Evidence for God from Science

Again you are arguing from inceredulity, you're sayin "naw, it can't be chance there must be another answer..."

That is not a testable hypothesis by a long shot.

It only makes sense that our technology is limited to what is actually possible in nature. That does not stregnthen you're argument.

We must be posting at the same time..

ID isn't a theory. It's proven fact that intelligent creatures design. A car is an example of intelligent design in action. The theory is that ID accounts for things like the origin of species or the origin of the universe. As we can watch ID occurring every day in the real world, is it not a valid theory?

Wall-dog wrote:The theory is that ID accounts for things like the origin of species or the origin of the universe. As we can watch ID occurring every day in the real world, is it not a valid theory?

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? Isn't this at best a hypothesis, not a theory?

Sandy,

Unless you think your house, your car, your TV, and your computer all either magically assembled themselves out of random occurrance or evolved from lower lifeforms, you'd have to agree that they are products of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not a theory or a hypothosis. It is fact. Everytime a manufacturing company builds something - even a child's art project - is an act of intelligence assembling complex objects that could not have been assembled without that intelligence. There isn't a scientist in the world who could credibly say that intelligent design does not occur.

What is theory is taking intelligent design and applying it to things mankind did not build - such as single cell organisms.

We should also keep in mind that inteligent design does not rest entirely on irreducible complexity. Irreducibly complex mechanisms are important to ID because there are no other theories for their creation.

But proving that something could have happened is a long way from proving that it did happen, and that is a valid complaint against ID. In fairness though, the same can be said of evolution. Even if the fossil record supported evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, that would only show that it could have occurred - not that it did.

But nobody is asking that ID be taken as hard fact. We're just asking that it be accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. It is a legitimate theory and it should be accepted as such by the scientific community as a whole.

Intelligent design is not a theory or a hypothosis. It is fact. Everytime a manufacturing company builds something - even a child's art project - is an act of intelligence assembling complex objects that could not have been assembled without that intelligence. There isn't a scientist in the world who could credibly say that intelligent design does not occur.

The problem is that yoiu do not see it as a huge leap when you use this analogy to talk about things manking didn't create, and those examining your analogy from a scientific perspective do. What is missing in your analogy...reproduction...is the basis for what evolution predicts. Take that out of the equation with your manmade objects analogy and it is no longer valid as a comparison to the mechanisms of evolution.

If you looked at a snowflake with no scientific knowledge of how they are formed...would you deduce that they were designed? Unique, intricate patterns...same with geodes and other crystals...very detailed and precise structures. If we didn't all know how they were formed, would you view this as the result of design?

But nobody is asking that ID be taken as hard fact. We're just asking that it be accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. It is a legitimate theory and it should be accepted as such by the scientific community as a whole.

ID is not a valid theory as it rests upon a subjective decision as to what is "irreducibly complex". Although experiments are being performed to determine if these systems are truly irreducible, the approach is flawed because they don't address the idea that evolution does not simply take parts out or puts them in...it is all about gradual change. An example: Take the bacterial flagellum...say it is currently composed of 100 pieces and has been deemed irreducible because if you take away any one piece it fails to function. This is the test of irreducible complexity. However, what if you make slight changes to any one component...does the flagelluem still function? This would be one test of the ability or inability of evolution to create this system...however, one would have to presuppose what those earlier, simpler forms would have been...a tough job. Another approach would be to suppose that 200 pieces formerly did the job, but over time these pieces were lost because they were unnecessary and resulted the "irreducible" bare minimum of 100 pieces being retained...that would be another method of actually examining ID that actually pertains to evolution as opposed to the current "take a piece or leave it" approach. The current approach shows a basic lack of understanding of the tenets of evolution that these people are trying pull support from. I feel confident stating this because I have been in science, specifically ecology and evolution, my entire academic and professional career, and it's easy enough to spot an argument that fails to address evolution directly.

Another approach would be to suppose that 200 pieces formerly did the job, but over time these pieces were lost because they were unnecessary and resulted the "irreducible" bare minimum of 100 pieces being retained...that would be another method of actually examining ID that actually pertains to evolution as opposed to the current "take a piece or leave it" approach.

So, the supposition is that evolution 'started' with a more complex design?

Does this not run contrary to the belief things evolve from a more basic to the more advanced? Not the other way around?

Wall-dog wrote:

Mouse traps don't reproduce. They are produced by humans, it is human technology which is evolving not the mousetrap. The various components of the mousetrap were developed elsewhere and came together in a novel use and form. How does evolution not predict this? And how is this irreducible complexity?

The first living cell didn't reproduce either until after it was created. The lack of reproductive ability in a mousetrap does not detract from the experiment.

Take a look at how life reproduces and tell me again how this shows irreducible complexity in life? What you are saying is that because inanimate peices of a mouse trap don't self assemble, that the self assembly of complex systems in cells is explained by intelligence? Does this also explain the complex physics involved in tornadoes?

Wall-dog wrote:Making a mousetrap out of its components is actually much simpler than making a single living cell out of its components.

Simpler yes, a sufficient analogy? No.

Wall-dog wrote:Evolution would only predict the mousetrap if a reduced mousetrap performed some function. With a cell, it would die if it were missing a component. Evolutionary change implies small changes over time. I think you've said before that all evolution is on a micro-level. If you could take an irreducible mechanism and reduce it into another mechanism that performs a different function you might be able to argue that a small micro-evolutionary change could produce the new mechanism that performs the new function. But you can't do that. A pile of mousetrap parts performs no function. A single cell assembled incorrectly does nothing - it doesn't even live.

The parts of a mousetrap are all found elsewhere, they did not appear together spontaneously. One may construct a mousetrap everyday, but it was designed some time ago. And this design was the result of iterative change. What is it you were trying to prove? That life works the same way?

Wall-dog wrote:First off, I wouldn't use the term 'unevolvable' because I don't believe irreducibly complex mechanisms evolved.

Then prove it on it's own merit.

It doesn't matter what you beleive or not. You as a responsible scientist need to entertain what is possible. Is it in principal unevolvable? For example

Wall-dog wrote:Second, if I can't knock-down evolution to support ID then you shouldn't be allowed to knock-down ID to support evolution. You're breaking your own rule.

I am not knowcking down ID to support evolution, I am simply knocking down ID.

Wall-dog wrote:Thirdly, I should be able to in your example modify A,B, and C such that they are no longer reliant on each other.

Not if you use your short sighted criteria that the function must remain. If you notice B changes the function of A. As the spring in a mousetrap serves a different function than in a pen.

Wall-dog wrote:Then I'd be able to reduce them. Thus your example wouldn't be an irreducibly complex mechanism.

So irreducible complexity is a result of a lack in knowledge? This seems to be what you are saying.

Wall-dog wrote:How do you show that something is irreducibly complex? That's a really good question. The mousetrap is a common example used to demonstrate the concept of irreducible complexity in simple terms but in fact I have no idea if a mousetrap is irreducibly complex or not. It's great as an tool to illustrate though. In the case of a single-cell organism it's irreducibly complex because it can't survive without all of its components.

Again how does this show that something was designed? What is design?

Wall-dog wrote:

Sorry again mousetraps don't reproduce.
And disproving one theory does not prove another.
You're using limitations and absurdities as proof.

My contention was merely that ID fits inside the scientific method. I don't need to abilty to reproduce mousetraps to setup a sound experiment based on them.

What are you testing then, by tossing mousetraps in the air?

Wall-dog wrote:There were also two parts to the theory. I didn't just say throw pieces in the air. I also said to assemble them yourself into a mousetrap. In that case you become the intelligent creator.

So RNA is intelligent? You do understand that the chemistry of life is no different than other chemical processes? So who is assembling a yeast cell when it duplicates?

Wall-dog wrote:Your ability to assemble the mousetrap proves that an intelligent creator can assemble irreducible mechanisms.

No my ability to assemble a mousetrap proves that I can assemble a mouse trap. This is not scientific, this is speculation.

Wall-dog wrote:Is there something in the sceintific method that doesn't allow me to use limitations and absurdities as proof?

Yes you can only use personal limitations and absurduties as a baseis for hypothesis. Only experiments serve as proof.

Wall-dog wrote:It's not my fault that it's absurd to imagine a world without ID...

Again for you it is absurd, that is why science requires experimentation so beleifs and preconceptions don't a priori rule out possibilities.

Wall-dog wrote:

One can watch the componenets of a cell being assembled. Try it. The cell does the assemble.

The same intelligence that created the first cell also encoded it with the ability to reproduce. The theory of ID covers that.

What is the evidence which supports this idea? Otherwise it seems to be a story of some sort.

Wall-dog wrote:In fact, DNA is another item often called irreducibly complex and used as proof of an intelligent creator.

How is it scientific proof? I am beginning to think you don't understand what science is.

Wall-dog wrote:

I don't understand.

Sure you do. Your ability to assemble a mousetrap proves that an intelligent designer can assemble irreducibly complex mechanisms. We are intelligent. We know intelligent design happens. It happens every day. Everything mankind builds was intelligently designed. The question then isn't whether or not intelligent design occurs, but rather whether it occurred with mechanisms man did not create. The reason ID scientists look for irreducbily complex mechanisms is because they want to use things that other theories can't address.

So again you want to use this theory because we cannot address it otherwise. You cannot use any theory to fill in the gaps.

Maybe not B does not mean A is TRUE.

Also regarding the irreducible complex idea.
You're arguing that because people make irreducible complex machines that all irreducible complexity is a result of intelligence.

Worms make holes in the earth. So all holes in the earth are from worms.

Again you're logic is not sound.

And finally you seem to be missing a fundamental flaw to your argument. The machines being built today are built on a design. This design did not just appear, it was created through an iterative process. Beleive me when I say that it took alot of trial an error to "design" your microwave oven.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again not scientific. I can say that the appearance of shapes in the clouds are signs from a higher intellegence and is evidence for his existence. Then if I find more shapes in the clouds I have proven this case?

No, one needs to show how the causal and the phenomenon are related. A metaphysical or philosophical connection is not enough to be considered scientific. Experiments need to show this causal relationship.

I'll further illustrate my point by flipping things over. Proving that evolution could have happened wouldn't prove that it did happen either. If ID fails the scientific sniff test based on that, so does evolution.

ID doesn't even prove that it could have happened. You are correct in that we cannot prove that it did happen, but we can be pretty sure it did. Because.
The mechanisms of evolution are still at work today.
The process of evolution still continues to this day.
Once we understand the mechanisms of evolution we can examine living forms and identify where these changes occurred.
Comparative analysis morphological and genetic lend credence to the idea of common descent.

Wall-dog wrote:

So what happenes if a new discovery finds that a previously beleived irreducibly complex system is not so?

The same thing that happens when a new fossil disproves a piece of evolution. Either the theory is discarded or it is modified to account for the new discovery.

Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific.

Wall-dog wrote:Except that you don't seem willing to discard evolution based on the Cambrian Explosion. But that's really not topical - it would make a good separate thread though.

There is a thread on it feel free to post there.

Wall-dog wrote:

Ok how about a stack of girls in a human pyramid?

What function does the fact that they are in a pyramid perform?

Entertainment. Again you are assuming that function came before form.

Wall-dog wrote:

I think you missed the whole point, the evidence leads one to the possibility that the current eukaryotic cell is a result of a cell engulfing smaller microbes. So how is a cell irreducible? Also the assembly of components in the cell occur in the cell, are you saying that everytime a cell divides that some mysterious process constructs the components?

I think maybe you are missing the point. A cell can't engulf smaller microbes if it does not first exist. At best this is a case of micro-evolution.

It is irreducible now because the mitochondria is now required for all anaerobic life. But the mitochondria has it's own genome, and behaves and reacts much like a bacteria. What does this show you?

Wall-dog wrote:The first cell is the one that really counts. As the first cell had DNA, it was encoded to reproduce and interact with its environment (including other cells) by the same intelligence that created it. ID covers that.

Again what is the evidence to support this? What experiments have been conducted to show that this is the case?

Wall-dog wrote:All of these things imply intelligence. Mousetraps imply not their own intelligence, but rather the intelligence of the person who assembled it. Viruses, molds, fungi, etc. illustrate not their own intelligence, but rather the intelligence of the designer than created them.

How come with the mouse trap it's the person who assembles it who has the intelligence yet with the mold its not the mold cell which assembles the daughter cell that possesses intelligence? What kind of analogy is this? Please stop rationalizing and use real data and real science.

Wall-dog wrote:Keep in mind that DNA is often used as another example of 'proof' for an intelligent designer. Why can't God be a programmer? think about how complex a single strand of DNA is!

You think because you can program that you are like God? Don't you see how evolution is much more flexible,complex and intricate than the most complex of human inventions?

Wall-dog wrote:

In other words do you know enough about the driving forces of evolution to boldly proclaim this? Take a look at the fossils from the cambrian explosion, what do you see?

What I see is a transition from single-cell organisms to complex organisms in a timeframe that evolution says must have taken much longer than the fossil record gives it.

And because we don't know the exact mechanisms you say it must be a higher intelligence?
What about 500 years ago when we didn't know why lightning struck some houses burning them down, it was a higher intelligence?

Wall-dog wrote:On a cosmic scale, it was literally over night.

Your point?

Wall-dog wrote:

Again it is quite clear that cells replicate themselves. The theory of evolution is built around the observation that this process is imperfect.

Which only accounts for microevolution.

So can microevolution account for the evolution from a mouse to an elephant? Its only a longer nose, greater body mass, longer teeth etc...

Wall-dog wrote:

A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

How many scientists have to play with mousetraps before ID becomes a bonafide theory then?

It won't...
Throwing around mousetraps does not show that assembly requires an intelligent force. It only shows that mousetraps require assembly.

Wall-dog wrote:

I am not asking it to absolutely proven. I am asking for a hyposthesis upon which we can devise an experiment. Throwing mousetraps and pointing out IC system though enjoyable does not experimentally show how the mechanisms of ID exist or don't exist.

Forget the mousetrap then. For that matter, forget irreducibly complex mechanisms. If the theory is that intelligence can create complex mechanisms, then the car, the airplane, the space shuttle, and this computer all qualify. Intelligent design has been proven.

All of these items have actually evolved through an iterative process.

Wall-dog wrote:The question isn't really whether or not intelligent design occurs. The question is whether or not it accounts for things like the origin of life.

Then show how it does so.

Wall-dog wrote:Scientists use irreducibly complex mechanisms because of the lack for other theories to explain their creation.

So you admit it, ID is used because of a lack of knowledge, not because there is proof for ID itself.

Wall-dog wrote:ID happens every day. My Ford Ranger was assembled by intelligent UAW workers.

These UAW workers designed the Ranger?

Wall-dog wrote:

That shows that you understand? The rest of your post shows otherwise.

Enlighten me then, because from my perspective it looks like you are saying that if I don't agree with you then I must not understand. Frankly, that's a cop-out.

Simply because you state the scientific method, then you proceed to rationalize, instead of actually applying the scientific method. You are appealing to peoples sence of what should be or what must be and neglect any actual data or experimental results. Your post was devoid of any empirical data or anything else which would resemble the scientific method. Thus I stated that you were able to define the scientific method but were unable to show that you understood it.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again removing parts does not prove that the cell came into the world fully formed. I can show you under a microscope a cell being constructed.

Also refer to the proof above. This simply does not show that something is irreducible complex.

Saying that nothing is irreducibly complex is probably the best argument one can make against ID. But that argument doesn't hold water. There are too many examples of things that scientists haven't been able to reduce. And even if it did, so what? You've said yourself that it isn't scientific to use a disproof for one theory as proof of another - that the experimentation should be separate.

I am not disprooving IC to prove evolution! I am disproving IC to show that IC is a result of our lack of knowledge not because it actually exists.

Wall-dog wrote:If nothign is irreducibly complex, that doesn't mean intelligence couldn't create it. All that means is that maybe there is an alternative theory. I can demonstrate ID. I do that everytime I drive my truck.

You're not designing anything when you drive a truck.

Wall-dog wrote:Seemingly irreducible complex systems can only arrise from modification if the components modified into them can exist. The idea that a bunch of dead cells may slowly evolve until they have all the components they need to become alive is absurd.

Noone stated this. We don't know how life started, do you have evidence for the origins of life?

Wall-dog wrote:They can't reproduce until they are alive, and they can't be alive without all the correct components. You can argue that a mousetrap isn't irreducibly complex, but you'll have a harder time arguing that against the single-cell organism. You may say that some single celled organisms are reducible, but they are only reducible into other single celled organisms.

How much do you actually know about cell biology? We can start another thread on this if you wish.

Wall-dog wrote:We're just asking that it be accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. It is a legitimate theory and it should be accepted as such by the scientific community as a whole.

There is a difference between "theory" as used in the vernacular and "theory" as used in science. Your idea is just a hypothesis.

Wall-dog wrote: What is theory is taking intelligent design and applying it to things mankind did not build - such as single cell organisms.

We should also keep in mind that inteligent design does not rest entirely on irreducible complexity. Irreducibly complex mechanisms are important to ID because there are no other theories for their creation.

But proving that something could have happened is a long way from proving that it did happen, and that is a valid complaint against ID. In fairness though, the same can be said of evolution. Even if the fossil record supported evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, that would only show that it could have occurred - not that it did.

What are you talking about????

You seem to be disputing her but all you did was repeat what she said in a long winded manor. Your use of theory is the same as the scientific use of hypothesis.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Wall-dog wrote:The theory is that ID accounts for things like the origin of species or the origin of the universe. As we can watch ID occurring every day in the real world, is it not a valid theory?

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? Isn't this at best a hypothesis, not a theory?

Is this some sort of strategy or did you not intend to repeat her?

So, the supposition is that evolution 'started' with a more complex design?

Does this not run contrary to the belief things evolve from a more basic to the more advanced? Not the other way around?

This is only one example and not exactly "the norm" for evolutionary analyses (going from more complex to simpler) but in situations where factors such as environmental change occurs, "less may be more". The assumption that evolution simply says "simple changes to complex" shows a lack of understanding, for evolution is based on "change", not simply increasing complexity. For example, take an organism which possesses X different defensive strategies for predators that are genetically encoded (egs. venom production, cryptic coloration, threat displays) and over time its most influential predator is reduced or eradicated. Now say that because the predator is no longer influential, natural selection no longer selects those individuals with the best camoflauge, most toxic venom, etc. and the allele frequencies for these traits in the population changes, even to a slight degree. Evolution has now occurred, although some would argue this because the arsenal of defenses in the species has gone from complex to simpler. So, "complex to simple" is still a form of evolution.

My main argument lies with the other case I brought up, wherein different components have evolved over time to create what is now viewed as "irreducible". This aspect is not tested by ID, as "studies" of ID simply yank a piece out of a system and say "hey, it doesn't work"...no kidding!

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Another approach would be to suppose that 200 pieces formerly did the job, but over time these pieces were lost because they were unnecessary and resulted the "irreducible" bare minimum of 100 pieces being retained...that would be another method of actually examining ID that actually pertains to evolution as opposed to the current "take a piece or leave it" approach.

So, the supposition is that evolution 'started' with a more complex design?

Does this not run contrary to the belief things evolve from a more basic to the more advanced? Not the other way around?

No the idea is that irreducible complexity is a result of reduction and modification of a reducible system.

Evolution works both ways, increase and decrease in complexity. The constant is change.

Take a stone arch for example, remove a single stone and it collapses. Yet somehow we are able to build them stone by stone. How is this done?

Wow. There are some thinly veiled personal attacks in some of the more recent posts.

I don't have time right now to make a long post. I'll do that after work. I do however want to throw out some quick observations that hopefully we can agree on and that I'll try to build upon later. Some of our disagreement is non-topical. There are also some incorrect assumptions out there.

First off, while most proponents of ID do not believe evolution could have occurred on a macro level, ID does not in and of itself discredit evolution. Reproducability is not a part of ID. ID really has two parts: 1) intelligence can design and assemble complex things, and 2) there are things out there that mankind did not build but that could not have occurred without some form of intelligence. Where is reproduction a part of that? Where is evolution discredited by that? While I don't agree with macro-evolution, it isn't really topical to this discussion.

Reproduction is a critical part of evolution. Evolution could not have occurred without it. Reproduction is NOT a critical part of ID. ID could easily have occurred without it. ID proponents would tell you that the ability to reproduce was built into those complex irreducibly complex mechanisms that reproduce. In fact, in the realm of nano-technology we see intelligence being utilized in the creation of mechanisms at the atomic and in some cases sub-atomic level that assemble themselves. This is very similar to the way cells reproduce, except that in the case of nano-machines it doesn't occur naturally. ID proponents would say that while living cells may have evolved since they were created, the living cell itself at some level could not have occurred without the aid of intelligence. Obviously many would disagree with that notion, but let's keep our discussion over the scientific merit of it topical by limiting ourselves to those things that relate to ID and the ability to apply scientific method to and/or against it.

If you don't like mousetraps, that's fine. If the mousetrap was created through trial and error, that's fine too. Christianity claims that God is perfect and certainly a perfect God would be capable of creating the mousetrap pefectly on his first attempt, but ID doesn't go that far. An evolutionary process that occurrs under the direction of intelligence fits very nicely given the imperfection of man - and particularly so when we are talking about man's creations.

Next, let's agree that while this is a discussion forum that involves science, this is not a labratory and not all of us on this forum are scientists. Those of us who are not scientists should not be expected to utilize the scientific method to those theories we support. We can leave that to scientists. We can, without applying the scientific method ourselves, illustrate how the scientific method has been applied by others. If you want to debate whether or not we are illustrating those experiments correctly, that's fair game, but attacking us for not applying it ourselves? I don't think that's fair.

Can we agree to stay topical and to try to avoid personal attacks?

More later...

Next, let's agree that while this is a discussion forum that involves science, this is not a labratory and not all of us on this forum are scientists. Those of us who are not scientists should not be expected to utilize the scientific method to those theories we support. We can leave that to scientists.

So you're saying your theories shouldn't have to follow the rules of the scientific ones you're arguing against? Sounds like an unfair advantage to me! You could do this as long as you would first acknowledge that you no longer have a scientific theory worthy of discussing from a scientific perspective...without following the scientific method, we're reduced to philosophy or something of the sort...it is no longer science but rather pure speculation. Therefore, any position you take that does not utilize the scientific method does not belong in the "God and Science" forum but rather the "Beliefs" forum.

We can, without applying the scientific method ourselves, illustrate how the scientific method has been applied by others. If you want to debate whether or not we are illustrating those experiments correctly, that's fair game, but attacking us for not applying it ourselves? I don't think that's fair.

It is absolutely fair. Why should your arguments be exempt from the rules that guide all legitimate scientific investigation?

So you're saying your theories shouldn't have to follow the rules of the scientific ones you're arguing against? Sounds like an unfair advantage to me! You could do this as long as you would first acknowledge that you no longer have a scientific theory worthy of discussing from a scientific perspective...without following the scientific method, we're reduced to philosophy or something of the sort...it is no longer science but rather pure speculation. Therefore, any position you take that does not utilize the scientific method does not belong in the "God and Science" forum but rather the "Beliefs" forum.

It is absolutely fair. Why should your arguments be exempt from the rules that guide all legitimate scientific investigation?

I knew someone was going to say somthing like that. I have two responses. I'm offering this not just as a response to you, but to BGood as well - though his was a very long and well thought out post so I'm going to go back to it in a seperate post as well.

1) I never said that ID should not use the scientific method. I said that I and others who are not scientists by trade should be allowed to illustrate the application of the scientific method by others (who are scientists) rather than be told by you that I have to be a scientist myself before I can contribute to this forum or hold an opinion.

2) Your position essentially holds that unless you are a scientist by trade you should defer your opinion to those who are. That is exactly the same logic that priests of the ancient world from civilizations such as Sumeria, Babylonia, and Egypt used to consolidate and maintain their power base. They said, "We are the priests and we understand our gods. You are not a priest so you will do what we say or suffer the consequences of disobeying the gods." It is also the same logic that 'scientists' of the middle ages used to admonish 'heretics' such as Galileo.

I'll stick to centering this debate around sound scientific thought. What I will not do is defer the right to think to only those scientists who agree with you.

Just for the sake of argumentation though, I'll quote legitimate scientists to help bring some credibility to the claims I have made.

I have not and will not willfully post anything as 'fact' on this forum that I can't back-up with credible sources from legitimate scientists. All of the assertions I have made on this thread will be supported by the following.

From The American Spectator:

ID scientists have presented their evidence in peer-reviewed books published by major, prestigious publishers and in peer-reviewed articles published by major, prestigious journals. A statement circulated by the Discovery Institute -- "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" -- has already been signed by over four hundred scientists. They come from fields like biochemistry, bacteriology, astrophysics, mathematics, and computer science and from institutions like Princeton, Cornell, Cambridge, Columbia, and MIT.

Twenty years ago, you didn't hear about this sort of thing. Now you do -- because, as often happens, a scientific theory, in this case evolution, is coming under challenge, and a different paradigm, in this case ID, is arising in its place. Of course, not all the scientists who doubt evolution accept ID. But many of them do, and they do so on the basis of scientific research.

How many times have the pro-evolution people on this forum said 'even if we don't understand how it works today, we eventually will.' THERE is a scientific thought!! Then you tell me the experiments performed by hundreds of scientists - some albeit simplified to make more complex experiements easier to understand and illustrate - are not scientific becuase I'm not qualified to discuss them? Give me a break! Come on. Where is the scientific method in 'someday we'll figure it out.' The scientific method is a double-edged sword that you are not applying equally.

While we're talking about the scientific method, how about using the correct terminology? Is the correct word 'falsifiable' or 'flexible.'

From The Discovery Institute:

Since 2001, more than 300 scientists have endorsed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" declaration, which says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

A popular advocate of intelligent design is Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and author of "Darwin's Black Box." Behe, a former neo-Darwinian evolutionist, said that what changed his mind about evolution was not religion, but science.

"We find in nature many sub-cellular systems that are irreducibly complex … and … they involve a number of interrelated parts or subsystems all of which are necessary for the system to function," Behe said in an interview given to a church group.

"This fact is a huge problem for neo-Darwinism since, by hypothesis, there is no plan or purpose or intelligence in biological change that can direct the development of the parts in order to be assembled later into the whole."

Behe is also a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a research association that boasts more than 40 fellows, including prominent biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists and advocates for a position known as intelligent design, ID, which "holds that certain features of the universe of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Same source:

Dallas Willard, a USC professor of philosophy, said that it is not an accurate depiction of the intelligent design position to claim - as many do - that ID just advocates a religious point of view or even for a belief in a God. Intelligent design does not postulate a belief in God, only in a higher agency, he said.

Willard said that ID poses fair questions about the scientific validity of evolution. For example, Willard said that the fossil evidence for evolution is far from impressive. And to his defense, Willard might be able to cite evolutionist and author Michael Alan Park, who wrote: "The fossil record has failed to show intermediate forms with fine gradations for all evolutionary lines. Instead, fossil species often tend to remain relatively stable for long periods of time, and changes - new species - show up rather suddenly."

Additionally, Willard and intelligent design advocates note that Henry Gee, the chief science writer for "Nature," wrote that "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."

Craig Stanford, department chairman and professor of anthropology at USC, said that even though it is true that a period exists in the ape-to-human transition where fossils are limited, their numbers are growing.

"In 10 or 20 years from now there will probably be a whole series of fossils discovered that will help cover the transition from ape ancestor to the earliest humans," he said.

In response, intelligent design advocates argue that interpreting fossils has always been a flawed undertaking. In digging up ancient primate, paleoanthropologists are mostly working with "fragmentary remains, mostly pieces of jaw or sometimes just teeth," wrote Park, the evolutionist. Very rarely - if ever - do paleoanthropologists find fully intact hominid, modern humans and our predecessors, fossilized bodies, said Willard. Consequently, interpreting and drawing conclusions from partial remains leaves plenty of room for subjective speculation, ID scientists said.

For example, biologist and author Jonathan Wells described an incident when Roger Lewin observed paleoanthropologists Alan Walker, Michael Day and Richard Leakey analyzing a skull labeled "1470":

"According to Lewin, Walker said: 'You could hold the [upper jaw] forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short…How you held it really depended on your preconception.' Lewin reports that Leakey recalled the incident, too: 'Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else.'"

This has led famed evolutionist and paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall to say that "in paleoanthropology, the patterns we perceive are likely to result from our unconscious mindsets as from the evidence itself."

Bottjer acknowledges a danger in over-interpreting fossils, and said it's an area with not enough data and too many people studying it. Bottjer, however, said it is important to remember that ID is an extremely minority position today within the scientific community.

ID's status as a minority scientific opinion should not discredit it, Willard said. All major scientifically regarded positions today were at one time minority positions, including Galileo's belief that the planets rotated around the sun, Louis Pasteur's ideas on germs and Einstein's theory of relativity.

The Chronicle:

The book credited with laying out the philosophical underpinnings of the modern intelligent-design movement was published in 1991 by Phillip E. Johnson, a law professor at Berkeley who claimed that Darwinian evolution is based on scant evidence and faulty assumptions. In 1996, a biochemist at Lehigh University, Michael J. Behe, offered scientific argument in favor of intelligent design. Mr. Behe introduced the idea that some living things are irreducibly complex, meaning that they could not have evolved and must have been designed.

Two years later, a mathematician who now works at Baylor University, William A. Dembski, claimed to have developed a mathematical "explanatory filter" that could determine whether certain events, including biological phenomena, develop randomly or are the products of design.

The intelligent-design movement attacks evolutionary theory in two basic ways. Philosophically, it argues that because science refuses to consider anything but natural explanations for things, it is biased against evidence of supernatural intervention. Scientifically, it criticizes the evidence for evolution through natural processes.

The movement has expanded by pitching a big tent. It includes people like Mr. Behe, who believes that all living things evolved from a common ancestor, as well as Mr. Nelson, a creationist who believes the earth is several thousand years old. What all agree on, though, is that an intelligent force, which many of them personally believe is God, has directed the development of life.

Same source:

At Oklahoma Baptist University, Michael N. Keas, an associate professor of natural science, teaches intelligent-design theory in his science courses. In a freshman colloquium for biology majors, he uses Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong to critique the conventional science textbooks students will use later, he says. "It allows them to critically evaluate the evidence pro and con for those books." Icons was written by Jonathan Wells, a molecular biologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and has been discredited by a number of scientists. Mr. Keas says that the science faculty at Oklahoma Baptist holds a "diversity of opinion" on intelligent design, but that the consensus is that "it's a viable part of the conversation."

Same source:

A number of other scientists who teach at secular or mainstream universities are also sympathetic to design theory. While agreeing that not much research has been done to prove the existence of an intelligent designer, they believe that Darwinian evolution is flawed and say science departments should "teach the controversy." Last month, the Discovery Institute published some of their names in full-page advertisements in The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and other high-profile publications. In the ad, which was created in reaction to a PBS series, Evolution, more than 100 science professors or people with doctorates in science declare that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

New Mexico's Mr. Omdahl was among them. He declines to label himself a proponent of intelligent design but says it has "some very credible arguments."

Same source:

Scott Minnich, a professor of microbiology and biochemistry at the University of Idaho, is another supporter of intelligent-design theory. Like others, he says he has no problem with microevolution, the small changes within species that develop over time. His dispute is with macroevolution -- larger transformations from, for example, reptiles to birds -- which he says is "full of speculation and assumptions."

Mr. Minnich brings up such ideas in his classes. He recommends, for example, that students in his introductory-microbiology course read Mr. Behe's book on "irreducible complexity." But he says he frames the discussion carefully. "If I make any statement that is on intelligent design counter to evolutionary theory, I make sure to tell students that this is my opinion, that this is controversial, that this is outside the consensus thinking, and they should know that."

This is good science, he says. "Is it wrong to ask students to stop and think, given time and what we know of biochemistry and molecular genetics, whether blind chance and necessity can build machines that dwarf our creative ability? Is that a legitimate question? I think it is."

Intelligent-design theory has also been taken up in philosophy, religion, and other liberal-arts courses. Some professors present it with skepticism; others find it intriguing.

Jeffrey Koperski, an assistant professor of philosophy at Saginaw Valley State University, in Michigan, teaches intelligent-design theory as part of a philosophy-of-science course that examines revolutions in scientific thought. In a section titled "the evolution debate," Mr. Koperski pre-sents the ideas of Mr. Dembski and Mr. Behe. He says they "raise serious challenges that should be addressed and looked at by all sides." That mainstream scientists reject design theory, he says, doesn't mean that it should be dismissed. Revolutionary theories, he notes, always begin as fringe movements.

I could spend all night quoting noted members of the scientific community all night. I didn't make up the mousetrap. I read it in Behe's book. It's also referenced in Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Faith, using Behe as the original source.

From a letter to the editor in the Sheboygan Press from a noted scientist named David Medici:

Intelligent design does not seek to answer the question, "What is God like?" or "Is Jesus God?" or "Is Christianity correct?" or any of a number of religious questions. Intelligent design seeks to answer the question, "Does a system (the universe, or a biological system, or a radio signal, or an oddly shaped rock) show signs of being designed, rather than merely being ordered?"

It attempts to answer the question by identifying and rigorously stating principles by which the presence of design may be detected, and it evaluates potential answers to the question through mathematical analysis that is accepted in many scientific fields.

Intelligent design offers a discipline for answering questions scientifically.

The principles are rigorous, ordered and supported by statistical and probability theory. In fact, the principles, laws and practices of intelligent design theory have been understood and applied in many disciplines for decades.

Archeologists, anthropologists, astronomers and a host of other hard sciences regularly use those principles, laws and practices to evaluate findings in their fields.

But, when a biologist applies the principles, laws and practices of intelligent design theory to an analysis of a highly ordered biological system that contains vast amounts of information (e.g. DNA) and dares to ask the question, "Is this sequence of nucleotides entirely the product of chance, or is this sequence intelligently designed?" then the evolution-only dogmatists decry the very methods that they find no quarrel with in other scientific disciplines.

When an astronomer notices a very large number of fundamental physical constants finely balanced to produce our universe and asks, "Is the precise balance of these constants the result of mere chance, or does it indicate intelligent design?" Again the naturalism dogmatists erupt with charges of "creationism in disguise" and cries for "separation of church and state."

The scientific basis of intelligent design theory is not delegitimized merely because religious practitioners have recently become aware of the applicability of the theory to biological and cosmological systems and see therein a potential tool for evaluating whether those systems were intelligently designed or just fortuitously ordered.

But those who claim to support science while simultaneously rejecting a legitimate scientific theory because it conflicts with their preferred worldview do delegitimize their position.

One cannot uphold the principles of intelligent design theory in archeology, anthropology and radio astronomy, but call them "religion" when applied to biology or cosmology. You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

DAVID MEDICI

Action Bioscience.ORG:

The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
By Michael J. Behe
Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.
Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?
How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
Molecular machines are designed.


Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.

If you would like to see the full articles, you'll find them linked here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=id+scientists

That should give you an idea just how hard I had to look...

BGood,

You seem to be disputing her but all you did was repeat what she said in a long winded manor. Your use of theory is the same as the scientific use of hypothesis.

That's bunk. Hundreds of scientists are currently performing legitimate scientific research on ID. It is a strong, flexible theory that is rapidly growing in following both in and outside the scientific community. You make it sound like I'm the only guy on the planet who thinks ID is credible. That's just not true. I correctly applied the word theory, and to the correct part of my statement.

Take a look at how life reproduces and tell me again how this shows irreducible complexity in life? What you are saying is that because inanimate peices of a mouse trap don't self assemble, that the self assembly of complex systems in cells is explained by intelligence? Does this also explain the complex physics involved in tornadoes?

I wouldn't include tornados, but certainly nano technology illustrates intelligence directing micro mechanisms that are both designed and that replicate themselves. Besides that, while most ID proponents do not believe in evolution, ID does not in and of itself refute evolution. Nothing in ID theory claims that organisms cannot evolve after they are designed.

The parts of a mousetrap are all found elsewhere, they did not appear together spontaneously. One may construct a mousetrap everyday, but it was designed some time ago. And this design was the result of iterative change. What is it you were trying to prove? That life works the same way?

Did the parts of a cell all appear together spontaneously, or did they all already exist for quite some time before they randomly fell into place to create the first living cell? At least with the mousetrap we can answer that.

Not if you use your short sighted criteria that the function must remain. If you notice B changes the function of A. As the spring in a mousetrap serves a different function than in a pen.

I didn't say that the function must remain. I said that a function must remain. For something to evolve it must evolve from something. You can't reduce without preserving something. Keep in mind that with a living cell, no function means no life. Also keep in mind that while a pen might not serve the same function as a mousetrap, it does serve a function.

Again how does this show that something was designed? What is design?

It's a theory. I only claim that it shows it

could

have been designed. And that's semantics...

What are you testing then, by tossing mousetraps in the air?

That the mousetrap isn't going to be assembled without intelligence. I was using a common illustration used by ID proponents. See my previous post with all the quotes - there is hard math behind my contention that some things are better explained by intelligence than by chance.

So RNA is intelligent? You do understand that the chemistry of life is no different than other chemical processes? So who is assembling a yeast cell when it duplicates?

RNA and DNA may not be intelligent themselves, but the one who designed them may well have been.

Who assembled the first yeast cell is a better question.

Yes you can only use personal limitations and absurduties as a baseis for hypothesis. Only experiments serve as proof.

Again for you it is absurd, that is why science requires experimentation so beleifs and preconceptions don't a priori rule out possibilities.

I'll give you that. I was jabbing and deserved to be called out. Sorry!!!

What is the evidence which supports this idea? Otherwise it seems to be a story of some sort.

Evidence? Would you like more quotes or will you take my word for it that legitimate scientists claim DNA was probably designed? If you want quotes I'll be happy to provide them. Just tell me how many you need before you stop accusing me of making it up.

How is it scientific proof? I am beginning to think you don't understand what science is.

Now you are the one jabbing.

Worms make holes in the earth. So all holes in the earth are from worms.

That would be a very short-lived hypothosis. Please reduce the single-celled organism to a similar absurdity.

And finally you seem to be missing a fundamental flaw to your argument. The machines being built today are built on a design. This design did not just appear, it was created through an iterative process. Beleive me when I say that it took alot of trial an error to "design" your microwave oven.

Are you pointing out flaws in my argument, or helping me prove it? It was an iterative process inherently involving intelligence and design. I don't care how much trial and error it took. It would never have happened without a form of intelligent design. Man is imperfect so we need trial and error. The same may not be true of the designer of the single cell organism.

The mechanisms of evolution are still at work today.
The process of evolution still continues to this day.
Once we understand the mechanisms of evolution we can examine living forms and identify where these changes occurred.
Comparative analysis morphological and genetic lend credence to the idea of common descent.

If you'd like a quick play on words, replace 'evolution' and 'common descent' with 'ID'. All statements are still accurate.

Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific.

'We don't know what it is but it sure wasn't God' is a statement of faith - not a statement of science. Evolution based on fossil record and mutation rates has pretty much been disproven by such things as the Cambrian Explosion. I really want to pull out one statement:

However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually.

How do you know it came about gradually? That is a theory - not a fact.

There is a thread on it feel free to post there.

I'm spending enough time on this thread.

Again you are assuming that function came before form.

And you assume the converse...

It is irreducible now because the mitochondria is now required for all anaerobic life. But the mitochondria has it's own genome, and behaves and reacts much like a bacteria. What does this show you?

That it may be irreducible.

How come with the mouse trap it's the person who assembles it who has the intelligence yet with the mold its not the mold cell which assembles the daughter cell that possesses intelligence? What kind of analogy is this? Please stop rationalizing and use real data and real science.

So the cell was designed to be able to reproduce. What's your point? The intelligence would still rest with the designer of the first cell. Nano technology has shown that mankind can also produce micro-mechanisms that reproduce.

You think because you can program that you are like God? Don't you see how evolution is much more flexible,complex and intricate than the most complex of human inventions?

The Bible does say we are created in God's image, but no - I wasn't saying anything as arrogant as that. I was simply saying that DNA resembles a computer program in many ways.

And no - what I see about evolution is that it is a flawed theory.

And because we don't know the exact mechanisms you say it must be a higher intelligence?
What about 500 years ago when we didn't know why lightning struck some houses burning them down, it was a higher intelligence?

Theories get disproven. Saying that we know something is not true today does not mean we should have known that 500 years ago - and if they did not know that, they should have acknowledged that it was possible.

Your point?

Isn't overnight a little too short for evolutionary theory??

So can microevolution account for the evolution from a mouse to an elephant? Its only a longer nose, greater body mass, longer teeth etc...

You really call that a better explanation? That the elephant is decended from the mouse?

Throwing around mousetraps does not show that assembly requires an intelligent force. It only shows that mousetraps require assembly.

Are you disputing that assembly requires intelligence?

Then show how it does so.

ID says that an intelligent creature may have designed and created it.

These UAW workers designed the Ranger?

They did assemble it, and I think the designers of the Ford Ranger probably qualify as intelligent also.

Simply because you state the scientific method, then you proceed to rationalize, instead of actually applying the scientific method. You are appealing to peoples sence of what should be or what must be and neglect any actual data or experimental results. Your post was devoid of any empirical data or anything else which would resemble the scientific method. Thus I stated that you were able to define the scientific method but were unable to show that you understood it.

Ditto.

I am not disprooving IC to prove evolution! I am disproving IC to show that IC is a result of our lack of knowledge not because it actually exists.

Since when did lack of knowledge become a proof under the scientific method? When we don't know, we theorize. ID is a theory...

How much do you actually know about cell biology?

I've quoted biologists on this thread.

BGood - this has been a great debate thus far, but can we agree to at least try to stop using ad hominum attacks?

Wall-dog wrote:

How much do you actually know about cell biology?

I've quoted biologists on this thread.

BGood - this has been a great debate thus far, but can we agree to at least try to stop using ad hominum attacks?

Sorry, I didn't mean it as an attack I just wanted to know if you wanted to talk in more detail on cell biology.

I'll word my statements more carefully next time.
=)

Again I apologize.