ID...why isn't it religion?

[Gerald McGrew]

Personally (and I don't know about others here), I am quite bored to death of your comments given that you have only posted 17..err 19 of them.

I'm sorry to hear that.

There is obvious logical flaws in your arguments right when you try make the case that Darwinian Evolution wins because DI started ID.

Where did I do that? Please be specific.

This algorithm from an Engineering POV is completely insufficient to explain anything beyond a really unconvincing micro level.

That's funny, because evolutionary algorithms have proven to be extremely useful, especially in engineering.

If you want to argue Macro evolution, then consider that your deeply held religious belief.

Yeah, about the same level of "belief" I have in ionic bonding, glacial erosion, and heliocentrism.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Kurieou,

>>His mind was made up from the get go<<

It's frequently a danger to assign intent - to the extent that dispute counsellors spend significant time on recommending that that tactic be thrown out. We simply don't know what Jones's attitude was before the case started. In defending your own side, the best that can be said about assigning intent is that it is a common tactic. On the other hand, to assign intent to DI as to their intent being religious rather that scientific is fair because they openly admitted it in their wedge document. We DO know their intent. They showed us their cards. I do agree with you that the mind-set of Buckingham and Bonsell was creationist, not ID. They never had even heard of ID before their sad saga started, and as the pre-trial maneuverings unfolded, DI tried to abort, but the Dover board proceeded full steam ahead. Behe was braver than Dembski and the rest of the DI crew who declined to testify.

Hi McGrew,

I did note, as you did, that the ID advocates were quick to attach the moniker of ACLU to the origin of the document supplied to Jones by the plaintif team of lawyers. In my mind, I decided to let it slide a little because these were lawyers that represent the ACLU - correct me if I'm wrong - even though what they wrote was not official ACLU literature. Indeed, they not only got their butt's kicked, but then had their faces rubbed in it. Sweet!

DB

[Kurieuo]

Hi Kurieou,

>>His mind was made up from the get go<<

It's frequently a danger to assign intent - to the extent that dispute counsellors spend significant time on recommending that that tactic be thrown out. We simply don't know what Jones's attitude was before the case started. In defending your own side, the best that can be said about assigning intent is that it is a common tactic. On the other hand, to assign intent to DI as to their intent being religious rather that scientific is fair because they openly admitted it in their wedge document. We DO know their intent. They showed us their cards.

This has not been successfully argued, and I defer to my previous responses regarding this. To add something additional though, to say that as most in DI are Christian (not all though), therefore their intent is religious rather than scientific (why not both?), is to commit the genetic fallacy rather than dealing with the actual scientific substance of ID. So I am not concerned if you see religious motivation. Everyone has their biases including yourself. It is content and substance that counts.

I do agree with you that the mind-set of Buckingham and Bonsell was creationist, not ID. They never had even heard of ID before their sad saga started, and as the pre-trial maneuverings unfolded, DI tried to abort, but the Dover board proceeded full steam ahead. Behe was braver than Dembski and the rest of the DI crew who declined to testify.

It was never condoned by DI. In fact, DI started well before they do not want ID taught in schools (let alone Creationism). What DI wanted was only evidence for and against evolution fully taught as found in scientific journals as they did not want ID thinking to be abused by Creationists with their own religious agenda. It seems apparent to me that you are oblivious to many subtleties like this, and you would just prefer to apply broad strokes to ID. In the end this was not a fight for DI to fight. It was a fight for Creationists, and since ID was invoked, DI reluctantly went in.

In any case, the unique ideas inherent to ID do not live or die in by the decision of one judge. It does not live or die based on broad strokes painted by one group (in this case, strictly materialist scientists). It will live or die base on its merit. You do know Scopes lost at his trial, don't you? At the end of the day one ruling, in one town of the US, can not and does not dictate what wins with society at large.

I think DI is winning at toppling metaphysical naturalism as the philosophy of science today. The Wedge will win because it not only makes sense, but it is more appealing to the masses since it allows honest scientific inquiry to be conducted in a philosophically-neutral environment. It allows scientists and people to draw philosophical conclusions based upon where they believe the scientific evidence leads regardless of whether such conclusions adhere to a strictly materialist philosophy.

[godslanguage]

I'm sorry to hear that.

Where did I do that? Please be specific.

You did it, and you probably don't even know it. Darwinbots are sort of like that. Tell us how the Discovery Institute has forged the evidence in support of design.

That's funny, because evolutionary algorithms have proven to be extremely useful, especially in engineering.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it (laughable even). Evolutionary Algorithms have only become useful because programmable computers, embedded and what not HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO RUN ALGORITHMS. I think you should write that down!

Nothing is free!

[David Blacklock]

>>In fact, DI stated well before they do not want ID taught in schools<<

Do you really believe DI wouldn't like ID to be taught in schools?

DB

[Kurieuo]

>>In fact, DI stated well before they do not want ID taught in schools<<

Do you really believe DI wouldn't like ID to be taught in schools?

DB

Yes, entirely. ID Creationists would like it (Creationists under the wide umbrella of ID [too wide in my opinion!]), however DI and as such authentic ID advocates do not endorse mandatory teaching ID in the science classroom:

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

...

Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner.

Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy

[David Blacklock]

Hi Kurieuo,

>>it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner<<

Doesn't this statement indicate DI would prefer that ID be discussed in science class - as opposed to it not being discussed? Or are you suggesting they are neutral on this issue? Now I know what they said in another paragraph that indicated they don't want it taught, but this paragraph is not as straightforwardly against their desire for it not to be taught. Would you not agree?

DB

[Kurieuo]

I do not know what it is you are asking to answer whether or not I don't agree. However, I think their own statements are clear enough and do not really need further comment.

[Kurieuo]

While I agree with you for the most part, it's the YEC's that irk me more than the OEC's. I really have no idea what the extent of God's involvement in orgins was. I'm running with the evidence he have right now. I see "created evolution" as a perfectly good mechanism of creation. Most Christians will immediately say "where does it say created evolution in the Bible?" but I don't put much weight in the creation stories and Noah Story. These stories were put in every religious text and none is exactly alike (even Gilgamesh/Noah were not 100% alike). The addition of parables or stories into the Bible does not invalidate the whole text, it is simply meant as a moral guide or maybe even an exciting tale to read to the masses to make them fear God.

The thing is is that evolution (in all forms) is clearly supported by science.

I like your honesty in embracing "created evolution". If you believe God initially seeded life to evolve in the manner it did (for example, "created evolution"), can you really honestly say that evolution in all forms is clearly supported by science? For example, I am certain the purely materialistic form of evolution embraced by an Atheist would be quite different to your own?

[Gerald McGrew]

You did it, and you probably don't even know it.

Then it shouldn't be any problem for you to show specifically where I did. You wouldn't make an unsubstantiated false accusations, would you?

Tell us how the Discovery Institute has forged the evidence in support of design.

I don't recall saying they did.

That's funny, because evolutionary algorithms have proven to be extremely useful, especially in engineering.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it (laughable even). Evolutionary Algorithms have only become useful because programmable computers, embedded and what not HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO RUN ALGORITHMS. I think you should write that down!

What that shows is that the very simple process of trial and error run through a selective filter can produce very powerful and useful results, be it in a computer or in a population of organisms.

[Gerald McGrew]

I do not know what it is you are asking to answer whether or not I don't agree. However, I think their own statements are clear enough and do not really need further comment.

I agree. The Discovery Institute has made absolutely no bones about the fact that "intelligent design" is merely an exercise in religious apologetics. It's aim is not scientific knowledge, but "cultural renewal".

Also, it's important to put a couple of things together here; ID creationism is nothing more than arguments against evolution, so when ID creationists say "teach the weaknesses of evolution" the "weaknesses" are ID creationism without the label or mention of the "designer".

IOW, ID creationism is "evolution can't do it, therefore it was designed", whereas "teach the weaknesses" is "evolution can't do it, therefore....um.....".

It'll be very interesting to see the first court case over this "teach the weaknesses" approach. I have a feeling the fact that the stark similarities in content between creationism and the "weaknesses" are going to doom the creationists yet again.

[Kurieuo]

This is a perfect example that at the end of the day people will believe what they want. I guess I can agree with your earlier sentiments along those lines David. I have really said all I have to say.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Kurieuo,

Always a pleasure to discuss things with you. There is plenty of room for divergent opinions respectfully presented as they have been.

DB

[Gman]

?????? I've done no such thing. I didn't even know I could delete any posts other than my own.

No... You purposely deleted my quote about "seeding". You only responded to what you wanted to.

Do you have some statistics to back up this assertion?

Is that what ID is about, alien seeding? Is that the view you hold to? The view most of those on this board hold to?

Ever heard of these scientists? Though it is hypothetical and currently unproven...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/20/pan ... scientists

Again... All ID is concerned with is finding design. Design could very well be from the supernatural or "seeding" from other planets or from aliens.

Also a quote from our website...

"The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID."

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?"

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

Science does not "totally prove" things.

Then why do you propose calling Darwinian evolution a fact?? If you call it a fact, then it's already been proven.... How do you re-prove a fact?

Since every population we've ever studied evolves (we've never seen a population not evolve), why should we conclude that populations in the past didn't evolve?

Evolve in what way? Adapt to it's environment or morph into an entirely new species?

Evolution is a "fact" because we see it happen, right before our eyes.

Then why did you say science does not "totally prove" things? Why are you calling it a fact?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Ever heard of the separation between church and state? It is currently illegal to teach anything except naturalism in the public schools..

Well, now you're moving the goalposts on me. Earlier, you posted a link that gave the following definition for "macroevolution":

"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"

I operated in good faith from that definition (and even stated, "If you define macroevolution that way....."). You did not immediately point out that you defined "macroevolution" differently. But now that I've given an example that fully satisfies the above definition of "macroevolution" (that you provided), you suddenly present a new link that offers a completely different definition: "Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc."

Why did you do that?

To show you that it doesn't exist... Since you chose again not to address it, let's look at what the link says...

"There are two major models of macroevolution (In the remainder of this article, I will refer to macroevolution simply as evolution, since this is the common usage). They are:

* Gradualism - Changes in the morphology of species are the result of gradual changes in the genomes of species. The apparent lack of gradualism in the fossil record is due to an incompleteness of the fossil record.
* Punctuated Equilibrium - Changes in morphology are due to species sorting following geographic isolation and major reductions in population numbers. The punctuated appearance of the fossil record is real.

Refutation of Gradualism

The major problems with gradualism is that it is not reflected in the fossil record. By far, the fossil record is extremely discontinuous. There are a few examples of gradualism, but they are the exception. Even the most famous example of gradualism (the horse) suffers from a lack of intermediates for most species. Here is an admission by an evolutionist:

"Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their 'dirty little trade secret:' most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction." Dr. Donald Prothero

The evidence against gradualism is extensive, but not readily admitted to in the popular press or textbooks. Although the fossil record for a given location on land may be discontinuous, the fossil record for organisms deposited in the ocean or large bodies of water is continuous. Studies by Stanley (3), Cheetham (4) and Stanley and Yang (5) examined all the available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, followed by the sudden appearance of new species. Williamson (6) examined the fossil record of mollusks in Lake Turkana, Kenya, and showed that there were multiple examples of rapid speciation and prolonged stasis, but no gradualism. Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism, but many more which showed stasis and punctuation. Prothero examined all the mammals with a reasonably complete record from the Eocene-Oligocene (about 30-35 million years ago) beds of the Big Badlands of South Dakota and related areas in Wyoming and Nebraska (8). This study not only sampled every available lineage without bias, but also had much better time control from magnetic stratigraphy and wider geographic coverage than previous studies. With only one exception all of the Badlands mammals were static through millions of years, or speciated abruptly (if they changed at all). Stasis and sudden appearance of new species is the norm rather than the exception, as evidenced by the fossil record.

Evolutionists have used the excuse that the fossil record is not complete enough to be an accurate representation of the history of life on the Earth. A recent book, The Adequacy of the Fossil Record (9), examined the fossil record in terms of its completeness, bias (over and under representation of certain species and groups of organisms), and stratigraphic range (its completeness for a species over the entire history of its existence). Their conclusions were that the fossil record is surprisingly complete, with about 10% of all species that have ever lived being represented. There are some biases and stratigraphic incompleteness in the fossil record, but these problems can be estimated mathematically from the available data. There are many examples of stratigraphic gaps in the fossil record, with these gaps being the rule rather than the exception. In the past, it has been assumed that the gaps represent incompleteness of the fossil record. The authors suggest the "heretical" view that stratigraphic data should be used to test the phylogenetic relationships between species rather than assume that the relationships exist and that the fossil record is incomplete.

The punctuated fossil record applies not only to individual species, but to entire periods of time, where entire communities of species remain unchanged for millions of years. These periods of "coordinated stasis" can be followed by periods when "upwards of 60% of species seem to be replaced over a period of a few hundred thousand years"(10). During the first 16 million years of the Tertiary period, 18 orders of mammals appeared. Many scientist had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals. However, Dr. David Archibald (San Diego State University), looked at the numbers of fossil site spanning the period of 5 million years before and after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Dr. Archibald found that sampling was equal for periods before and after the boundary, although only 11 genera were found in the 5 million years before the beginning of the Tertiary compared to 139 genera in the 5 million years following (11). The idea that the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record is not reasonable given the tremendous number of fossils that have been discovered in recent studies. Therefore, the old "evolution of the gaps" theory is not supported by the extensive fossil record that now exists. Gradualism, although it seems a more logical mode of evolution, is not supported by the fossil record.

Refutation of Punctuated Equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals. Since the mutation rate is low, the species' population must be large in order to accumulate any beneficial mutations (most mutations are neutral and the remainder are mostly detrimental). Next, these few individuals must become genetically isolated from the larger population (species sorting). Without genetic isolation (usually involving geographic isolation) the multiple mutations, needed to produce the punctuated appearance of a new species, would never get co-expressed. Therefore, punctuated equilibrium requires the unlikely events of multiple mutations in presence of a few individuals of large population, and the unlikely genetic isolation of these specific individuals from the vast majority of the main population. Although it is possible that such unlikely events could occur by chance occasionally, punctuated equilibrium requires that these unlikely events occur all the time, as revealed in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium truly is a faith in the miracles of chance.

A recent study destroys the idea of species sorting (20, 21). Instead of becoming a new species, populations that suffer drastic reductions in numbers are characterized by decreased genetic variability and an expression of detrimental genes. This happens because normally heterozygous (containing 2 different alleles of each gene) individuals become homozygous, due to inbreeding. As a result, detrimental, non-expressed, recessive genes become homozygous and, therefore, are expressed, resulting in a less fit population. The study examined the effect of a 35-year population decline of greater prairie chickens on their fitness and fertility. The results showed that population decline and isolation of the prairie chicken led to decreased genetic variability, reduced egg viability (from near 100% to less than 80%), and a decline of fertility rates (from 93% to 74%). Only after human intervention (which brought in genetically diverse individuals from other areas) did the population begin to recover. This study calls into serious question species sorting as the underlying mechanism of punctuated equilibrium. More recent studies have confirmed these results (22, 23).

Another study showed that low relatedness (high genetic diversity) is favored in social insects (24). This low relatedness improves the fitness of the colony, but prevents the kind of species sorting expected in punctuated equilibrium.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

I provided an example of the evolution of a new species, which is "macrovevolution" as defined by the link you provided.

Not that I'm aware of. By the way, please explain in detail how evolution accounted of a new species. Just don't point to a link...

As I said, I would be happy to discuss the Cambrian with you, but I would prefer to cover the topics we are discussing now first. Would you like to start another thread on the Cambrian?

Please do... And I want you to be very specific in great detail.

By whom? Please be specific. And can I take it then that you are unable to provide a citation to a scientific source that claims "macroevolution is a fish morphing into a human"?

Are you serious? Can I ask how long you've been studying evolution? Please view this you tube link that explains the evolution of man from the "very" beginning... The link doesn't specifically address macro but it is implied...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIM1glECugU

Homo sapiens evolved from their primate ancestors.

Not mine...

As I said, I would prefer to cover the topics at hand before we introduce all manner of new topics.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what the topic is?? Our topic is "ID...why isn't it religion?" You say that ID is a religion but why isn't your belief a religion?? Again.... Where is your proof? If you don't have any proof then you have to accept it on faith. A religion. Your religion...

Of course not. But it's obvious S.J. Gould held the opinion that transitional fossils are "abundant" and that he was very annoyed when creationists took his quotes out of context to make it seem as if he held the opposite view. Earlier, David stated that "transitional fossils" were evidence for macroevolution. You responded:

"Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould."

Now, why would you quote a man who believed that transitional fossils are "abundant" and claim that he believed otherwise?

That question is for you... It seems blatant to me that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing here....

I agree with Dawkins' statement. But it has nothing to do with the subject Gould was talking about.

Then your Darwinian evolution is faith based... A hypothesis... Your belief...

[Gman]

We won't ever directly observe "fish to human" happening. It stinks for ToE but it's true.

Yes, I agree....

You still don't have a good answer for the micro vs. macro thing. The same mechanisms that drive "microevolutionary" change drive "macroevolutionary" change. You agree with microevolution, right?

Himan, it depends on what you mean by microevolution... Organisms adapting/changing to their environment, yes, increase in new information, appearance of new phyla or speciation no....

So what makes "Darwinian evolution" aka macroevolution, different from microevolution? The only difference is timescale, nothing more. The "macro" changes are only evident after the passage of time. If you scale the changes down to <1000 years, you will only see species or subspecies-level change. Continued accumulation over longer periods leads to greater divergence. Maybe even enough to transcend "kinds". If you disagree, explain how the mechanism changes from micro to macro and where this boundary exists.

By closely examining the fossil records without any preconceived ideas...

Yes I'm not a naturalist in pure form, but I don't see God creating evolution as negating the creative power of God... does creation by evolution (evolution designed by God) less glorifying to creationists than hands-on creation?

Hinan I believe it does... Why? Because if you go by methodological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism as it is taught in public schools it is STRICTLY against anything supernatural. God, Allah, Buddah, Brahman and the likes....

I thought this quote in wikipedia summed it up nicely..

"According to such a view (methodological naturalism), nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do NOT exist."

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

If you want to say theistic evolution then that is fine by me, but you can't be strictly a naturalist.. Your view would never be accepted into science.. It's a black or white issue...