30% of his book is based on the mousetrap theory. now i don't have to read it because if the first 30% is crap the rest probably aint that good either

Ash wrote:hey man, welcome.

Thanks :D

Ash wrote:But I can tell you now that there have been works and journals published... and every time they do, they writer's get expelled and or cast out of academia.. even after life times of working within academic science. This is one of many reason's Ben Stein and others collaborated on making the movie.. "expelled- no intelligence allowed".

Have you checked out the http://www.expelledexposed.com/ page? Apparently Stein is not completely honest in his movie. I would be happy to know what papers that have been written concerning ID, and more importantly; what tests and what evidence they build their hypotheses on. All the so called "evidence" in Behe's classic book Darwin's Black Box (I've read it btw) are false, the things he claimed were irreducibly (?) complex have been proven not to be.

Ash wrote:They are not expelled because of Religion, or Dogma, or lack of Data. They are expelled for submitting an idea based on science and data that carries their hypothesis outside of the Darwinian ideology. Which , I think is quite sad. Freedom in academia is what allows for advancements.

The simple reason that ID isn't scientific, though it tries to be, is that it doesn't make any predictions or explanations. So, the reason they won't get paper's published in scientific journals is because saying "God did it" doesn't explain ANYTHING. Think about it for a while. It's just as good as saying: "It just happened".

Check this video about how ID links to creationism, which it clearly does:

oh man, so many things to address. maybe later I will. Right now I'm...

btw.. it's nice being able to post video..ha? I don't know why they don't upgrade their board at Endtimes. Xenomorph is smarter with computers than I am.

Ash wrote:oh man, so many things to address. maybe later I will. Right now I'm...

btw.. it's nice being able to post video..ha? I don't know why they don't upgrade their board at Endtimes. Xenomorph is smarter with computers than I am.

I should go back to sleep soon too. Yeah, I like the newer php...works like a charm. Well, please watch the videos when you have the time and comment on the things you find strange/not true/good and so on

Darwinism is more of philosophy than science. We are taught science in Israel, Darwinism is taught in philosophy class here, right next other humanist philosophies.

Some years ago, I was in hospital, recovering from a head wound I had gotten from a close proximity rpg attack. I talked much to one of my military doctors and we got into Darwin's Evolution. He just told me how it has never actually worked in any study, nor was it necessary in any way to understand the cell or micro biology.

This topic reminded me of that, for what's it's worth.

darwinism started out as philosophy... where your textbooks written in 1950, or just by your way to powerful Orthodox leaders? and yes he doesn't need too study it to do his job as a military doc, and that also explains how he can believe that no successful studys has been made.

Concerning that last video you posted Prom, I don't believe that the courts have any business deciding what is or isn't science. Not only because Judges are not scientists but because that is outright fascist thought control.

Just as I and millions of other consider Darwinian evolution to be pseudo science, I would never remove people's freedom to use it, or support such a thing. Nor do i personally have anything against Darwinists.

Government must be kept out of science, as much as possible, if it is too flourish and progress.Religious people, or atheists, who are often religious in thiri own right, have never hurt science as much as government... in fact the greatest discoveries in science have been made by very religious men and deists.




Btw... Blixi, my man. Is you head ok? You were near an rpg when it went off? That's insane. And how is your hearing after that?

Darwinism is not a philosophy, it's science. It wasn't born as philosophy (sorry, ecth) but was born decades before Darwin when scientists saw the fossil record and how animals are spread through the continents. What Darwin did was to come up with a possible explanation for how those changes came to be.

Blixi, your doctor was misinformed. I wonder if he'd think evolution was correct if you've had an MRSA-infection? If you had a MRSA-infection and he'd try to treat you with penicillin, you could be dead because he doesn't believe in evolution.

Many of you say that evolution has failed every single test. It hasn't. It has passed every single test. The only problem is that Christians tend to read only the Christian litterature and thus, don't find out the counter-counter-arguments. If Michael Behe or William Dembski say something, you trust him without checking if scienctists have anything to say on the subject. If you really are looking for the truth on the subject, read books on evolution, watch videos on youtube (ask me and I'll send you some links) and have an open mind. Heck, even read some Dawkins, he has some points here and there (don't comment on this sentence, it's a waste of time and posts).

Concerning the trial; there would never have been a trial if the Cdesign proponentsists weren't trying to bypass the simple rules of science and put their ideas directly into the schools. ID is an idea, a pretty good idea if you ask me. But to put that IDEA, untested and without the scientific consencus into the curriculum is just plain wrong. If they had followed the simple rules of science there wouldn't be a debate or trial. ID trusts on lobbyists, not science.

And yes, Ash, many scientists have been religious. But they were good scientists BECAUSE they didn't explain their science with their religion. They let their science lead them to the truth, even if it contradicted their religion (Galilei being the perfect example). Darwin himself postponed the release of The Origin Of Species by 15-20 years because because he was concerned how his believing wife would take it.

The mrsa bacteria isn't evidence of Darwinian evolution, only micro evolution. If mrsa bacteria were to turn into a simple celled organism.. that would be evidence of a macro-evolutionary jump. But what it does is what certain bacteria are "designed" to do, adjust to changing environments, otherwise no bacteria would survive at all, including healthy bacteria. This rule works for Virus's as well.

Also, if Darwinists were more honest they would also be able to admit that modern science doesn't actually understand, nor have they come to a consensus of what a "species" even is.

And to your last paragraph, I agree with you. Although I think this business of Fearmongering over scientists who might be religious..well.. is just that.. Fearmongering. It doesn't mean anything.

Also, Intelligent Design makes no assumptions as to the identity of the Designer.. only that the evidence of incredibly complex design and the mathematical statistics of these things happening by random chance absolutely points to the influence of an intelligent designer.. and that is an incredibly brief way to put it.

When I get the chance I'll dig back into the subject in depth again and post the basic principles by which ID works in analyzing data.. they are incredibly scientific in nature and I would dare say.. more "scientific" that Darwinism's philosophy regarding interpretation of data.

Ash wrote:The mrsa bacteria isn't evidence of Darwinian evolution, only micro evolution. If mrsa bacteria were to turn into a simple celled organism.. that would be evidence of a macro-evolutionary jump. But what it does is what certain bacteria are "designed" to do, adjust to changing environments, otherwise no bacteria would survive at all, including healthy bacteria. This rule works for Virus's as well.

Also, if Darwinists were more honest they would also be able to admit that modern science doesn't actually understand, nor have they come to a consensus of what a "species" even is.

The species problem is your problem, not the other sides. Science cannot exactly say what a species is, because of evolution. Creationists and ID-folks have the problem of defining what was created and how much is natural selection doing it's work. No creationist can draw a clear line between micro- and macroevolution just like they can't say the difference between different species/kinds. Btw, if you are a YE-creationist, you actually believe in a MUCH faster evolution than evolutionists do.

Ash wrote:And to your last paragraph, I agree with you. Although I think this business of Fearmongering over scientists who might be religious..well.. is just that.. Fearmongering. It doesn't mean anything.

It's not fearmongering. It's keeping science as science. Science per definition is what we can know about nature. We don't know anything supernatural, since if we did it wouldn't be called supernatural. If we say that something is supernatural it simply means that we don't know anything about it. This is extremely important! Stop right here, read it again and think about it.

Ash wrote:Also, Intelligent Design makes no assumptions as to the identity of the Designer.. only that the evidence of incredibly complex design and the mathematical statistics of these things happening by random chance absolutely points to the influence of an intelligent designer.. and that is an incredibly brief way to put it.

I know. One of the problems is that they are mathematically wrong. Yes, life is complex, yes life is improbable, but it only have to have happened once and the chance of life beginning spontanously somewhere in the universe isn't that small. We just happen to be on (one of) the planet(s) it happened.

Finally: Here are some reasons why ID isn't scientific.

it was philosophy until he could collect enough proof... would you say that demokritos dealt with science? simply saying "these fossils must be different stages of the same species" or "there must one microscopical thing that all things are built of" just isn't good enough to call it science, not until you have examined if this really is the matter is it worth calling science.

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:it was philosophy until he could collect enough proof... would you say that demokritos dealt with science? simply saying "these fossils must be different stages of the same species" or "there must one microscopical thing that all things are built of" just isn't good enough to call it science, not until you have examined if this really is the matter is it worth calling science.

good point, problem is, there hasn't been any "proof". That is why I am forced to call it pseudo science. Not that I have anything against theories or pseudo science.. that is what gave us Quantum physics and mechanics, after all.

I always give people the same challenge.. show me one piece of proof for the Theory of Darwinism, just one.

There have been many supporting claims for this, and all of them that I know of have been shot down.. and not be "religious" scientists either.. but by other evolutionists of all stripes.

It is any wonder why ID has been growing in momentum, inspight of literal persecution from the establishment? No, not at all... scientists would like to go where the evidence goes and to do that you have to leave much of Darwin behind, I'm afraid.

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:it was philosophy until he could collect enough proof... would you say that demokritos dealt with science? simply saying "these fossils must be different stages of the same species" or "there must one microscopical thing that all things are built of" just isn't good enough to call it science, not until you have examined if this really is the matter is it worth calling science.

No, it wasn't philosophy, it was science. Darwin made observations, came up with a hypothesis and published his results and observations for review from other scientists, which is the scientific way to go. It was a hypothesis at that point, not worth calling a theory, but it was CERTAINLY scientific. Later, both genetics and DNA-analysis could have crushed the hypothesis of darwinian evolution, but they totally supported it and made it worthy of the name theory.

Concerning theories, you all need to understand the fundamental difference between hypothesis, theory and what we in normal language call theory. Here are some Ctrl + X from Wikipedia:
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.

Ash wrote:good point, problem is, there hasn't been any "proof". I always give people the same challenge.. show me one piece of proof for the Theory of Darwinism, just one.

From what area? The fossil record is one of the strongest ones. Molecular and anatomical homologies are another and DNA-homologies being the ultimate evidence. The geographical, geological and cronological distribution of animals (part of it belongs to the fossil record-part) is yet another. With only the fossil record or the molecular record the theory of evolution would be completely credible and certain, but all other evidence points to the same conclusion. One of the reasons I'm on this forum is to make you see that evidence.

Ash wrote:That is why I am forced to call it pseudo science. Not that I have anything against theories or pseudo science.. that is what gave us Quantum physics and mechanics, after all.

Are you saying that quantum physics is pseudo science or do I just understand you wrong?

Ash wrote:It is any wonder why ID has been growing in momentum, inspight of literal persecution from the establishment? No, not at all... scientists would like to go where the evidence goes and to do that you have to leave much of Darwin behind, I'm afraid.

ID is growing stronger because religious people from every camp sees an opportunity to have their own proof for God. I was very happy when I had read Darwin's Black Box, because of that very reason. At last I had found a fingerprint of God. Unfortunately it is simply not true. That is why the scientific community is so hostile. They don't want lies tought in the schools.

Ash wrote:

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:it was philosophy until he could collect enough proof... would you say that demokritos dealt with science? simply saying "these fossils must be different stages of the same species" or "there must one microscopical thing that all things are built of" just isn't good enough to call it science, not until you have examined if this really is the matter is it worth calling science.

good point, problem is, there hasn't been any "proof". That is why I am forced to call it pseudo science. Not that I have anything against theories or pseudo science.. that is what gave us Quantum physics and mechanics, after all.

I always give people the same challenge.. show me one piece of proof for the Theory of Darwinism, just one.

There have been many supporting claims for this, and all of them that I know of have been shot down.. and not be "religious" scientists either.. but by other evolutionists of all stripes.

It is any wonder why ID has been growing in momentum, inspight of literal persecution from the establishment? No, not at all... scientists would like to go where the evidence goes and to do that you have to leave much of Darwin behind, I'm afraid.

there has been plenty of proof

Prometheus wrote:

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:it was philosophy until he could collect enough proof... would you say that demokritos dealt with science? simply saying "these fossils must be different stages of the same species" or "there must one microscopical thing that all things are built of" just isn't good enough to call it science, not until you have examined if this really is the matter is it worth calling science.

No, it wasn't philosophy, it was science. Darwin made observations, came up with a hypothesis and published his results and observations for review from other scientists, which is the scientific way to go. It was a hypothesis at that point, not worth calling a theory, but it was CERTAINLY scientific. Later, both genetics and DNA-analysis could have crushed the hypothesis of darwinian evolution, but they totally supported it and made it worthy of the name theory.

Concerning theories, you all need to understand the fundamental difference between hypothesis, theory and what we in normal language call theory. Here are some Ctrl + X from Wikipedia:
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.

maybe you jsut misunderstand what i mean by philosophy. who says philosophy isn't scientific? proper philosophy follow as many rules as physics,biology etc...
just last week i attended a lecture with tim ingold, he is one of the new big shots in anthropology. i'd say 60% of the lecture was almost pure philosophy... does that mean it was unscientific? of course not! but as long as we archaeologists cant prove his hypothesis its still at a philosophic state if you ask me.

A good point, ecth.

Philosophy is inseparable from both Metaphysics and from Non-metaphysical science as well. In that, even after you have worked to come up with data.. that data has to still be intrepreted, and whenever you are interpreting something, you are using philosophy.


Promethean wrote- From what area? The fossil record is one of the strongest ones.
Molecular and anatomical homologies are another and DNA-homologies
being the ultimate evidence. The geographical, geological and
cronological distribution of animals (part of it belongs to the fossil
record-part) is yet another. With only the fossil record or
the molecular record the theory of evolution would be completely
credible and certain, but all other evidence points to the same
conclusion. One of the reasons I'm on this forum is to make you see
that evidence.

1. The fossil record is actually were Darwinism has failed most. There still has not been one fossil found that shows any inter-species jumps. It does, however, show us evolution within a species.

2. The geographical dispersal of animals is great.. but where is the evidence relating to Darwinian evolution?

3. Concerning a "molecular record".. there is no such thing, or maybe you should be more specific. Are you referring to "dating systems", like carbon 14 testing?

4. Btw, I did not mean to imply that Quantum physics is pseudo science, but yet. if you study the history of which scientists have come up with that field.. you'll discover that alot of them were expelled from academia as un-scientific, just as ID proponents are today. Eventually, of course, the power of their arguments became un-censorable. Because just as Darwinism has become a religion for it's proponents, Einstienian physics had become a religion for most of academia as well and took decades for the founders of Quantum physics and mechanics to be seen as scientiifc.

Alright, time for some literature regarding ID.


What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a
scientific research program as well as a community of scientists,
philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the
universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the
study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able
to determine whether various natural structures are the product of
chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
Such research by observing the types of information produced when
intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have
those same types of informational properties which we commonly know
come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific
methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures,
the complex and specified information content in DNA, the
life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the
geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record
during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process
involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents
produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists
hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high
levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural
objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be
discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures
to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID
researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that
such structures were designed.

I usually avoid getting into these threads as they sorta go over my head *for now* until I do further study on the subject, which will happen at some point.

Being a maker of stuff, it is very hard for me to believe in the idea that anything can come from nothing, and rather sadly and honestly, that does include the idea that God has always been...

I certainly do not believe that everything that is today has always been, just as things that were in the past are not here today; but then there is solid proof for that.

In the words of the great Mors Syphilitica,
'I will never understand,
And that is good enough...'

...well, maybe it's not really good enough, but hope is sound reason... Maybe?

I pretty much agree with Oddly on this one. I mean some of the theories on both sides are just simply ridiculous at times while other ideas make sense...But in the end, I don't really know. Fun to debate, it is good for keeping an open mind by letting other ideas be heard and such...but nobody really knows.

This is funny though...This is a clip of Dawkins reading hate mail...I am going to assume the people who sent these emails to him are very religious and that is why they oppose him. But, if so, I kind of worry about the tone and language used...It is not exactly love thy brother or "holy"....However, it is rather funny, especially the last comment!!!! I am sure Ben Stein and the like get mail just as bitter!

One thing to remember too is.... Good and Evil.

IF Darwin was right, philosophically speaking there is no reason to be moral and no reason to not be evil.. in fact good and evil would be nothing more than "might makes right".


“Madness is to hold an erroneous perception and argue perfectly from it.” - Voltaire.

--------------------------


Man that video was funny .. the response Dawkins reads at the end.. when he starts laughing. Getting hit by a church van and dying slowly...that's so ridiculous it's ..

Ash wrote:One thing to remember too is.... Good and Evil.

IF Darwin was right, philosophically speaking there is no reason to be moral and no reason to not be evil.. in fact good and evil would be nothing more than "might makes right".


“Madness is to hold an erroneous perception and argue perfectly from it.” - Voltaire.

That is something to think about, too!
Being that overly idealistic dork that I am with romantic notions about everything, I believe that every person has purpose and destiny, and while not everyone is meant for earthly greatness, life has meaning and purpose. That is a profound greatness in itself.

If life and the world just happened as a fluke or freak accident, then there is no real purpose, no meaning, no destiny, no reason, there's nothing but living for the sake of experiencing things...that's nothing.

Of course, then I sometimes go overboard with the whole purpose and destiny thing, and to prevent myself from becoming prideful, I do keep a few memento mori items around, as morbid as that sounds. Gently reminding a nasty, mean, rude and very prideful co-worker of mine of her inevitable demise is what finally got her off my back and got her to think before speaking. Woo, as mean as it sounds, that was a great moment.