Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:If a logical and reasonable person decided to take a stroll on the beach and saw a message carved into the sand saying "Steve loves Sandy" with a big heart and cupids arrow right through the heart, the reasonable and logical person would conclude that this was the work of an intelligent mind. If some told me that this message was created naturally by the ocean waves I would have to conclude that this person would need a straight jacket ASAP.

could this message exist if no one wrote it or intelligently designed it or if no one knew of its existence - twinc

twinc wrote:

bippy123 wrote:If a logical and reasonable person decided to take a stroll on the beach and saw a message carved into the sand saying "Steve loves Sandy" with a big heart and cupids arrow right through the heart, the reasonable and logical person would conclude that this was the work of an intelligent mind. If some told me that this message was created naturally by the ocean waves I would have to conclude that this person would need a straight jacket ASAP.

could this message exist if no one wrote it or intelligently designed it or if no one knew of its existence - twinc

No, that is clearly the work of an intelligent being.
But a logical and reasonable person might very well ask, how does one come to this conclusion? And some of the steps would be:
We know what water can do to sand and beach debris from observing lots of beaches. We know this is a short term process; a few waves and all is rearranged. Lots of scientists have made beach/water interfaces and studied the equations which control beach material motion. We know that English letters are a human construct.
But the human mind processes most of this subconsciously and we just "know" the answer. But stop sometime and think about how we arrive at a particular interpretation. And that is what I am asking about design. Does anyone claim to know enough about how nature happens to conclusively rule out a physical explanation for evolution or abiogenesis? Do we really know as much about biological processes as we do about waves on the beach?
And maybe that is one reason KBCid is having so much trouble explaining his thought processes - he just "knows" the answer and isn't aware of implicit assumptions.

sandy_mcd wrote:

twinc wrote:

bippy123 wrote:If a logical and reasonable person decided to take a stroll on the beach and saw a message carved into the sand saying "Steve loves Sandy" with a big heart and cupids arrow right through the heart, the reasonable and logical person would conclude that this was the work of an intelligent mind. If some told me that this message was created naturally by the ocean waves I would have to conclude that this person would need a straight jacket ASAP.

could this message exist if no one wrote it or intelligently designed it or if no one knew of its existence - twinc

No, that is clearly the work of an intelligent being.
But a logical and reasonable person might very well ask, how does one come to this conclusion? And some of the steps would be:
We know what water can do to sand and beach debris from observing lots of beaches. We know this is a short term process; a few waves and all is rearranged. Lots of scientists have made beach/water interfaces and studied the equations which control beach material motion. We know that English letters are a human construct.
But the human mind processes most of this subconsciously and we just "know" the answer. But stop sometime and think about how we arrive at a particular interpretation. And that is what I am asking about design. Does anyone claim to know enough about how nature happens to conclusively rule out a physical explanation for evolution or abiogenesis? Do we really know as much about biological processes as we do about waves on the beach?
And maybe that is one reason KBCid is having so much trouble explaining his thought processes - he just "knows" the answer and isn't aware of implicit assumptions.

What I do know is that DNA is a code (a language). To me this has very strong implications. Sure you can try to take the other side of the coin and say there is a possibility that a language could come out naturally on its own, but the astronomical chances of that happening make it practically zero with a little common sense.

Perry Marshall showed this when during his debates on on the infidel forum and alot of his opponent jumped ship and came to his side on this issue. We have never observed Pink Elephants that could fly, and sure maybe they will exist one day but common sense and reason tells us that this is EXTREMELY unlikely. That is one of the main reasons why I switched from evolution to ID. Im not against evolution as I used to be a theistic evolutionist but because of a few reasons I just dont see it. If I were to switch back to a theistic evolutionist stance it wouldnt be an evolution like darwin stated but an intelligently guided evolution or IDVOLUTION. Actually there is a site that has this stance.

KBCid wrote:And no one is asserting that intelligent design did it either.

sandy_mcd wrote:So it is accepted that some things (at least could have) occurred naturally and no one observed that happening since the time scale is too long for human observation.

Nope. It is accepted that what you can reproducably prove is valid. All other things are hypothetical by nature if you can't verify them. So, while it may be assumed that a mountain is formed by natural cause it is not in fact a verified assumption. The only fact we can conclude is that it does not exhibit any telltale signature effects that ID is observed to leave behind.

KBCid wrote:No one is saying that we are empirically asserting that everything else is ruled out by this observation. No one is positing anywhere at any time that anything cannot be caused "by something other than intelligence". ID and myself posit that there are specific effects observable in living forms of matter that exhibit the same effects that "(ONLY)" intelligent design has been observed to cause. We have made an observation and assert that intelligence is a capable and "(ONLY)" cause "(SO FAR)" for making the evidence we observe.

sandy_mcd wrote:So you are saying in the first two sentences that natural causes cannot be ruled out.

That would be exactly what I stated. The part you keep stumbling over is that there is no observable evidence to 'RULE IN' natural forces as a possible cause. The knife cuts both ways. If you want to try and rule in that something could possibly occur by natural causes then you must first be able to produce experimental evidence of its ability to do so.

sandy_mcd wrote:But since there is no observation of natural causes, we can rule out natural causes acting swiftly but not over long periods of time. Is that all correct?

Nope. One may not rule out or in anything that is not reproducibly confirmable. You can't add a rule to the scientific method that allows for an imaginary time constraint for a cause to be given a free pass.

sandy_mcd wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't consider that a very strong scientific argument. [Remember Ockham's Razor?]

That is fine. You are free at all times to set your own limitations on what you would consider acceptable. If you want to hold a belief in an unobservable long time action of natural forces then that is your choice. Just remember it is not based on the scientific method it would be the sandy method.

KBCid wrote:This is why I am free to say "prove that natural causes can produce the effects exhibited by life".

sandy_mcd wrote:You are perfectly free to say that. But as you no doubt know, nature does lots of far simpler things which scientists have spent millions of dollars on and still not figured out (e.g. nitrogen fixation). So the fact that there is currently no experiments demonstrating natural causes means essentially nothing.

Indeed anyone at any time can assert any beliefs they wish. But the scientific method does mean something in my world and the fact that "there is currently no experiments demonstrating natural causes" means that there is also no evidence to back a hypothesis of natural causes for the observed effects. However, on the other hand we do have reproducible evidence for the effects of ID and they provide backing for the assertion that ID is a viable cause for any similar effects seen in any other forms of matter.

sandy_mcd wrote:And maybe that is one reason KBCid is having so much trouble explaining his thought processes - he just "knows" the answer and isn't aware of implicit assumptions.

I have not one bit of trouble explaining a thought process. Unfortunately this thread is not about explaining my thought processes. I observe effects whose only provable cause is ID. I see other forms of matter exhibiting the same effects. I posit ID as a likely cause. What exactly is there to think about?

bippy123 wrote: What I do know is that DNA is a code (a language). To me this has very strong implications. Sure you can try to take the other side of the coin and say there is a possibility that a language could come out naturally on its own, but the astronomical chances of that happening make it practically zero with a little common sense.
Perry Marshall showed this when during his debates on on the infidel forum and alot of his opponent jumped ship and came to his side on this issue. We have never observed Pink Elephants that could fly, and sure maybe they will exist one day but common sense and reason tells us that this is EXTREMELY unlikely. That is one of the main reasons why I switched from evolution to ID. Im not against evolution as I used to be a theistic evolutionist but because of a few reasons I just dont see it. If I were to switch back to a theistic evolutionist stance it wouldnt be an evolution like darwin stated but an intelligently guided evolution or IDVOLUTION. Actually there is a site that has this stance.

Bippy your reply deserves a second showing and maybe a little further indepth viewing. "What I do know is that DNA is a code ". For all observational appearances DNA is indeed a 'CODE'. It even has its very own reader;

Messenger RNA
mRNA is transcribed from a DNA template, and carries coding information to the sites of protein synthesis, the ribosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA

The ribosome is a large complex molecule which is responsible for catalyzing the formation of proteins from individual amino acids using messenger RNA as a template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

that 'TRANSLATES' its coding from a 4 letter code into the 20 letter code of proteins that perform specific 'FUNCTIONS'. It does not absolutely require a rocket scientist to observe similarity of functionalty to ID caused functionality. We can even see other attributes specific to ID;

Start/stop codons
Translation starts with a chain initiation codon (start codon). Unlike stop codons, the codon alone is not sufficient to begin the process. Nearby sequences such as (the Shine-Dalgarno sequence in E. coli) and initiation factors are also required to start translation...
...The three stop codons have been given names.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

We have been able to identify that there are specifiable start 'sequences' as well as specifiable stop 'sequences' used to control actions. Two 'functions' that exhibit the very same 'functionality' that current intelligent designers use..... while.... 'coding', Imagine that.

What are the odds of replication success if either of these functions did not exist at the same time...?
What are the odds that 2 functionaly similar systems arose by different causes?

There are many intelligent agents that look at a formation of matter and recognise that it is exhibiting an effect typical of ID "(ALONE)". Exactly how much of a thought process is required to put 2 & 2 together and posit 4 as a viable hypothesis?.
How hard is it really to look at this system that uses a substrate arranged in a pattern to control an external reader which interfaces with a ribosome to perform the translation of a code into a functional arrangement of matter and say that it is as complex an arrangement as intelligent designers make and has so far only been observed as a result of intelligent design? Of course, if one holds an a priori commitment to naturalism then one cannot accept such a simple answer.

KBCid wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:And maybe that is one reason KBCid is having so much trouble explaining his thought processes - he just "knows" the answer and isn't aware of implicit assumptions.

I have not one bit of trouble explaining a thought process. Unfortunately this thread is not about explaining my thought processes. I observe effects whose only provable cause is ID. I see other forms of matter exhibiting the same effects. I posit ID as a likely cause. What exactly is there to think about?

bippy123 wrote: What I do know is that DNA is a code (a language). To me this has very strong implications. Sure you can try to take the other side of the coin and say there is a possibility that a language could come out naturally on its own, but the astronomical chances of that happening make it practically zero with a little common sense.
Perry Marshall showed this when during his debates on on the infidel forum and alot of his opponent jumped ship and came to his side on this issue. We have never observed Pink Elephants that could fly, and sure maybe they will exist one day but common sense and reason tells us that this is EXTREMELY unlikely. That is one of the main reasons why I switched from evolution to ID. Im not against evolution as I used to be a theistic evolutionist but because of a few reasons I just dont see it. If I were to switch back to a theistic evolutionist stance it wouldnt be an evolution like darwin stated but an intelligently guided evolution or IDVOLUTION. Actually there is a site that has this stance.

Bippy your reply deserves a second showing and maybe a little further indepth viewing. "What I do know is that DNA is a code ". For all observational appearances DNA is indeed a 'CODE'. It even has its very own reader;

Messenger RNA
mRNA is transcribed from a DNA template, and carries coding information to the sites of protein synthesis, the ribosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA

The ribosome is a large complex molecule which is responsible for catalyzing the formation of proteins from individual amino acids using messenger RNA as a template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

that 'TRANSLATES' its coding from a 4 letter code into the 20 letter code of proteins that perform specific 'FUNCTIONS'. It does not absolutely require a rocket scientist to observe similarity of functionalty to ID caused functionality. We can even see other attributes specific to ID;

Start/stop codons
Translation starts with a chain initiation codon (start codon). Unlike stop codons, the codon alone is not sufficient to begin the process. Nearby sequences such as (the Shine-Dalgarno sequence in E. coli) and initiation factors are also required to start translation...
...The three stop codons have been given names.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

We have been able to identify that there are specifiable start 'sequences' as well as specifiable stop 'sequences' used to control actions. Two 'functions' that exhibit the very same 'functionality' that current intelligent designers use..... while.... 'coding', Imagine that.

What are the odds of replication success if either of these functions did not exist at the same time...?
What are the odds that 2 functionaly similar systems arose by different causes?

There are many intelligent agents that look at a formation of matter and recognise that it is exhibiting an effect typical of ID "(ALONE)". Exactly how much of a thought process is required to put 2 & 2 together and posit 4 as a viable hypothesis?.
How hard is it really to look at this system that uses a substrate arranged in a pattern to control an external reader which interfaces with a ribosome to perform the translation of a code into a functional arrangement of matter and say that it is as complex an arrangement as intelligent designers make and has so far only been observed as a result of intelligent design? Of course, if one holds an a priori commitment to naturalism then one cannot accept such a simple answer.

Great post Kbc, and it is the specified complexity such as that you just explained that lead me to make the change from evolution to ID. Although ID is relatively young it will grow in time and hopefully a paradigm shift will take place.
Engineers and computer programmers can recognize much easier because of the experience they have in recognizing the breathtaking specified complexity involved here.

bippy123 wrote:What I do know is that DNA is a code (a language). To me this has very strong implications. Sure you can try to take the other side of the coin and say there is a possibility that a language could come out naturally on its own, but the astronomical chances of that happening make it practically zero with a little common sense.

I'd have to think about that more, but I am not sure how DNA qualifies as a language. To me a language is a set of symbols that have ideas/concepts/meanings attached to them which can be arranged to convey larger meanings. In that sense i don't see DNA being a language. And I also don't think code and language are equivalent. Perhaps i don't know enough about programming to use this rationale.
[edit for typo and add] I see a gross analogy, but not a close enough one to extrapolate from.

KBCid wrote:That would be exactly what I stated. The part you keep stumbling over is that there is no observable evidence to 'RULE IN' natural forces as a possible cause. The knife cuts both ways.

Of course it does; this would be a "science of the gaps". And in my previous posts I have several times asked, what are the limits of scientific accessibility and how do we know/estimate where they are? But based on lack of response, perhaps no one has read them.

KBCid wrote:If you want to try and rule in that something could possibly occur by natural causes then you must first be able to produce experimental evidence of its ability to do so.

Why? As i have also repeatedly pointed out, plants do a very simple reaction N2 + 8 H+ + 8 e− → 2 NH3 + H2; yet despite the application of many years and much money, scientists have been unable to reproduce this in the laboratory. I don't think science should be limited by what has been accomplished only. There are lots of possible things that people have not been able to accomplish in the laboratory that are presumably feasible. If we can't do simple things how can the inability to do something complex mean much?

KBCid wrote:But the scientific method does mean something in my world and the fact that "there is currently no experiments demonstrating natural causes" means that there is also no evidence to back a hypothesis of natural causes for the observed effects.

So in the past, people should have assumed ID instead of plate tectonics?

KBCid wrote:That would be exactly what I stated. The part you keep stumbling over is that there is no observable evidence to 'RULE IN' natural forces as a possible cause. The knife cuts both ways.

sandy_mcd wrote:Of course it does; this would be a "science of the gaps". And in my previous posts I have several times asked, what are the limits of scientific accessibility and how do we know/estimate where they are? But based on lack of response, perhaps no one has read them.

No this is not science of the gaps. Science is based on observable evidence. ID and myself are not trying to fill a gap in scientific understanding with any cause available. We 'OBSERVE" signature effects from the actions of ID 'alone' that are also 'observed' in living structures. Thus and therefore, we posit a cause that is observably verifiable to leave specific markers of its actions in specific formations of matter.
The limits of scientific accesability is where it becomes impossible to test. examples 1) what caused the big bang. 2) was there a beginning of time etc.
If you can't test a hypothesis by verifiable experiments then you have stepped beyond the boundary of science and into the realm of religion. Here are some current religious beliefs held by evolutionists;
1) There was a single common ancestor of life
2) all species came from the single common ancestor
3) Life graduated from a simple cell to its current complexity
4) life arose by natural causes (chemical evolution) etc.

KBCid wrote:If you want to try and rule in that something could possibly occur by natural causes then you must first be able to produce experimental evidence of its ability to do so.

sandy_mcd wrote:Why?.

Because if you don't have evidence to rule something in then we could quite literally posit anything imaginable to explain a phenomena and someone else would have to provide evidence for why it is wrong in order to remove it from consideration. Here is a simple example;

I posit - Stepping on a crack will break your mothers back...
You - go step on a crack and prove that it did not result in your mothers back being broken so it nulifies my assertion then,
I posit - that the crack was not big enough which reinstates it as a possibility. then,
You - step on a bigger crack and prove that it did not result in your mothers back being broken but you still haven't nullified my assertion because
you have not yet stepped on every size crack greater than the first so my valid hypothesis will remain valid until you can exhaust every possible crack that is bigger than the first one.
This can go on forever with no actual result ever being obtained to substantiate or disprove my hypothesis.
You can't rule a 'cause' in without just cause for doing so.

sandy_mcd wrote:As i have also repeatedly pointed out, plants do a very simple reaction N2 + 8 H+ + 8 e− → 2 NH3 + H2; yet despite the application of many years and much money, scientists have been unable to reproduce this in the laboratory.

If it is so simple then what is the problem? I would assert that the assumption of simplicity is the first error. Prior to the knowlege of DNA it was considered a simple plasm. Can't we learn from history? The nitrogen cycle is assumed to be simple by those who don't have a complete understanding of atomic interactions. Is the cycle operational by design or natural causes... these are the only options you can rightfully consider. I would ask here if you think that such a 'system' could arise in a stepwise manner? and if you say yes then you need to provide the logical 'steps' it took to reach it. If you say no then you would need to posit a cause that can form complex arrangements of matter at once that interact for a single purpose. How many causes can you conceive of here? Asserting that 'it just evolved' or it must have 'evolved' is not a scientific answer to explain its existence.

sandy_mcd wrote:I don't think science should be limited by what has been accomplished only.

No one is limiting science. Proper science occurs by scientific method. It is quite clear that a chemical reaction is occuring that is well within the boundary of science. The assertion of how the reaction came to occur in life is where assumption leaves the scientific method behind. We can posit fairies with wings or anything you can imagine but no assertion holds any power of truth without reproducible evidence.
Tell me where did the molecular structures arise that control the process in life... that life requires in order to make the molecular structures to control the process?

sandy_mcd wrote:There are lots of possible things that people have not been able to accomplish in the laboratory that are presumably feasible. If we can't do simple things how can the inability to do something complex mean much?

The assumption of simplicity and what is feasibly possible is an act of intelligent imagination. If sometthing is simple then you can prove it. If it is possible then you can prove it. The only thing you can do prior to being able to assert something is possible is to test a hypothesis of possibility. Once you have evidence to back the hypothesis then you can rightfully assert it is possible.

KBCid wrote:But the scientific method does mean something in my world and the fact that "there is currently no experiments demonstrating natural causes" means that there is also no evidence to back a hypothesis of natural causes for the observed effects.

sandy_mcd wrote:So in the past, people should have assumed ID instead of plate tectonics?

To explain continental movement I presume. Well let's see sandy... did the movement of continents exhibit any telltale signs of typically associated with intelligent actions? If your answer is yes and you can point out what they are then you could be confident in positing ID as a cause to explain a phenomenon. If not then this whole rationalization you bring is nothing more than a strawman arguement and it would reveal that you still do not understand what ID promotes;

What is intelligent design?
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act.
5) Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

Did you get this yet sandy? We... ID proponents and myself look for objects that exhibit 'INFORMATIONAL PROPERTIES' (observable evidence) That we have SO FAR only seen as the result of intelligent agency. Thus and therefore, we do not posit ID as a cause for ANYTHING that does not exhibit these 'INFORMATIONAL PROPERTIES' no matter how much you wish to strawman us into it.

bippy123 wrote:Great post Kbc, and it is the specified complexity such as that you just explained that lead me to make the change from evolution to ID. Although ID is relatively young it will grow in time and hopefully a paradigm shift will take place.
Engineers and computer programmers can recognize much easier because of the experience they have in recognizing the breathtaking specified complexity involved here.

Thankyou sir. and let me say that "breathtaking" is an understatement.
I have been doing work for a company similar to Illustra media... http://illustramedia.com/ to produce a 3 dimensional model of cellular structures and a variety of the mechanisms / functions that mechanically occur for nearly 6 months now and they have spent close to 60K for this work and we are so far from ever forming a complete model that we appear as insects on the ground in comparison. Man there are so many mechanistic actions occuring that I can only sit in wonder at the majesty of even the very finite bit that I have been able to form so far. My $8,000 computer with solid state drives takes hours to complete a minutes worth of motion for the model even now and by my calculations I have barely represented 1% of all the structure and actions occuring in one "simple" (lol) cell.

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:If you want to try and rule in that something could possibly occur by natural causes then you must first be able to produce experimental evidence of its ability to do so.

sandy_mcd wrote:Why?.

Because if you don't have evidence to rule something in then we could quite literally posit anything imaginable to explain a phenomena and someone else would have to provide evidence for why it is wrong in order to remove it from consideration.

Consider science a 125 or so years ago. No one knew about the structure of the atom or nuclear fusion. There was thus no known possible explanation for how stars work. Likewise in geology there was no known explanation for the residual heat in the earth. So by KBCid's reasoning, scientists at the time, instead of saying "i don't know", should have given up on natural causes as an explanation. I disagree.

sandy_mcd wrote:As i have also repeatedly pointed out, plants do a very simple reaction N2 + 8 H+ + 8 e− → 2 NH3 + H2; yet despite the application of many years and much money, scientists have been unable to reproduce this in the laboratory.

KBCid wrote:If it is so simple then what is the problem? I would assert that the assumption of simplicity is the first error.

OK, i wasn't very clear here. But you raise an extremely interesting point about relativity. Nitrogen fixation is simple relative to abiogenesis or other complex biological systems. So if scientists can't imitate a relatively simple system, why should they be expected to explain right now much more complicated systems?

And this idea of relativity of simplicity extends further. If humans can't explain something in nature, that is just as much a reflection on the human capacity for figuring things out as it is on the complexity of nature. No one expects a dog or a two-year old to understand everything adults can. So some of the things we don't understand are because we just aren't clever enough.

KBCid wrote:If you want to try and rule in that something could possibly occur by natural causes then you must first be able to produce experimental evidence of its ability to do so.

sandy_mcd wrote:Why?.

KBCid wrote:Because if you don't have evidence to rule something in then we could quite literally posit anything imaginable to explain a phenomena and someone else would have to provide evidence for why it is wrong in order to remove it from consideration.

sandy_mcd wrote:Consider science a 125 or so years ago. No one knew about the structure of the atom or nuclear fusion. There was thus no known possible explanation for how stars work. Likewise in geology there was no known explanation for the residual heat in the earth. So by "("sandy_mcd's" understanding of)" KBCid's reasoning, scientists at the time, instead of saying "i don't know", should have given up on natural causes as an explanation. I disagree.

You can't posit as truth what you can't prove by scientific method. Without an understanding of how something works you and they would always be at a loss to explain something. This is a pretty simple understanding.
Note that sandy_mcd believes that there is a complete understanding of how stars work and yet man has not empirically studied one yet.
note that sandy_mcd believes that there is a complete understanding of how residual heat in the earth occurs and yet man has never actually performed an empirical test on the earths core or its arrangement.
sandy_mcd believes that by simply asserting something as truth that there is no need for empirical evidence to back it if you can get enough important people to believe it.

sandy_mcd wrote:As i have also repeatedly pointed out, plants do a very simple reaction N2 + 8 H+ + 8 e− → 2 NH3 + H2; yet despite the application of many years and much money, scientists have been unable to reproduce this in the laboratory.

KBCid wrote:If it is so simple then what is the problem? I would assert that the assumption of simplicity is the first error.

sandy_mcd wrote:OK, i wasn't very clear here. But you raise an extremely interesting point about relativity. Nitrogen fixation is simple relative to abiogenesis or other complex biological systems.

Is it really simple... relative to "abiogenesis or other complex biological systems". In my world sandy you must first understand something in every way 'prior' to being able to relate it to something else. I would further point out that you would also need to completely understand the something elses 'prior' to using them as objects to compare to. Which of the items that you named do you understand completely to allow for a comparison.

sandy_mcd wrote:So if scientists can't imitate a relatively simple system, why should they be expected to explain right now much more complicated systems?

I don't know. How do you suppose they have enough understanding about something they can't imitate to reliably provide any truth about it?

sandy_mcd wrote:And this idea of relativity of simplicity extends further. If humans can't explain something in nature, that is just as much a reflection on the human capacity for figuring things out as it is on the complexity of nature. No one expects a dog or a two-year old to understand everything adults can. So some of the things we don't understand are because we just aren't clever enough.

I agree. So why would anyone with very limited understanding about a material object try to assert anything in their understanding as truth about it?
This is why we have the scientific method. It allows us of little understanding to perform tests to increase understanding. We use observable evidence as a starting point to form a hypothesis which then is tested for validity and until we have a complete understanding we don't stick our necks out there and assert something is a fact without experimental backing.
ID posits the hypothesis that observable evidence of intelligent agency is exhibited by some formations of matter. Should we ignore this evidence and just blindly presume that it can only be from natural causes? sandy_mcd thinks so.

I agree. So why would anyone with very limited understanding about a material object try to assert anything in their understanding as truth about it?
This is why we have the scientific method. It allows us of little understanding to perform tests to increase understanding. We use observable evidence as a starting point to form a hypothesis which then is tested for validity and until we have a complete understanding we don't stick our necks out there and assert something is a fact without experimental backing.
ID posits the hypothesis that observable evidence of intelligent agency is exhibited by some formations of matter. Should we ignore this evidence and just blindly presume that it can only be from natural causes? sandy_mcd thinks so.

I truely believe that this is because our public schools are entrenched with teaching only one side of the story and for a long time it's been methodological naturalism, and this is also why I'm an advocate of teaching alternative views such as ID in public high schools. If Darwinian evolution is such a strong theory then they won't have anything to worry about as our teens will be able to stack them up side by side and make the decision for themselves.what are they afraid of?

This is why I applaud governor Bobby jindal for allowing public schools to teach both ID and evolution side by side.
Our youth are smart enough to make an informed decision .

bippy123 wrote:If Darwinian evolution is such a strong theory then they won't have anything to worry about as our teens will be able to stack them up side by side and make the decision for themselves. What are they afraid of?

Indeed this is also my point. If evolution is the absolute truth then nothing can ever beat it. So what are they afraid of? Why send out true believers to web sites in order to try and convince people there that evolution is the only truth. In my world you can posit a flat earth or a geocentric belief all you want. I will not journey to your website and argue the facts about it. You will die with your beliefs and children will grow up and learn about empirical evidence and what it means.

bippy123 wrote:If Darwinian evolution is such a strong theory then they won't have anything to worry about as our teens will be able to stack them up side by side and make the decision for themselves.

KBCid wrote:Indeed this is also my point. ... children will grow up and learn about empirical evidence and what it means.

So what are the recommended science course topics? Evolution? Design? Flat earth? Phlogiston? Astrology? Just put up everything (at about 1 minute per?) and let the kids figure it all out?