ID advocates: Please make your case.

[Erik Mesoy]

Stormbind: I'm perfectly fine with God engineering the Big Bang and seeing the results ahead of time. It's a nice way for God to have created humans "in the beginning" without humans having to appear at that time.
Even though I partly agree, it is in no way a scientific theory. Therefore it should not be taught in schools.

Civlord: PLEASE don't post like that. The purpose of this thread is to hear seriously what ID is. NOT to make attacks based on our own characterisations.
If you want to destroy ID, refute Smidlee's posts. Don't scream "fake religious fundamentalism".

And now, I want a serious definition of ID.

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

There's an overview of Evolution.

I want an overview of Intelligent Design that reads something like this:

Intelligent Design is the theory that the development of animals was influenced by [A].
This is reflected in and [C], because were they not intelligently guided, we would have had [D] and [E].
[F] is an example of Intelligent Design; because the characteristic [G] was designed, which we can conclude because of [H].
Intelligent Design predicted , which has been seen to occur at [J]. It also accounts for [K] and [L]. If it holds, we would also expect to see [M].
Intelligent Design could be falsified by [N], which would be contrary to the theory's assumption/conclusion/lemma/whatever that [O] is true.

Feel free to rewrite. I don't support ID, so my characterisation of it is likely to be rather unbalanced.
However, I do believe that the above is a good template for serious debate.


Edit: I just noticed that we're on the second page (@40ppp). Please get some material in here before we hit the third page. ID starts looking rather devoid of evidence when the thread grows and grows with so little evidence being posted.

 

[Civlord]

There is no scientific debate between creationism and evolution, just as there is no debate between alchemy and chemistry.

Fairy tales are not science.

 

[Smidlee]

Ok, I have a refutation of irreducible complexity of bacteria flagellum. This site gives an example of how it can be evolved.

Everyones knows about the superficial shallow attempt made by the hardcore Darwinist on Talkorigin ; the Darwinist bible. It going ot take more than some internet junkie to seriously address this problem for Darwinism. Again flagellum is one of the many complex structures found in cells including the type3ss use in Matzke article. Also most agree it more likely the type3ss came from flagellum than the other way around.

How is ID not religion? It states a supernatural being designs all life. It's against some people's religion by infering that there is god-like beings. So, you have to teach evolution because it does not infer god-like beings, and it doesn't disprove them either.

How is Darwinism not a religion? ID states nothing supernatural , it's seem more like Darwinists who trying to preform miracles not ID.
Here how those in ID define themselves :

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Note: Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a “divine being” or a “higher power” or an “all-powerful force.” All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.

Exactly where is supernatural in that statement?

 

[Bluemofia]

Ok then. What is the higher intelligence, if it's not supernatural?

 

[stormbind]

I'm perfectly fine with God engineering the Big Bang and seeing the results ahead of time. It's a nice way for God to have created humans "in the beginning" without humans having to appear at that time.
Even though I partly agree, it is in no way a scientific theory. Therefore it should not be taught in schools.

I never suggested it should be taught in schools either, or not as a science anyway

 

[Civlord]

I never suggested it should be taught in schools either, or not as a science anyway

No, we are going bck to Middle Ages if they do so.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I want an overview of Intelligent Design that reads something like this:

Translation: I want a definition of Intelligent Design that is either easy to knock down or knocks itself down in the process.

 

[Mise]

Translation: I want a definition of Intelligent Design that is either easy to knock down or knocks itself down in the process.

Actually, I'd like to hear a theory for ID which is consistent with our current understanding of the universe. Can you present one?

 

[Truronian]

Everyones knows about the superficial shallow attempt made by the hardcore Darwinist on Talkorigin ; the Darwinist bible. It going ot take more than some internet junkie to seriously address this problem for Darwinism. Again flagellum is one of the many complex structures found in cells including the type3ss use in Matzke article. Also most agree it more likely the type3ss came from flagellum than the other way around.

Everyone knows that ID is a superficially shallow attempt to make religion sound scientific when in actual fact its not. Just because we don't understand every single thing in the universe doesn't mean that those things are scientifically unexplainable. In fact history is on our side, wasn't there a time wen everything in nature was explained as an act of god(s).

How is Darwinism not a religion?

Because its based upon observation not speculation.

ID states nothing supernatural , it's seem more like Darwinists who trying to preform miracles not ID.

The very idea that something outside of this universe created evrything is in its self supernatural, because it is outside the bounds of our reality. Hence ID is supernatural.

Exactly where is supernatural in that statement?

That statement is not how the vast majority of IDers view their postion. Nor does it make any sense. If science cannot identify the nature of the creator, how can it identify that creator's work? It can't (which is after all the problem with ID - no evidence).

 

[Erik Mesoy]

@stormbind: Fine. Then let's not clog the thread.

Translation: I want a definition of Intelligent Design that is either easy to knock down or knocks itself down in the process.

Translation of YOUR statement: "I can't tell you what Intelligent Design is because you'd knock it down."

Go back and notice what I said:

Feel free to rewrite. I don't support ID, so my characterisation of it is likely to be rather unbalanced.
However, I do believe that the above is a good template for serious debate.

Now: please define ID for me in a scientifically debatable way. Include evidence, verified prediction(s), future prediction(s), and applications. Arguments from incredulity will not be accepted.

 

[Che Guava]

First Darwinists uses (more like abused) the fossil record as evidence while this is exactly what ID uses as evidence. Most of evolution can not be tested so Darwinists uses similarities in appearances of the fossils to use as evidence. Guess what? This is exactly how ID uses the fossils record in pointing out the sudden appearances of different body plans. Also in recent years they have learned that these body plans are not made by DNA alone.

Once again, 'darwinists' (can we just say evolutionists? the terms seem pretty interchangeable to me..) use what's IN the fossil, while IDers use what NOT in the fossil record (the absence of links). I really don't know what you're driving at here! "Body part that are not made by DNA alone"? Please explain this statement.

As for so many decades Darwinist have used similarities in appearance between man and ape. By using similarities by both fossil and DNA they claimed man and ape had a common ancestors.
The same with ID. By using the similarities in appearance between bacteria flagellum and a electric motors also point to something in common ( common ancestor if you please) called intelligent design.

To me, this analogy simply doesn't work. Evolution and natural selection produce systems that work, the same way that engineers do. This isn't because someone is drawing out flagella on some cosmic blueprint (or whatever 'intelligence' is out there workin hard on this), it's because those organisms with less efficient systems die out. Four wheels on a car works well, just like four legs on a cow. It's similar, but only because they both function properly.

this is a double standard in science as ID has always been apart of other field of science. Yet Darwinists love to have it both ways. First they claimed tha life (living cells) is materialistic which puts it on the same level as nonliving thing but when we found factories, machines, and motors with information is what makes up a cell then evolutionist cry life is different than nonliving things which puts life on a supernatural realm. So Darwinists not only have to dance around with definitions but what is life also.

This is just baloney. 'Darwinsists' don't claim anything supernatural about the cell or how it works. They (and I) just beleive that it could have arisen without 'someone' guiding its development.

The flagellum is the mascot of ID movenment which Behe wrote about in Darwin's black box in '96. Since '96 scientist has learned that flagellum is even more complex than when Behe wrote his book so the case for ID is growing even stronger.
Here a 34 minute video (AFAIK not by ID) which I've posted before about the flagellum :
www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/files/011a.wmv

Nice video. Don't know what it's supposed to prove, though. Looks to me like just a tool in the argument that life is too complex to have evolved on its own. I don't pretend that I know all of the mysteries that life contains, but I'm certainly not going to credit it to a designer just because the research isn't finished. Yes, protein synthesis and and folding is incredibly complex, and difficult to predict, but this is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was designed. I feel that this almost lends more credence to the darwinist theory, as most good enginners will tell you that the best designs are simple ones.

More and more darwinism is become more of a dead weight to science than a help. A lot of discoverys was learns in spite of Darwinism not because of it; for example horizontal gene transfer as well as the two articles I posted in the other thread yesterday.

Dead weight? Horizontal gene transfer? Please explain your examples...

Darwinists here in the USA knows very well they can't face one on one with ID on scientific grounds since they use the same logic and reasoning that Darwinists has been using for decades to support their views.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that for a minute.

At first they try to ignore them but now the ACLU is going to use the courts (not science) to silence the ID debate. The only weapon they have is the so old religion argument. (This is why DI didn't agree with Dover in teaching ID in the classroom yet since they knew very well this school would become a political target.)

Call ID whatever you want, but not science. Teach it in social studies if you want, but keep it out of the lab.

 

[Smidlee]

Everyone knows that ID is a superficially shallow attempt to make religion sound scientific when in actual fact its not. Just because we don't understand every single thing in the universe doesn't mean that those things are scientifically unexplainable. In fact history is on our side, wasn't there a time wen everything in nature was explained as an act of god(s).

We don't live in the dark ages any longer. In Darwin's day, they saw cells is something simple like Jell-o. So Darwin had an example of something simple turning to something extremely complex. Today we are living in the information age and know cell themselves are extremely complex. So the science example from simple to complex was proven to be false. Today something simple becoming extremely complex is something only happens in Sci-Fi.

Because its based upon observation not speculation.

It isn't what we observed that is being debated about evolution , it's the speculation of how something simple become complex and how complex information formed without intelligence. no one has observed the miracles Darwinists claims their theory could produce.

The very idea that something outside of this universe created evrything is in its self supernatural, because it is outside the bounds of our reality. Hence ID is supernatural.

Darwinism itself heavily depends on supernatural miracles to be preformed. Science hasn't proven natural selection nor mutation can build such complexes that are common in a living cell. Darwinism is nothing but a creation story itself.
Either life is natural (made out of factories, machines and motors with it's own information to run and build them) or it's supernatual which makes life different from nonliving designed objects.

That statement is not how the vast majority of IDers view their postion. Nor does it make any sense. If science cannot identify the nature of the creator, how can it identify that creator's work? It can't (which is after all the problem with ID - no evidence).

Again science can be used to determine if someone was murdered even if they didn't have any idea who did it. First you determine if the person was murdered and how then afterwards figure how who did it. Also if scientist found a strange object on Mars they would be able to determine if it was by intelligent design or not without knowing anything about who the designer was. Yet this wouldn't stop scientists from guessing who the designer was.
Same with ID in biology. ID doesn't answer who that up to the individual. Of course creationists support ID just like atheist supports Darwinism. Evolutionist loves to claim evolution doesn't equal atheism yet turn around and cliam ID equals creationism. That's seem clearly a double standard here.

 

[BasketCase]

Today we are living in the information age and know cell themselves are extremely complex. So the science example from simple to complex was proven to be false.

How was that proved? I don't think it ever was. I've certainly never heard of it being done.

I have, however, seen systems that do evolve from simple to complex, with no outside intervention at all.

There's another example out there showing that a system doesn't have to have an external cause. One of the common arguments for ID is that the universe (and life in particular) is too complicated to evolve all by itself....

....so, then, how did God evolve??

The common reply to that is that he's eternal--which means he has NO cause at all. There ya go.

If God doesn't need an external cause, other things might not need an external cause either.

 

[classical_hero]

Excellent work Smidlee.

 

[Truronian]

We don't live in the dark ages any longer. In Darwin's day, they saw cells is something simple like Jell-o. So Darwin had an example of something simple turning to something extremely complex. Today we are living in the information age and know cell themselves are extremely complex. So the science example from simple to complex was proven to be false. Today something simple becoming extremely complex is something only happens in Sci-Fi.

Compared to our knowledge in the futue I have no doubt we live in a dark age. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the whole somple to complex argument. I can tell you for sure that systems that can become very complex froim simply axioms exist, just look at a double pendulum or many of the components of chaos theory.

It isn't what we observed that is being debated about evolution , it's the speculation of how something simple become complex and how complex information formed without intelligence. no one has observed the miracles Darwinists claims their theory could produce.

First of all we have seen evolution at work in the period that we have known about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

What we haven't observed is any of the phenomena associated with ID.

Please give some evidense of ID as this is what this thread is about, rather than pointing out non-existant problems with evolutionary theory.

Darwinism itself heavily depends on supernatural miracles to be preformed. Science hasn't proven natural selection nor mutation can build such complexes that are common in a living cell. Darwinism is nothing but a creation story itself.

Science has come as close to proving those things as is possible. Science is about the most logical explination, it can never be 100% correct, as there is always the chance that we are just some computer game for a future human and the axioms of life are not consistant. Name one unexplained element of Evolution.

Either life is natural (made out of factories, machines and motors with it's own information to run and build them) or it's supernatual which makes life different from nonliving designed objects.

Yes, its natural.

Again science can be used to determine if someone was murdered even if they didn't have any idea who did it. First you determine if the person was murdered and how then afterwards figure how who did it. Also if scientist found a strange object on Mars they would be able to determine if it was by intelligent design or not without knowing anything about who the designer was. Yet this wouldn't stop scientists from guessing who the designer was.

No they couldn't. They could make a geuss based upon what humans view as complex and only designable, but unless we know of the designer we cannot know with any degree of certainty that that space object was designed. As for the murder, the reason we could geuss that this was murder is because we have seen murders before. Have you seen a universe get created before?

Same with ID in biology. ID doesn't answer who that up to the individual. Of course creationists support ID just like atheist supports Darwinism. Evolutionist loves to claim evolution doesn't equal atheism yet turn around and cliam ID equals creationism. That's seem clearly a double standard here.

The majority of religious people I know take evolution to be correct, and they all agree on the course that evolution took. No-one believes ID in its purest form, mainly because its logically inconsistant. Its true that ID does not equal creationalism, because no-one believe ID, while many believe in creation.

Please post your proof of ID.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

We don't live in the dark ages any longer. In Darwin's day, they saw cells is something simple like Jell-o. So Darwin had an example of something simple turning to something extremely complex. Today we are living in the information age and know cell themselves are extremely complex. So the science example from simple to complex was proven to be false. Today something simple becoming extremely complex is something only happens in Sci-Fi.

Pointless babble about complexity.
You're not telling us what ID is.

It isn't what we observed that is being debated about evolution , it's the speculation of how something simple become complex and how complex information formed without intelligence. no one has observed the miracles Darwinists claims their theory could produce.

Cut the crap. I'd ask you to define "miracles", but you'd just use it as an excuse to to answer the original question that was the point of this thread.
You're still not telling us what ID is.

Darwinism itself heavily depends on supernatural miracles to be preformed. Science hasn't proven natural selection nor mutation can build such complexes that are common in a living cell. Darwinism is nothing but a creation story itself.

Wrong, plain and simple.
You're continually not telling us what ID is.

Either life is natural (made out of factories, machines and motors with it's own information to run and build them) or it's supernatual which makes life different from nonliving designed objects.

False paradox or removal of middle ground.
You're STILL not telling us what ID is.

Again science can be used to determine if someone was murdered even if they didn't have any idea who did it. First you determine if the person was murdered and how then afterwards figure how who did it. Also if scientist found a strange object on Mars they would be able to determine if it was by intelligent design or not without knowing anything about who the designer was. Yet this wouldn't stop scientists from guessing who the designer was.

I destroyed this claim in the other thread. Tell us about ID instead of reposting it.
And you're still not telling us what ID is.

Same with ID in biology. ID doesn't answer who that up to the individual. Of course creationists support ID just like atheist supports Darwinism. Evolutionist loves to claim evolution doesn't equal atheism yet turn around and cliam ID equals creationism. That's seem clearly a double standard here.

Oh, so would it be a double standard for you to say that christianity doesn't equal polytheism yet turn around and claim some other religion equals pantheism?
You're still not telling us what ID is.


Ranting, longwinded attacks on evolution go in another thread.

Please give some evidense of ID as this is what this thread is about, rather than pointing out non-existant problems with evolutionary theory.

please define ID for me in a scientifically debatable way. Include evidence, verified prediction(s), future prediction(s), and applications. Arguments from incredulity will not be accepted.

NOW WOULD YOU KINDLY STOP DODGING THE QUESTION?

 

[classical_hero]

@Smidlee. Trying to explain ID to Evolutionists is like trying to tell a blind person what sight is. I would not bother to try and they are so set in their beliefs that they cannot see ID at work.

 

[wit>trope]

Some advanced abstract math has not been observed nor "tested" ... by your (someone up in the thread) reasoning it isn't science.

Instead of arguing whether something is or isn't "science" "scientific" or whatever, why not just do discourse on this?:

What rational case is there for believing that evolution is true?
What rational case is there for believing that ID is true?

Etc.

Debating whether something is "science" is mostly just slogans, semantics, and a substitute for real, substantive argumentation about the actual facts that are in contention.

A "case" for a belief can be made on the basis of inductive arguments or deductive arguments. Math is based solely on deductive arguments. So is philosophy. Most of modern natural science is based on inductive arguments. "Falsification" is only an applicable concept for inductive arguments. Thus it is a mistake to assume that just because a theory cannot be falsified by empirical data that it is not a well grounded theory.

What matters is that there is a rational case for ID, not what kind of case or what kind of argument -- inductive or deductive -- there is for it. As it so happens there are both deductive and inductive arguments for ID.

This is all for now. I hope to contribute more specifically soon.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Some advanced abstract math has not been observed nor "tested" ... by your (someone up in the thread) reasoning it isn't science.

By that definition, you're correct. Mathematics works from axioms (such as ab = ba and a+b = b+a). If the axioms hold, the rest of mathematics can be proved true. This eliminates the need for testing of the math in favor of testing the logical steps from the axioms and upwards.

Instead of arguing whether something is or isn't "science" "scientific" or whatever, why not just do discourse on this?:

What rational case is there for believing that evolution is true?
What rational case is there for believing that ID is true?

Well, this thread was created for the latter. I wanted to hear a proper theory of ID.
Normally I see the ID supporters trying to poke holes in evolution, while the evolution supporters first define ID as religious fundamentalism and attack it from there. Neither of these are very good ways of arguing.

Etc.

Debating whether something is "science" is mostly just slogans, semantics, and a substitute for real, substantive argumentation about the actual facts that are in contention.

The thread starter seems to have the right kind of approach ... it seems to be EXACTLY the same as mine actually given the opening post and thread title I hope to be able to contribute soon

Thanks for the kind words. Here's hoping for a substantive explanation of ID.

 

[Markus6]

You're still not telling us what ID is.

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Note: Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a “divine being” or a “higher power” or an “all-powerful force.” All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.

Was I the only one who spotted this?