Evidence for God from Science

Darwin_Rocks wrote:Yeah sorry about that. It was poorly worded because I was tired.

Darwins Theory of Evolution tells us that Evolution is possible.

Evolution can be tested and it has been. Bacteria has evolved. Scientists have observed and continue to do so. to say that Microscopic Evolution and Macro Evolution is any different is a stupid idea.

You guys seem to nail the Evolution scientists with "Evolution hasn't been proven" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that your own theory hasn't been proven either.

In a world of uncertainty the simplest explanation is usually always the right one.

Wow, you seriously need to cite your sources.

1) Microevolution and Macroevolution don't refer to the size of the organism that is evolving you dolt. That's what you're implying with your post.

2) Evolution is such a complex theory that it's collapsing under it's own weight, especially since there is no fossil evidence whatsoever supporting it. None. In fact, the fossil record goes against many things evolution predicts. To get around this, evolutionists must make the theory more and more complex making it less and less viable for being a correct description of nature.

3) Bacteria don't turn into multicellular organisms like macroevolution says they do.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:Yeah sorry about that. It was poorly worded because I was tired.

Darwins Theory of Evolution tells us that Evolution is possible.

Evolution can be tested and it has been. Bacteria has evolved. Scientists have observed and continue to do so. to say that Microscopic Evolution and Macro Evolution is any different is a stupid idea.

You guys seem to nail the Evolution scientists with "Evolution hasn't been proven" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that your own theory hasn't been proven either.

In a world of uncertainty the simplest explanation is usually always the right one.

Yeah, even Darwin says we're right. Believing God made the universe is a lot simpler than saying that life came from non-life, learned how to produce, and somehow changed through impossible methods-mutation and adaption and what not. Darwin, since when is a slow miracle more believable than an instant one? And, Darwin, if you've been reading, we've been saying that evolution has not only NOT been proven, but it is impossible.

Darwins Theory of Evolution tells us that Evolution is possible.

I'm sorry, that's my favorite quote from you man. Darwin didn't know about genetics. Or the fossil record (paleontology was in its early stages I believe, few fossils have been messed with, so darwin guessed that as time progresses, more fossils would prove his theory correct). And, do you know how many times Darwin said that if just ONE LITTLE BIT of his theory were proven wrong, the whole thing would collapse? (I don't know so I thought I'd ask ) (one of them is the formation of the eye, he said that if it was found an eye couldn't randomly form, his entire theory was debunked). (Darwin's Little Black Box is a good book I'm told).

Evolution can be tested and it has been. Bacteria has evolved. Scientists have observed and continue to do so. to say that Microscopic Evolution and Macro Evolution is any different is a stupid idea.

You have not answered any of my questions, and continue to assert that anything other than evolution is a stupid idea. How about some proof? Show all these test that you keep on talking about. Stop making 'just so' statements and start backing up your claims.

You guys seem to nail the Evolution scientists with "Evolution hasn't been proven" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that your own theory hasn't been proven either.

OK, I'll play:

"Protein Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design
By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Recent structural characterization of three proteins, RNA polymerase II, thioredoxin reductase (from E. coli), and chloroplast F1-F0 ATPase, provides exciting additional evidence for Design at the subcellular level.1, 2, 3 These three proteins possess, as part of their architectural make-up, components that are literally machine parts. These new discoveries add to the growing list of molecular motors (enzyme assemblies responsible for cellular movement) and other enzyme systems that are direct analogs to man-made devices.4, 5, 6

A team of researchers from Stanford University has recently solved the structure of the RNA polymerase II backbone at 3.5 Å resolution.7 RNA polymerase II is a 12-protein subunit complex that synthesizes messenger RNA using DNA as a template. Messenger RNA produced this way contains the information needed to direct the synthesis of proteins at subcellular particles called ribosomes. For this reason, RNA polymerase II plays a central role in gene expression.

The structural analysis of RNA polymerase II has been nearly 20 years in the works.8 This has been due to such factors as the small amount of it in the cell, as well as its fragility, its large size, and its complexity. Diligent effort over the years coupled with technological advances has finally allowed the team from Stanford University to visualize the structure of RNA polymerase II.

The results of this work have been well worth the wait. The molecular basis for understanding RNA polymerase II function is now in place. Equally as exciting are the theological implications of this work.

RNA polymerase II has remarkable machine-like character.9 RNA polymerase II subunits form a channel that houses the chain-like DNA template. “Jaws” help grip the DNA template holding it in place during RNA synthesis. The newly formed RNA chain locks into place a hinge clamp as it exits the RNA polymerase II channel. A funnel-like pore delivers the small subunit molecules to the RNA polymerase II channel. Then the small subunit molecules in the channel are added to the growing end of the RNA chain.

In a similar vein, structural characterization at 3.0 Å resolution reveals that thioredoxin reductase function is built around a ball and socket joint.10 This enzyme, isolated from the bacterium E. coli, assists in the transfer of electrons between molecules. During the catalytic cycle, the enzyme undergoes a conformational rearrangement that involves the 67° rotation of one of its domains around a clearly defined swivel surface.

Finally, recent image analysis by a team from Germany and Switzerland using atomic force microscopy has revealed structural information about chloroplast F1-F0 ATPase. On the basis of this work, we can now add this enzyme to the growing list of ATPase enzymes that are rotary motors.11 As with the other rotary motor ATPases, chloroplast ATPase has a rotor, stator, and turbine.

The recent recognition that these three enzymes have machine-like domains, along with previous structural characterization of other enzymes with machine parts (such as F1-F0 ATPase, V1-V0 ATPase, bacterial flagellar proteins and myosin) serve to revitalize the Watchmaker argument.12 Popularized by William Paley in the 18th century, this argument states that as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, nature requires a Creator.

This simple, yet powerful, argument has been challenged by skeptics like David Hume, who asserts that the necessary conclusion of a Creator, based on analogical reasoning, is only compelling if there is a high degree of similarity between the objects that form the analogy.13 Skeptics have long argued that nature and a watch are sufficiently dissimilar so that the conclusion drawn from the Watchmaker argument is unsound.

The discovery of enzymes with domains that are direct analogs to man-made devices addresses this concern, because of the striking similarity between the machine parts of these enzymes and man-made devices. Furthermore, as the list of enzymes with machine parts grows, the conclusion of the Watchmaker analogy grows even more certain. Experts in inductive thinking will point out that the more objects taking part in an analogy, the more sound the conclusion arrived at through analogical reasoning.14
References:

1. Patrick Cramer, et al., “Architecture of RNA Polymerase II and Implications for the Transcription Mechanism,” Science 288 (2000): 640-49.
2. Brett W. Lennon et al., “Twists in Catalysis: Alternating Conformations of Escherichia coli Thioredoxin Reductase,” Science 289 (2000): 1190-94.
3. Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant,” Nature 405 (2000): 418-19.
4. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 69-72.
5. Hugh Ross, “Small Scale Evidence of Grand-Scale Design,” Facts and Faith 4, no. 2 (1997): 1.
6. Fazale Rana and Micah Lott, “Hume vs. Paley: These 'Motors' Settle the Debate,” Facts for Faith 1, No. 2 (2000): 34-39.
7. Patrick Cramer et al., 640-49.
8. Joan Weliky Conaway and Ronald C. Conaway, “Light at the End of the Channel,” Science 288 (2000): 632-33.
9. Conaway and Conaway, 632-33.
10. Lennon et al., 1190-94.
11. Holger Seelert et al., 418-19.
12. Rana and Lott, 34-39.
13. Rana and Lott, 34-39.
14. Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction To Logic, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing,1997), 494-96. "

That sure is testable, show an evolutionary mechanism that can produce the same results as this.

1) Microevolution and Macroevolution don't refer to the size of the organism that is evolving you dolt. That's what you're implying with your post.

Okay I know where you are coming from but the terms can be applied to both different types. Evolution on the Microscopic scale which HAS been proven (resistance has developed in various forms of bacteria).

As for Micro and Macro in the context that you want to use it in, well we can see that evolution on a small scale has been proven, an example of this is again bacteria. It's a little harder to design an experiment to test macro evolution due to the fact that it is a VERY time consuming process and it has been happening for billions of years (we cannot travel backwards in time after all.)

However all macro evolution is is thousands and thousands of micro-evolutionary changes which makes an organism completely different to other organisms that didn't undergo this evolutionary change.

Macroevolution is dependant on Microevolution and since Microevolution DOES happen Macroevolution can happen as well.

Evolution is such a complex theory that it's collapsing under it's own weight, especially since there is no fossil evidence whatsoever supporting it. None. In fact, the fossil record goes against many things evolution predicts. To get around this, evolutionists must make the theory more and more complex making it less and less viable for being a correct description of nature.

Wow, you need to stop generalizing hundreds of years of scientific research. It's not that Scientists devise theories to get around the holes in evolution, they come up with them to try and fill in things that have not yet been explained. Just because there are holes in the evolution argument does not mean that it doesnt happen. There were holes in Einsteins Theory of Relatively that were later explained.

The results of this work have been well worth the wait. The molecular basis for understanding RNA polymerase II function is now in place. Equally as exciting are the theological implications of this work.

All that experiment did was to show that enzymes are complex. I already knew that! Your argument is misleading because you claim that the complexity of the enzymes is proof of a design creator. However it could also be interpreted as proof of thousands of micro-evolutionary changes.

Footnoting and References do not make an argument any more credible.

All that experiment did was to show that enzymes are complex. I already knew that! Your argument is misleading because you claim that the complexity of the enzymes is proof of a design creator. However it could also be interpreted as proof of thousands of micro-evolutionary changes.

Seems like you don't read so well, the point is that it could not be the result of evolutionary changes, since there is no logical prior step which would enable it to work.

Please explain how it is misleading, or stop making assertions.

You still have not answered any of my questions, nor offered any proof of your own about the ToE's testability.

You keep dodging issues, you claimed that ID is not testable, and when proof is offered, you conveniently ignore it.

Footnoting and References do not make an argument any more credible.

Really clever, aren't you. Did you come up with that one yourself?

Just because there are holes in the evolution argument does not mean that it doesnt happen.

Just because there are holes in the ID argument does not mean it does not happen.

Seems the 'theists' want science to put up or shut up - without realizing that so much of what we "know" is truly theory, which may or may not be 100% correct, hence the term, "theory."

Basic tenent of science is to hypothosize, then prove or disprove based on evidence. Darwin theorized, and granted was not 100% correct. We don't have all the answers that make it "Darwin's Law of Evolution." But the fact that it has not been proven does not necessarily mean it's disproven.

I have a pet that I'm hypothisizing is a cat. "But your pet doesn't meow," you state, "It must be a dog."

Further evidence (smell, noises, smell, etc.) indicates it's a guinea pig.

Hopefully, you'll agree that we can't throw out theories because we don't like them. There has been no evidence to disprove evolution outright, while there is sufficient evidence to keep working on it, tuning it, tweaking it - based on what we learn.

Science is not alone in changing it's mind either. How long ago was it considered heresy to state the sun did not revolve around the earth?

Likewise, we can not prove or disprove the existence of God, or any supernatural almighty spiritual being as the creator of existence. I would even say that believers must not prove the existence of God or faith would be worthless. Faith is (paraphrasing) the fervent hope that what you believe is true. If there were proof, it wouldn't be faith anymore - it would be fact. I don't have faith that I can breathe, there is fact that there are oxygen molecules in the atmosphere that I inhale which are disolved in my bloodstream, etc.

Proof or disproof of science or faith are mutually exclusive. You can not rationalize your spiritual teachings against science. Scientific evidence points to a universe billions of years old. Biblical teachings point to a universe roughly 6000 years old. One does not disprove the other. If you believe in God, then stick to it. Your life as an example will do more to convince non-believers than arguments against evolutionary theory.

Statements like "you dolt" are, in my opinion, NOT a shining example of a faith based on brotherly love.

Hi prop,

Welcome to the forum. You seem to be drawing conclusions here that are not there, at least not yet. This is a scientific discussion around the merits of 2 theories. The ToE, which has been around for a few years, and ID, which is in it's relative infancy. Scientists are on both sides of this discussion, and using the scientific method to determine the accuracy or not of their hypothesis.

Evolutionists continuously want to turn this into a religious or faith debate, and I am happy to do so, once they start including the same rules for them as they want to apply to ID.

Hopefully, you'll agree that we can't throw out theories because we don't like them. There has been no evidence to disprove evolution outright, while there is sufficient evidence to keep working on it, tuning it, tweaking it - based on what we learn.

I agree, but then I expect the same agreement for other scientific undertakings too.

Likewise, we can not prove or disprove the existence of God, or any supernatural almighty spiritual being as the creator of existence.

Please expand on this. It boils down to what you mean by proof.

I would even say that believers must not prove the existence of God or faith would be worthless. Faith is (paraphrasing) the fervent hope that what you believe is true.

Kind of like the theory of evolution?
Faith actually means complete trust or confidence to a bleiever, not a vague hope. Would you agree that you can have faith in something even if it is proven? We trust gravity, and it has been proven, so we have faith in gravity to keep us firmly on the ground.

Proof or disproof of science or faith are mutually exclusive. You can not rationalize your spiritual teachings against science. Scientific evidence points to a universe billions of years old. Biblical teachings point to a universe roughly 6000 years old.

Again, I would encourage you to explore Christianity before making general statements like this. Yes, some Christians believe in a so-called young earth. In my opinion, to do so, ignores what we have seen from science, and it's untrue. Many Christians believe in an old earth. I disagree with evolution since it remains largely theoretic, with not enough evidence to convince me. The study of geology, however, convinces me that the earth is old.

One does not disprove the other. If you believe in God, then stick to it. Your life as an example will do more to convince non-believers than arguments against evolutionary theory.

See, you are attempting to mischaracterize the debate as a religious as opposed to a scientific one. And why would we believe that only the observable and physical can be scientific? We have quantum theory, for example, which cannot be observed and is only physical in theory. So if we are going down this route, please show how life came into existence via evolution.

Statements like "you dolt" are, in my opinion, NOT a shining example of a faith based on brotherly love.

Are you a Christian? How do you know what Christianity states about non-believers?

As a closing comment:
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable
for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and
then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself
into everything."

Okay I know where you are coming from but the terms can be applied to both different types. Evolution on the Microscopic scale which HAS been proven (resistance has developed in various forms of bacteria).

Macroscopic refers to species spawning new species. Microscopic refers to change within a species. Bacteria codenamed "airhead" is still called "airhead" after it becomes highly resistant-and something to ponder-chances are, there were resistant bacteria, but we humans killed them off with the antibiotics, allowing the remaining resistant ones to replace the non-resistant bacteria.

As for Micro and Macro in the context that you want to use it in, well we can see that evolution on a small scale has been proven, an example of this is again bacteria. It's a little harder to design an experiment to test macro evolution due to the fact that it is a VERY time consuming process and it has been happening for billions of years (we cannot travel backwards in time after all.)

You see, macroevolution is RELIGION, it's not science.

All that experiment did was to show that enzymes are complex. I already knew that! Your argument is misleading because you claim that the complexity of the enzymes is proof of a design creator. However it could also be interpreted as proof of thousands of micro-evolutionary changes.

For there to be microevolution, the thing in question has to be living Darwin! Bacteria cannot live and slowly have their uncomplex machinery become complex...the machinery has to be complex for their to be a cell, and not a piece of organic material in a liquid. And, a note, random chances do not build upon themselves.

Seems the 'theists' want science to put up or shut up - without realizing that so much of what we "know" is truly theory, which may or may not be 100% correct, hence the term, "theory."

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and still found to explain certain phenomenon. Evolution isn't technically a theory, I believe. It has flunked.

Basic tenent of science is to hypothosize, then prove or disprove based on evidence. Darwin theorized, and granted was not 100% correct. We don't have all the answers that make it "Darwin's Law of Evolution." But the fact that it has not been proven does not necessarily mean it's disproven.

The fact is that it has been disproven, much of what he said. Irreducibly complex structures (Darwin's Black Box talks on this I believe), the fossil record...Darwin said if any of his theory was proven wrong, the rest would fall. Several parts have been proven wrong.

Hopefully, you'll agree that we can't throw out theories because we don't like them. There has been no evidence to disprove evolution outright, while there is sufficient evidence to keep working on it, tuning it, tweaking it - based on what we learn.

I have a basic understanding of the scientific method, but, I do believe that You don't have to disprove a theory to get rid of it-if experimentation doesn't support it, it's toast.

Science is not alone in changing it's mind either. How long ago was it considered heresy to state the sun did not revolve around the earth?

The Catholic Church, using the Greek method (inductive method, I think, which did no scientific study, but used reason alone) to cook that idea up. This is not what Christian doctrine has ever said, it was a Catholic belief. And I don't know about that (date or anything), but Galilelo, I think, was finally...given his due about 20 years ago.

Likewise, we can not prove or disprove the existence of God, or any supernatural almighty spiritual being as the creator of existence. I would even say that believers must not prove the existence of God or faith would be worthless. Faith is (paraphrasing) the fervent hope that what you believe is true. If there were proof, it wouldn't be faith anymore - it would be fact. I don't have faith that I can breathe, there is fact that there are oxygen molecules in the atmosphere that I inhale which are disolved in my bloodstream, etc.

Everything takes faith. You have faith that nobody at your school/place of work will pull out a samurai sword and wack off your head. You have faith that starting your car won't kill you. You have faith that what you're breathing is oxygen, and not carbon monoxide....and you have faith that people have been telling you the truth when telling you their is O2 in the atmosphere. Some things, though, require blind faith, a leap of faith, a blind belief in something, based on absolutely nothing. Your faith isn't blind in the things mentioned. Nobody's tried to knife you before, your car hasn't blown up yet, and cars don't do it often...and breathing hasn't killed you so far.

Proof or disproof of science or faith are mutually exclusive. You can not rationalize your spiritual teachings against science. Scientific evidence points to a universe billions of years old. Biblical teachings point to a universe roughly 6000 years old. One does not disprove the other. If you believe in God, then stick to it. Your life as an example will do more to convince non-believers than arguments against evolutionary theory.

Well, there are those who get around that 6000 years by saying each day is millions of years..though I'm not one those. And I wonder if scientists find a billion year old universe because scientists require such a thing for evolution to be anywhere near plausible

This is not much of a scientific discussion on anyone's part. First off, in science the word 'theory' has quite a different meaning than in common language. In science, a theory is a conceptual framework or description than explains and predicts observable evidence. In is not simply an unproven hypothesis. Thus to say that evolution is 'just' a theory—meaning it is unproven or unsupported—is incorrect from the standpoint of the scientific lexicon. A scientific theory should explain some important part of the observable world.

Second, a prediction is a factual statement that anticipates confirmation of its truth value. A prediction need not be about a future event; only an event whose outcome is not known at the time the prediction is made. In this sense, the theory of evolution makes many testable predictions. Since Darwin's theory was created at a time when very little was know about the mechanistic nature of inheritance, it is striking how many requirements of the theory have since been proven to exist. Although I don't want to recite a litany of successful predictions, let me describe one of the most important: The requirement for a physical mechanism for inheritance of traits, and a means for random selection.

The physical mechanism is the template of life—DNA—which provides both a means for passing traits from parent to offspring, as well as a means for random changes in this template. (None of this was known during Darwin's time.) As most of us know, DNA is divided into segments which code for proteins, and segments which don't (the so-called 'junk' DNA). The former, being absolutely critical for perpetuation of life, is very restricted as to allowable mutations; the latter is not. The genetic record shows that specific enzymes—proteins which are at the core of life's sophistication, must be coded from DNA, and which catalyze every chemical reaction in living organisms—follow exactly the pattern one would expect to see if the theory of evolution is correct: An enzyme which approaches ideal efficiency stops evolving, whereas an enzyme which does not, continues to evolve. Examples of 'perfect' enzymes (like triose phosphate isomerase) stop evolving, and have been preserved in their present form for ages. The non-coding regions of DNA continue to change with a relatively constant and random rate of mutation, since alterations in these segments have no adverse consequences for the life form which inherits these mutated sequences.

Random mutations in non-coding parts of DNA are one of the most compelling data sets which link all life forms. The probability that the random DNA sequences of two unrelated species could be identical over >99% of the sequence, just based on random chance, is overwhelmingly small. ( A good comparison is a random toss of billions of coins: the chances that two tosses will produce >99% similarities in the outcome of each coin—heads or tails—is vanishingly small.) Obviously, God has the capability of creating life in whatever form He chooses to do so—including making the DNA of otherwise unrelated species so strikingly similar for no apparent functional reason—but it is absolutely unscientific to conclude that this single property of almost all life forms—DNA sequence, and evolution thereof based on random mutations—whose trajectory over time follows a predicted pattern to an astronomically high accuracy, does not constitute compelling scientific evidence that evolutionary processes are largely responsible for the complexity of all observed life we see on this planet. Anyone who believes otherwise is incapable of basic mathematical capabilities.

If ID is to be taken seriously as an alternative to evolution, it is necessary to either find even more compelling quantitative arguments based on observed evidence, or some justification why probabilistic arguments for evolution--the core of evolutionary theory-- should be disregarded.

Of course, since God can do whatever He desires, then any argument that is based on the premise of omnipotent capriciousness can be supported from a religious standpoint. This is fine, but those who pursue this line of reasoning should know that their fundamental premises allow for any observed properties in nature, and are therefore objectively untestable. There is no point in engaging in a fictitious scientific debate about these matters.

This is not much of a scientific discussion on anyone's part.

We try

The genetic record shows that specific enzymes—proteins which are at the core of life's sophistication, must be coded from DNA, and which catalyze every chemical reaction in living organisms—follow exactly the pattern one would expect to see if the theory of evolution is correct: An enzyme which approaches ideal efficiency stops evolving, whereas an enzyme which does not, continues to evolve.

So, there exists imperfect proteins/enzymes, that somehow work while being horribly evolved for the job?

This is not much of a scientific discussion on anyone's part.

This is a rather rash assumption.

First off, in science the word 'theory' has quite a different meaning than in common language. In science, a theory is a conceptual framework or description than explains and predicts observable evidence.

I am well aware of what a scientific theory is. I know you are the 30-year physicist, and therefore the expert, but please don't assume total ignorance on everyone else's side. As for scientific theory, I believe it goes even further:
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

This is one of the arguments against evolution, the ToE predicted a linear progression of complexity and speciation, and the evidence as seen in the Cambrian explosion does not support that. According to Hawking, that should be enough to invalidate the entire theory. The Cambrian was then proposed to have been the result of punctuated equilibrium, which is a significant departure from the original theory. It also remains largely unproven, due to a lack of predecessors prior to the Cambrian.

In is not simply an unproven hypothesis. Thus to say that evolution is 'just' a theory—meaning it is unproven or unsupported—is incorrect from the standpoint of the scientific lexicon. A scientific theory should explain some important part of the observable world.

Agree with you here, no question.

In this sense, the theory of evolution makes many testable predictions.

Right, so does ID.

...but it is absolutely unscientific to conclude that this single property of almost all life forms—DNA sequence, and evolution thereof based on random mutations—whose trajectory over time follows a predicted pattern to an astronomically high accuracy, does not constitute compelling scientific evidence that evolutionary processes are largely responsible for the complexity of all observed life we see on this planet...

So the argument here is in favor of a common ancestor? But where is the proof that this was the result of evolution through random mutations? The similarities are purely circumstantial evidence, how do we test if this due to common ancestry or gene duplication? It is merely an assumption that it was the result of those.

If ID is to be taken seriously as an alternative to evolution, it is necessary to either find even more compelling quantitative arguments based on observed evidence

I agree, at least partly. I would argue that with the hypothesis' of irreducible complexity and morphological novelty, ID has proposed testable theories, which if falsified, would disprove ID. There are also very specific predictions made by ID. I am aware of the argument that ID will alsways fall back to a default position that "God made it", and therefore it is untestable. that is not true, however, ID is not the search for the designer, just as the ToE is not attempting to describe the origin of first life. ID is looking for evidence of design, without assuming anything about the identity of a designer.

This is fine, but those who pursue this line of reasoning should know that their fundamental premises allow for any observed properties in nature, and are therefore objectively untestable.

Agreed, but I think I answered it above. If evolution is to be held to the same standard, it would be to include abiogenesis, as the primary predecessor of evolution. It does not, so it will not be fair to include the designer as part of the ID argument. ID is simply to look for evidence of design.

The reason why I say this whole discussion is not very scientific is because ID has no testable hypotheses over evolution. From a scientific perspective, how does one demonstrate that *any* observed behavior is the result of intelligent design or intent, as opposed to unintentional mechanistic behavior resulting from existing structures and laws of nature? The only way to demonstrate this that I can think of is actually finding the intelligent designer. Evolution as captured by currently understood concepts could just as easily be the work of intelligent design as not. So could any other observation we have made so far. In order for ID to be subjected to science, there must be at least one potentially falsifiable hypothesis that requires an intelligent designer to explain an observed behavior.

The theory of evolution is supported so strongly based on scientific evidence because existing laws and principles explain much (though not all) of our observations; and so far there is no evidence which expressly contradicts the theory. (Lack of evidence does not contradict a theory, as long as it is not a complete lack of evidence.) We observe evolution directly, as well as a record of biologic artifacts which shows increasing order and complexity of related organisms over time (including transitional species); we have found a very beautiful mechanism for both inheritance and variation in traits, which provides a spectacular temporal and quantitative trajectory of trait and species variation over extremely long periods of time; and we find that traits that confer nearly ideal functional capabilities stop evolving, whereas other traits do not. (As a brief aside to Mr. K-Mart, there are many enzymes which perform far from ideally. In many cases, these for the basis for diseases such as Tay-Sachs, phenylketonuria, and diseases such as cystic fibrosis which are due to other poorly functioning proteins. And these are examples of single-gene diseases; in combination, it is believed that virtually all diseases are based on poorly functioning proteins. Of course, less dramatic differences, such as intellectual or athletic capabilities are also based on complex differences in enzymes and other functional proteins. So yes, most of us live with far-from-optimal functionality)

ID is not at odds with science; it just has no useful purpose in science. Since science deals only in that which is observable and testible, any scientific debate about intelligent design must necessarily center on experiments which might let us observe the intelligent designer; anything less is not testable, and therefore is not science.

To the point: Can anyone give an example of an observation that would contradict ID? If a hypothesis cannot potentially be falsified, it has no place in science.

To the point: Can anyone give an example of an observation that would contradict ID? If a hypothesis cannot potentially be falsified, it has no place in science.

Isn't that what Flew said? Evolution can't be necessarily falsified either, so, according to you, GOOD BYE EVOLUTION.

ID is not at odds with science; it just has no useful purpose in science. Since science deals only in that which is observable and testible

Same with evolution.

As a brief aside to Mr. K-Mart, there are many enzymes which perform far from ideally. In many cases, these for the basis for diseases such as Tay-Sachs, phenylketonuria, and diseases such as cystic fibrosis which are due to other poorly functioning proteins. And these are examples of single-gene diseases; in combination, it is believed that virtually all diseases are based on poorly functioning proteins. Of course, less dramatic differences, such as intellectual or athletic capabilities are also based on complex differences in enzymes and other functional proteins. So yes, most of us live with far-from-optimal functionality)

Those are diseases....so, their are obviously proteins that do work optimally? For what basis would do you have for calling one any of these things diseases then...

The theory of evolution is supported so strongly based on scientific evidence because existing laws and principles explain much (though not all) of our observations; and so far there is no evidence which expressly contradicts the theory.

Lack of transitional fossils don't count? Why not? Evolution requires quite a bit of time, so there should be transitional fossils. Fossil record contradicts. August has a post running around somewhere, how Cambrian is full of life that we have to day...dont' recall if he said more life than we currently even have on earth.

Kelly wrote:To the point: Can anyone give an example of an observation that would contradict ID? If a hypothesis cannot potentially be falsified, it has no place in science.

Can anyone give an example of an observation that would contradict the statement "The universe exists."? I guess the existence of the universe has no place in science!

How about one to contradict the statement "If a hypothesis cannot potentially be falsified, it has no place in science."?

On a side note, the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims is a good place to figure out which arguments for creation/against evolution hold up and which ones don't; the ones with bad rebuttals are usually good arguments.

jerickson314: You are quite correct in that science cannot prove that the universe exists. It is an axiom of science—a given premise—that the universe exists and that there is order, structure, and laws which govern its behavior. Science can never prove this; it's just taken as a given, since in the absence of this belief there is no point in applying the scientific method.

AttentionKMartShoppers: Evolution can easily be falsified. ToE requires there to be a mechanism of inheritance which allows for random changes. If we were to have found a system of inheritance that does not allow for random changes, then this would very clearly falsify ToE. Darwin had no idea what mechanisms were responsible for inheritance and variations thereof, so the fact that we have subsequently found such a mechanism is one of the biggest successes of ToE. There are many other data that also could potentially falsify evolution—and not known during Darwin's time—which I would be very happy to list.

Regarding the basis for calling something a disease…If you have ever witnessed suffering and dying as a result of a genetic disorder, you would understand very clearly why these are called diseases. Please give me an example of a disease in your mind? If you think that all human fate is the will of God and not a disease, then try keeping your dying child away from doctors because you think his or her illness is just the normal course of events as willed by God.

Should I list examples of transitional fossils? I am happy to, but first give me your definition of 'transitional'.