Redstate

One of the major problems with neo-Darwinism is the implication that scientific knowledge is the only acceptable knowledge. One of the major arguments against ID is that it is not science but rather metphysics. As you rightly point out, Darwin's original theory is really not very scientific either.

Philosophically, Darwinism points to an atheistic world view

As such, there is one overriding philosophical premise in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.  It can be summed up with the phrase "Anything But Design".

Neither Darwinism nor Intelligent Design contribute much to experimental biology;

Intelligent Design has less inference to religion than Darwinism.

I can't wait to see your unbiased outline of fraud you promise as you fraudulently portray the debate.  A few major points:

Theories have changed since Darwin's book, yet you seem content to just argue old theories.

Science does not extend its scope to why evolution happened, it just tries to explain, empirically I might add, how it happened.

Debunking a part of a theory is not an excuse to inject a completely untestable claim.

ID and evolution do not have to conflict.  I think the people who say otherwise have a greater agenda unrelated to science.

Id has no experimentation to even contribute to the theory.  You may be able to take away from evolutionary theories, but that still gives no evidence of design.  It is untestable and just doesn't belong in science class.

Quibble:

"Darwinists believe that during Earth's infancy, from a mix of water-born chemicals, weather and atmospheric conditions, known as Primordial Soup, sprang the first primitive living organism."

Is that actually a part of Darwinism, evolution, or natural selection? My understanding was that the initial conditions were left mostly a guessed-at blank until some guy came up with the primordial soup idea, which is still debated. I think you're confusing Darwinism and related theories of species development with the lay understanding of those theories. Creation and initial states aren't really touched by Darwin, are they? Could be wrong. In any case natural selection and inheritance of genes don't need an creation explanation to exist. ID says that certain features could not have developed via natural selection REGARDLESS of initial state, that's the difference.

Because that would be more productive. And, more people would walk away happy. And it would be a better use of our political and social energies.

Please, folks. We burned like 300 comments and God alone knows how many man-hours debating this in the last week. Let it go.

It is interesting to remember that doctoral degrees are known as "doctor of philosophy" in a particular field.  This extends to the pure sciences.  And rightly so.  To be an expert in a given field, understanding the philosophical underpinnings is a mimimum requirement.

Darwinism (generically used to reference the global scope of macro-evolutionary hypotheses) is founded initially on the now discounted theory of the "static, eternal universe".  Big Bang cosmology has eliminated the static universe as an option.  Yet Darwin and most naturalists believed that theory. In fact, even Carl Sagan held tightly to that notion until his death.  Shortly after his death, the Hubble space telescope delivered findings that disproved the premises upon which Sagan believed.

Origins of life are metaphysical discussions.  When "pure science" is founded on shaky metaphysical ground, the pure science may be compromised.  This represents one of Darwinisms early missteps.  Scientists working within the Intelligent Design arena claim a detachment from metaphysics altogether.  ID claims their premises arise from emperical scientific method, with no prior commitment to either theism or atheism (both of these are metaphysical positions).  It is curious that Darwinists, with their foundations firmly and unapologetically rooted in metaphysics, disparage ID for "being religion, not science".  

I plan on deveolping these and other points this evening.

Another observation that has been noted in the Darwinism / Intelligent Design debate is the ad hoc and often vicious attacks that come from certain supporters of macro-evolutionary theory.

There is some evidence of "talkng points" from a fringe of the Darwin side of the discussion, among which are:

1. attack ID as religion, not science
   
   
2. proclaim neo-Darwinian theory as settled science
   
   
3. insist there is "no controversy" regarding the validity of Darwinism
   
   
4. use unverified neo-Darwinian theory as "evidence" refuting ID theory
   
   
5. revile any scientist that supports ID as a charlatan
   
   
6.  refuse to address and ignore valid criticisms of Darwinian hypotheses

I plan on fleshing this out in the coming days.  The post to which this post replies is an example of some of these tactics.  I expect there will be others going forward.  There may also be some from those with the Creationist viewpoint, who also have problems with ID. Finally, I will look for instances of overstatement and hyperbole in the ID position.

Darwinism as a movement has been demonstrated to use all naturalistic explanations to maintain its position.  You are correct that Darwin himself did not claim Primordial Soup.  But it is these kinds of unproven hypotheses that are ardently supported by activists in the Darwinian movement.  Unfortunately, this information finds its way into public schools.  

This is a very important issue and one that is understudied by the average man on the street.

What, are they claiming now that the enchilada evolved from the tortilla? If ever there was an argument for intelligent design, it was the enchilada. If stuff was just random, there would only be nachos.

Perhaps without the enumerated straw men.

1.  Never attacked ID, just said it is untestable.
   
   
2.  Did not make that claim.  To the contrary, I  mentioned that evidence can detract from the theory.  I don't think I would claim that settled science is being detracted from.  I will say there is alot of evidence to back up parts of the theory, and parts with big questions left unanswered that will take lots of time and experimentation to answer.
   
   
3.  I said there is no controversy between ID and evolutionary theory, and I think those who state otherwise have an agenda other than science.
   
   
4.  Never refuted ID, just said it isn't testable.  Which is why it is pointless to refute.
   
   
5.  Once again, ID doesn't conflict with scientific views, so its hardly possible I said that.  If you are falsely proclaiming them to be mutually exclusive, yes, there may be something wrong with scientists who claim as such.
   
   
6.  Did no such thing, In fact, I stated twice that you may be able to detract from the theory.  It has been done before, and accounts for many changes in evolutionary theory over the years that you have so far chosen to ignore.  That's the beauty of falsifiable theory, it either changes or becomes invalid when presented with new evidence.  But detracting from a theory does not mean an untestable claim becomes scientific theory in its place.

I'm sure you will spend much time building more straw men to attack over this.  Now try reading what I post, not what you think I mean.  Please flesh out the following for me, without twisting the meaning of what I said:

1.  Debunking or falsifying parts or even all of a theory is no reason to insert beliefs that cannot be proven.
   
   
2.  ID is not testable.  Once again, I am not saying it is false, since it is not falsifiable.  You seem to mistake evidence detracting from evolutionary theory for evidence in favor of ID.  This is bad science with an agenda piled on top.
   
   
3.  ID and evolutionary theory still do not disagree.  And will not.  They are not exclusive to each other and not any alternative to each other.  Evolutionary theory as science does not care why things happened, it just attempts to discover how.  I believe there are people on both sides who wander far beyond the scope of science in this debate.  Once again, indicative of some sort of agenda.  Perhaps they are trying to justify a belief that cannot be proven.  Atheism is just as untestable as the existince of a God.  Although it seems both are willing to sacrifice real science to try to "prove" their beliefs.

Have to admit, throwing toenail clippings does sound fun.

I watch the same debate again and again and again. No one is actually talking to anyone else; they're simply trying to prove that they're morally superior to the others on the field. And nothing comes of it except hurt feelings.

I find it especially stupid because as if education wasn't bad enough in this country, along comes this hoo-hah. And the jihadis from all three sides won't let it die.

No one is actually talking to anyone else; they're simply trying to prove that they're morally superior to the others on the field.

I thought you enjoyed politics.

All kidding aside, it seems like this is the norm and holds true for nearly any topic this statement is applied to.  All to easy to get caught up in I guess.

. . . but it's clear that the taco is the clear precursor of the tostada.

And just as obvious that the enchilada begat the burrito, which in turn begat the chimichanga.

I have been receiving "Google Alerts" on the topic of Intelligent Design for many months.  Until the President made his comments, I averaged about 1 alert per week, with maybe one or two references.  Since that time I get alerts daily with many references.

The vast majority of these alerts are "opinion" articles, most from pundits, not scientists.  Based on content, the anti-ID articles (which are the vast majority) could have been written by the same individual.  The primary points made in these editorials are demonstrated (1 thru 6) in my earlier post on this thread entitled "Bile and Vitriol".  

There is a legitimate debate regarding this issue.  The one held on this site last week was kindergarten level for the most part.  A topic with this much cultural and educational impact needs to be explored rationally and objectively.  There is also a time for heated and passionate partisanship. Hopefully the mix will ultimately yield wisdom and truth.

to touch on my theory for the origins of life on earth, which by the way Darwinism makes no claims about despite this guys continued distortions of the theory of evolultion, Bean Dip Biogenesis.

In my theory, the early earth was covered in bean dip.  It's a long story how it happened, it seems a bunch of Omnipotent Beings:  an Intelligent Designer Hallowed Be Thy Name, a Creator, a Not So Intelligent Designer, some super technologically advanced Supreme Overlord space aliens who had been around since the Big Bang were all partying one time long long ago.  

Well everyone was pretty well drunk on their omnipotent power and things started to get a little out of hand.  The Not So Intelligent Designer made the The Intelligent Designer's, Hallowed Be Thy Name, beard fall out, the space aliens thought that was hilariously funny and started laughing, The Intelligent Designer, Hallowed Be Thy Name, mutated one of the space aliens TGA (strange stuff really, I like to call it NEW And IMPROVED! DNA.  It seems Moore's Law applies to biological macromolecules as well, TGA has eight strands and encodes 1000 times the information and it comes with a free printer when you upgrade from a DNA based genome.  The downside is it runs on Windows and still crashes a lot and is subject to viruses) and turned him into a cat.

The aliens got mad and used there laser beams to shoot off the The Intelligent Designer's, Hallowed Be Thy Name, big toe which, incidentally, became Hailley's Comet.

But anyway, one thing led to another, words were exchanged:  a lot of "Thou shalt this..."  and "Let there be thats..." and "alskdj asldkfj aslkds" were flung around, someone revealed that back in high school they read the Intelligent Designer's, Hallowed Be Thy Name, SAT results over his shoulder and he only made an 850 out of 1600, and that really he only had an Associates degree from a Community College in the Crab Nebula.  And well... the whole thing degenerated into a big food fight.  

Neptune got covered in Guacomole, the moon, as you know, is covered in cheese dip, Uranus was...  well let's not discuss that!  

Anyway the earth had a whole bowl of Intergalactic black bean dip dumped upon it's surface.  All the Deities and Supreme Alien Overlords walked away mad and everyone refused to clean up the mess.

So there sat the early earth coated in a thick layer of Bean Dip and nobody cleaning it up or even looking in on it because they didn't want anyone else to see them in this area of the Universe and say:

"Hey!  Since you're right there, why don't you clean that up that bean dip?"  

Eventually, estimates vary, but probably after about three to four weeks life spontaneously arose from the bean dip.

I performed a controlled experimental study of The Theory of Bean Dip Biogenesis last year after the Super Bowl.  Leaving bean dip to it's own devices for sufficient lengths of time will indeed lead to the spontaneous generation of life.  I've spoken with a number of College Fraternities and a Boy Scout Troop and they've all observed a similar phenomenon.  

I wrote up my findings and sent it off to Science but the scientific establishment is trying to suppress my findings.  Lately they've begun a smear campaign to discredit me by saying that I'm a corporate stooge trying to drum up sales for Old El Paso's spicy black bean dip.  But that's a lie!  I work in the Salsa division, I have nothing to do with bean dip sales.

Anyway, I'm glad I could take this opportunity to share with you the true origin of life on earth.  It ain't pretty but it least now you know the Truth.

...you get a chimichanga.

That is awsomely funny.  Ever considered a carreer in comedy?  I think you really have something there.  Put up a web site and claim your belief as being the sworn enemy of the pastafarians.  Honestly, I'd buy a mug or a tee shirt.

I do have a cook book coming out for the Holidays:

Cooking with Beans, the Origins of Life, and How to Drop Two Dress Sizes in Four Weeks!

Oprah is reviewing an advance copy right now.

Incidentally, you'll notice that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is conspicuously absent from my pantheon.  That's because, although he is indeed an All Powerful Being, he didn't come into existence until long after life on Earth arose through Bean Dip Biogenesis.  You see, He is the result of the experimentation of my colleagues at the frat house alpha omega spaghetti.  After a large spaghetti dinner followed by a post-beer-bash bucket of chicken wings, the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Unholy Presence arose from the stomach of one of the Pledges.

I tried to reproduce there results, but....

My dog ate it.

An imagination like that on such a hot topic is what we all need, and I think would sell.  Even if it doesn't, it puts things into perspective and lightens the mood at the same time.  Very much appreciated.

Here's a list of 600 or so journals that discuss biology on a regular basis. The vast majority are scholarly journals of interest to people who want to know more about specific areas life on earth, it's origins, and evolution.

This is also why Creationists and ID folks (keeping them separate for now) get such short shrift from scientists. There are roughly 1,000 such journals in existence. The average publication is about 6 times per year and contains about 10 peer reviewed articles, or about 60,000 articles published each year.

Each of these articles is published by researchers or teams of researchers to illuminate mankind on one very tiny aspect of biology. Each of these teams also uses Darwinism (not a term used much in science in the last 100 years or so) as the basis of their attempt to illuminate the world.

The debates are way beyond eye glazing for those that don't care -- Should Xenoturbella be classified as a protocordate or a mollusc? How did the Axolotl do away with an entire stage of life that other salamanders still have? How do we map the family tree of the Cichlid, the most successful fish in Africa? And neither Creationists nor ID'ers participate in any of them.

Any of the 60,000 or so people or teams that has a paper published this year would love to destroy such a major tenant of the scientific world. That's a ticket to huge career success and professional immortality. But it doesn't happen. The basics of Darwin's theories have survived rather well, and are still the basis of debates on whether the Artiodactyla is the ancestor of the Cetacea.

Since Creationists and ID believers don't participate in the one arena that means everything in science (peer reviewed literature) they're left to convincing school boards to give them some space in the textbooks. That's why you occasionally see the bile and vitriole. There's a very specific way to present your ideas and gather support -- publish. Proclaiming "We're right, but we don't like peer review" just isn't taken seriously.

"Since Creationists and ID believers don't participate in the one arena that means everything in science (peer reviewed literature) they're left to convincing school boards to give them some space in the textbooks."

To see why ID papers might not appear so often in peer review journals, you might have a look at what happens to scientists who allow such peer reviews to occur: http://www.rsternberg.net

Brilliant scientists are blackballed from the "club" for flying in the face of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.  

So let's assume that the peer journals are blackballing ID.  

Why don't the ID scientists publish their scientific work in non-peer reviewed journals?

"Any of the 60,000 or so people or teams that has a paper published this year would love to destroy such a major tenant of the scientific world. That's a ticket to huge career success and professional immortality."

Well maybe, unless you're trying for "huge career success" and "professional immortality" at George Mason University

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2589

or Ohio State:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2661

(Sorry, don't know how to create proper hyperlinks on this site)

"So let's assume that the peer journals are blackballing ID.  

Why don't the ID scientists publish their scientific work in non-peer reviewed journals?"

If you go to William Dembski's website at http://www.designinference.com, there's both a copy of his CV and a list of links to published articles and books.  He's written ten books and a couple at least were put out by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, which sound like they might be reputable puplishing houses.

Here's a link to Microbiologist Michael Behe's home page: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

There's a list there of articles and books by Behe.  I don't know if all of them are related to ID.

Dr. Stephen Meyer has a list of articles published, though you'll have to sort through them to see which are popular and which are scholarly articles:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery
&query=Stephen%20C.%20Meyer&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&sear
chBy=author&searchType=all

This is a partial list, of course.

scientists have found a way to do it.

""I'm a Buddhist," he says. "But I don't think we should teach reincarnation in biology classes.""

My note about huge career success is to publish something with enough convinvcing evidence to change minds. Teaching a group of freshman biology students stuff that can't get published and is not accepted by the scientific community doesn't count.

As for doctoral students, it's tradition for a PhD thesis to be challenged. Instead of crying about how the professors aren't treating him fairly (an extremely common complaint among doctoral students) then he should strengthen his argument, not complain of persecution.  If he has a good argument that can add to the body of scientific knowledge, then he'll win out. If he's just mouthing slogans he's heard before then he'll remain ABD (all but dissertation, a kind of purgatory for PhD candidates) forever.

The thesis at the PhD level should add a tiny bit to the overall body of knowledge on the subject. The whole challenge process is to make the thesis better. If a doctoral candidate can't live with challenges and critiques, then he doesn't deserve letters after his name.

From your own link:

http://www.designinference.com

Your cheif evangelist, Dembski explains what would motivate a man with two Phds to support ID:

 The Truth about How I Got into ID

I decided what better way to make a name for myself than to bring down the most popular and infamous theory in science.

My plan quickly fell into place:

    * I would concoct a specious mathematical theory of design detection that critics of evolution could use as a weapon against Darwinism.

    * I would network with right-wing fanatics for whom a recrudescence of Paley could be a tool for their political agenda.

    * And finally, I would cash in on the celebrity associated with bringing down Darwin.

On this last point, let me just say that intelligent design has been very, very good to me.

In case you don't get it here is the definition of specious.

...have plenty of letters after their names.  But their peer review looks a little like an old Miller Lite commecial:  "tastes great" says one side, "less filling", retorts the other side.  But in this case it's the empericists who say "you've got something here" and the old guard repeating the mantra "it's not science", with fingers tightly in their ears, all the while glaring at the junior partners if they disagree.  

Anyone saying that teacher's union members or tenured college professors are universally fair and balanced are not themselves.  

Shucks, man, you really had me going.  Your Bean Dip story was sounding pretty good until I heard the Truth from Bill Dembski.  I knew all along he was a genius!

When I went to the site I looked through Dembski's writings and the title:  "The Truth about how I got into ID" stood out quite a bit.

So I clicked on it read it and couldn't believe the man was making such a stark admission of his use of specious theory as a means to achieve personal enrichment.  

I went back to check and make sure it was indeed a legitimate site and that it was his and not a hoax put up by others.  I read several other articles and they seeemed to be in line with what I know about His Teachings.  So I figured, this must be real!  It's just like Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard!

The one thing I didn't read was the date of the article.

April 1, 05.

I see no evidence in support of his theories, but he does have a good sense of humor.

It's a scientific theory.  The Theory of Bean Dip Biogenesis.  And we have experimental evidence that can be replicated by following this experimental protocol:

1.  Prepare bean dip
   
   
2.  Allow bean dip to sit uncovered
   
   
3.  Check bean dip in four weeks
   
   
4.  Repeat until life appears

The great thing about the Theory of Bean Dip Biogenesis is that it is a truly unifying theory between science and Theology.  Not only does it recognize evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species it acknowledges all religious traditions as having taken part in the creation of life on earth.

so he can relax and give up his "imaginary numbers"?

authority.

The Theory of Bean Dip Biogenesis (or BioGenesis if you prefer) is manifestly true, not only because it is self obvious from observing our world, but because a very simple experiment can be performed to  prove it's validity, see protocol above.

"My note about huge career success is to publish something with enough convinvcing evidence to change minds."

But what happens when thousands of people have invested entire careers and professional reputations on a theory?  Harvard recently announced plans to spend what---$50 million to buttress Evolution and debunk ID?  Scientist and Darwin popularizer  Richard Dawkins has declared that Darwin made it possible to be a "fulfilled atheist".  Darwin's theory is touted as the key unifying principle in biological sciences.  How can such an idea be allowed to fail?  Like a big company---say United Airlines today, or Chrysler a couple of decades ago--it's too big to fail.  Those in power--the science establishment--will not let it happen.  There's too much at stake for too many people.

It's good to have someone on this site with insight.  Darwin's first priority was atheism, and nothing has changed since then with his proselytes.  I will flesh that out in a new diary hopefully over the week-end.  The Fox coverage of Armageddon in the Gulf Coast has had me distracted.

Hello,

Please don't take these questions to be loaded. It's just that because your anonymous, it would be good to have some idea of your background before giving your post the consideration it deserves.

• Which of Darwin's books have you read?
  
• What is your profession?
  
• What is your education level?
  
• Do you have expertise in biology, chemisty, geology or physics?
  
• Do you have a background in the natural sciences?
  
• How old do you think the Earth is?
  
• Do you believe the "Big Bang" theory is valid?

Thanks,

Go here:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/where-can-i-learn-to-be-this-sham
eless.html

1. Never attacked ID, just said it is untestable.


You claim that evolution is testable and therefore legitimate, while ID is somehow illegitimate.  In the context, that sounds much like an attack to me.  Your assertion that evolution is testable is also untrue, since no-one has the millions of years to spend in observing it that would be required to validate it.

2. Did not make that claim [that neo-Darwinian theory is settled science]


homunculus mentioned 6 types of attack used by evolutionists against ID.  He said that your post was an example of some of those, not of all of them.

3. I said there is no controversy between ID and evolutionary theory, and I think those who state otherwise have an agenda other than science.




ID states that biological systems show evidence of design and cannot be explained otherwise; evolutionism says there was no design and that all was the result of chance and natural selection.  The two are obviously completely contradictory.  Do you assert that that is not a controversy?

That's the beauty of falsifiable theory, it either changes or becomes invalid when presented with new evidence.


But evolution can't be invalidated.  When a new set of circumstances is to be explained, it twists and squirms and asserts the opposite of what was asserted about some other circumstances.  For example, men are promiscuous so as to spread their genes around; alternatively, men are faithful to their wives because of the evolutionary advantages of a stable family life.  Evolution will explain anything whatever, so it can't be tested or disproved.  After all, the evidence of Intelligent Design is right there and you assert evolution in the face of it.

Debunking or falsifying parts or even all of a theory is no reason to insert beliefs that cannot be proven.

Why not? That's what Darwin did.  He had no proof of evolution, just an attractive storyline.  He hoped that proof would be forthcoming in the future, but the contrary is the case.  In any case, ID can be proved to anyone who uses normal human standards of proof.  That is, someone who isn't prepared to accept probabilities of the order of 10^-500 or worse for the chance creation of a single protein (there are thought to be about 10^80 atoms in the universe); someone who is not prepared to accept wishful thinking and story spinning as evidence ('evolution' of the eye, for example); someone who will look at an amazingly complex, interdependent system (such as a single living cell) and say that it is beyond the bounds of probability that it could have arisn by chance in a billion billion years, let alone four billion.

There are only two possible accounts of the beginning of the world and of life in the world: it was created, or it arose by itself.  Only one of these can be true.  If it was created, it was clearly by a divine being.  To exclude one of the only two possibilities at the start of the enquiry on bogus philosophical grounds is plain stupid.  Granted, science cannot enquire into God and experiment on him, but it can look at what he has made and how he maintains it.  Even if evolution were a true account of our origin, science could not enquire into it, because no one has the life span necessary to do so.  You can only do science on what you can observe; evolution and creation are about history, which cannot be observed.

What we can observe, however, is the remaining evidence of what happened in the past.  In the present, we observe that there is incredible complexity in individual cells and in biological systems; very many of these have complex interdependencies.  We know that in every other field of enquiry, such complexity and interdependence is an infallible sign of intelligent action.  It is therefore irrational to assert that it is not so in this one area, especially when the alternative theory is unable to offer a detailed explanation but relies instead on hand-waving and the hope that something will turn up in the future.

See my post #6 re: Bile and Vitriol, especially numbers 1,2,..., well, all of them.

Got 'em riled up on the evolution blog; hope Jason didn't swallow his tongue before EMT showed up. I should claim victory and stop now, but this is fun!

I'll put it this way; if you disliked "Definitions", you'll really loathe my next one.  Unfortunately, I'm busy having a life with my family.  I'll get the next one out directly.

Regarding the post prior to this one, I have one year past Masters level; last year was advanced biochem.  Then I decided to change oil and dig ditches for a living rather than be a shrink, a radiologist, a soothsayer or a neo-Darwinian evolutionist.

I haven't yet given up on soothsayer aspiratins, though: do check my Bile and Vitriol post above, then read the evolution blog as Jason goes 6 for 6.  

Peace

*****************

"You do understand English? This isn't that complex".

"Besides, we both know I'm in training to be a cage fighter".

"Who's the only one here who knows illegal Ninja moves from the government?"

"If you wanna use any of my skills, I can do whatever you want".

Napolean Dynamite

To all you redstaters...  please follow the link and read from one of your own.  

Thanks :)

http://nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200508300823.asp

I notice that you did not refute a single point he made.  Your response is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "No it isn't! No it isn't! No it isn't!"  

You are correct in that neither Darwinism in its original form nor neo-Darwinism (also called modern evolutionary synthesis) touched upon the origins of life - that is an entirely different idea, called abiogenesis. While it is true that most who believe in the theory of modern synthesis and common descent also believe in abiogenesis (or possibly panspermia, as the case may be - I think its ridiculous, myself), neither belief necessitates the other. I think it is something that should be made clear in the article. I think the author should also add that Darwinism, while remaining the core of neo-Darwinism, is not the same thing - specifically, Darwin, when he wrote The Origin of Species, did not know about genetics or Mendelian inheritance, which is also part of modern evolutionary theory.

I don't know any biologists who use the term Darwinism.  You may as well call modern physics Einsteinism; while he may have come up with the original stuff, there's so much more known now.

I don't know why people think "microevolution" is so much more different or possible than "macroevolution."  What happens when allele frequencies change over the course of thousands of generations?  Some rather large changes are possible, especially in higher animals where not only the genes themselves, but their regulatory machinery can be manipulated.

Intelligent Design is interesting...but not very fulfilling.  For one thing, no one seems to have a cogent, airtight theory developed around the idea.  All it is right now is a thought, and thoughts are not the domain of any classroom.

And please, people--not only was Darwin not an atheist, he boarded the Beagle an ardent Christian.  Not that it would change the validity of his ideas, if any--but let's shoot for accuracy, eh?

I essentially want to know what you consider to be valid talking points that are outside the arena of "bile and vitriol." Most importantly, are you willing to talk about the specifics of ID, such as how it is falsifiable and observable and how it can be tested using the scientific method? Will this be addressed in your forthcoming entries?

Also, this isn't meant to be an attack, but I cannot imagine what would possess such an intellectual as yourself to include quotes from Napoleon Freakin' Dynamite as a humorous sign-off?

Homunculus wrote:

Big Bang cosmology has eliminated the static universe as an option.  Yet Darwin and most naturalists believed that theory. In fact, even Carl Sagan held tightly to that notion until his death.  Shortly after his death, the Hubble space telescope delivered findings that disproved the premises upon which Sagan believed.

yuk-yuk-yuk... Dude... I dunno where you got this crap from, but you're so gone that you're not even wrong... lol

Don't count the steady state universe out just yet tho... even if it is "quasi" steady-state.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html

You claim that evolution is testable and therefore legitimate, while ID is somehow illegitimate.  

Testability is but one criterion for a valid theory, and maybe not that important.

In the context, that sounds much like an attack to me.  

If stating a fact is an attack, then have it your way.  Are you saying that the fact is wrong?

Your assertion that evolution is testable is also untrue, since no-one has the millions of years to spend in observing it that would be required to validate it.

So, do you believe it is necessary to observe everything before you believe that it happened?  You must be a real catch for jury duty.  

ID states that biological systems show evidence of design and cannot be explained otherwise; evolutionism says there was no design and that all was the result of chance and natural selection.  The two are obviously completely contradictory.  Do you assert that that is not a controversy?

To some people, it certainly is.  However, if it is to you, then you disagree with Michael Behe, the principal ID theorist and proponent, who believes in common descent.

But evolution can't be invalidated.  

Nonsense.  It is a YEC (or ID?) prediction that there should be, somewhere in the world, a Cambrian rabbit.  All you need to do is find it and evolution would be altered beyond recognition.  However, having said that, because of the huge amount of evidence supporting evolution, it would probably take more than one rabbit.

When a new set of circumstances is to be explained, it twists and squirms and asserts the opposite of what was asserted about some other circumstances.  

I love it when YEC/IDists tell me how I, or other scientists would think under certain cicumstances.  Sorry, but in my book, a Cambrian rabbit would be fatal to the theory of evolution.

For example, men are promiscuous so as to spread their genes around; alternatively, men are faithful to their wives because of the evolutionary advantages of a stable family life.  Evolution will explain anything whatever, so it can't be tested or disproved.  After all, the evidence of Intelligent Design is right there and you assert evolution in the face of it.

Sort of irrelevant.  Isn't a theory supposed to explain a set of phenomena?  Shouldn't it explain both promiscuity AND faithfulness?  How does design explain this set of data?

That's what Darwin did.  

Ah, good.  An expert on Darwin.  Glad to meet you.  I'll have plenty of questions later.

He had no proof of evolution, just an attractive storyline.  

Ah!  Well!  THere's your problem: theories are not about proof.  They are about evidence.  The closest we come to 'proof' in science is an abundance of evidence.  Of course, in an absolutist sense, you are correct.  Evolution has not been absolutely proven.  Neither has it been proven that my car will start tomorrow, but I will live with the likelyhood that it will.   Has ID been proven?

He hoped that proof would be forthcoming in the future, but the contrary is the case.  In any case, ID can be proved to anyone who uses normal human standards of proof.  That is, someone who isn't prepared to accept probabilities of the order of 10^-500 or worse for the chance creation of a single protein (there are thought to be about 10^80 atoms in the universe); someone who is not prepared to accept wishful thinking and story spinning as evidence ('evolution' of the eye, for example); someone who will look at an amazingly complex, interdependent system (such as a single living cell) and say that it is beyond the bounds of probability that it could have arisn by chance in a billion billion years, let alone four billion.

What do you think that the chances are that ID will explain the fossil record?  Do you really think chemical reactions are controlled strictly by random chance?

There are only two possible accounts of the beginning of the world and of life in the world: it was created, or it arose by itself.  Only one of these can be true.  If it was created, it was clearly by a divine being.  To exclude one of the only two possibilities at the start of the enquiry on bogus philosophical grounds is plain stupid.  

What about natural processes creating the earth?  You present a false dilemma here.  

Granted, science cannot enquire into God and experiment on him, but it can look at what he has made and how he maintains it.  Even if evolution were a true account of our origin, science could not enquire into it, because no one has the life span necessary to do so.  

So, you say there is no evidence of past events?

You can only do science on what you can observe; evolution and creation are about history, which cannot be observed.

Can we observe the workings of an atom?  Then particle physics cannot be science according to you.  What about archaeology?  Is that not a science?  Do you really want to get into this?

What we can observe, however, is the remaining evidence of what happened in the past.  

Correct. But since we didn't see things happen they have no relvance?

In the present, we observe that there is incredible complexity in individual cells and in biological systems; very many of these have complex interdependencies.  We know that in every other field of enquiry, such complexity and interdependence is an infallible sign of intelligent action.

We do?  Are the orbits of the planets designed?  Is the formation of metamorphic mineral assemblaged designed?  Are climate patterns designed?  Each of these can be incredibly complex and yet I don't see any evidence of design.  Physical laws, sure, but design?

It is therefore irrational to assert that it is not so in this one area, especially when the alternative theory is unable to offer a detailed explanation but relies instead on hand-waving and the hope that something will turn up in the future.

So, just because something is complex beyond our understanding means that it was a supernatural event.   I'm interested in the fact that you agree with primitive religions who ascribed supernatural forces to weather, volcanos and earthquakes.  

I studied science years ago and started reading the ID / evolution debate a while back.  I'm just a regular guy who has made an informed analysis of the argument.  I'm not an academic geek; but I can read with comprehension, something I see is rare amongst the Darwinists around here (hope Thomas doesn't think I'm name-calling using that term; Darwinist, not poor reader).  I've read Dawkins'  nonsense about ID not being science until I'm blue. Saying it a thousand times doesn't make it so.

It's the wanna-be intellectuals on this site that are so cock-sure of their position that is the funny part. To paraphrase doubting Thomas' quote of an apparent founder of this site (are we sure this is a Republican site?), if the quality of dissent on my humble posts are mastery, then I'm Teddy Kennedy.  

You did ask a valid question, so I'll ask you one and see if it answers yours.

In the 1960s, the geologists who believed in the static position of the earth's continents would answer someone holding the position of continental shift in a somewhat similar way as evolutionists answer their critics in ID. They would answer with information that is archaic and founded on flawed fundamentals. Any true insight was hidden by complex gobledegook that boiled down to technical jargon without relevant information. Jah?

Regarding N. Dynamite, my kids keep watching that movie over and over, especially as we have traveled in the Suburban this summer; it is apparent that the dudes I am interacting with on this site are at the right on track to relate to Napoleanisms.  In fact, I thought most of their post-end "insights" were from that movie; I was just emulating them.  Did it really require that much explanation???

One last thought.  What's the difference between the old theory / new theory dynamics between evolution / ID compared to the geological issues of 40 years ago?  The answer is, one big one.  There were no worldview philosophies tied up in the geology issues, except maybe for the geologists.  But Darwinism is about the culture war in our country and world.  Atheism is an untenable philosophical position, held by very few in our country.  It's only hope for validity is in this aspect of evolutionary theory and its firm ahteistic foundations that the true believers are completely dependent upon. Eliminate macro-evolution as the zeitgeist and replace it with ID, and atheism is extinct. That is why the reactions from most of you guys (and especially on the evolution blog) are so violent.  This is not about whether the continents drift, it is about cherished philosophies that impact people in the heart of the soul.  

Today's committed atheists are an emotionally fragile bunch. They react emotionally to the threat ID brings against their personal beliefs.  Yet insight with Darwinists is nonexistant, just as it is with true believers of false religion everywhere. For the Darwinists new facts don't matter, old frauds and flaws are irrelevant, "we've got our story and we're sticking to it".

Good night

PS  nothing worth responding to so far on my new diary; guess they all agree!

"...I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability".  Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets"

Your assertion that evolution is testable is also untrue, since no-one has the millions of years to spend in observing it that would be required to validate it.

It sounds like you do not understand what it means for a scientific theory to be "testable." It is important to know that "testable" does not mean "capable of being proved true." In contrast to mathematics, no scientific theory can be proved true. "Testable" means capable of being proved untrue.

So what does it mean for a theory to be testable? A testable theory must make strong predictions, which can be checked by observation, and which if found incorrect would require rejection of the theory in its current form. Testability derives from a theory's limitations. That is, for a theory to be testable, there must be certain things that cannot happen if the theory is true. For example, Darwinian theory predicts that it is impossible for any two vertebrates to have a radically different genetic code. It predicts that all of the major metabolic enzymes of vertebrates will have DNA sequences that are similar in different species, differing only by the kinds of sequence changes that have been observed to arise by mutation.

There are a huge number of other predictions of Darwinian theory. Indeed, although Darwin did not know of genes or mutations, he predicted that something of the sort would have to exist, because his theory would not work without them. Every time the DNA of an organism is sequenced, it provides a new test of natural selection that has the potential of proving the theory wrong.

At present, there is no scientific theory of ID, in the sense of offering strong tests. For there to be such a theory, it would have to be demonstrated that there are certain things that a creator cannot or would not do. For example, comparing the genetic codes of different species provides a test of natural selection. It does not provide a test of ID, because a creator could reasonably choose to use either the same or different genetic codes for different species. This is what scientists mean when they say that a theory is not "testable."

A theory that is not testable is a scientific dead end, because if it is wrong, you will never find out. It is important to realize that to a scientist, a theory is a tool to guide research. Its value does not reside in its truth, because science is incapable of establishing truth--science can only establish falsity. Thus, science considers only hypotheses that can potentially be shown to be false.

The real reason that creationism was abandoned--and the reason that there are virtually no scientists who use ID in their work--is that they have historically been sterile theories. For decades, all of the great biological discoveries have been made by scientists who used evolution as a tool to guide research. ID remains a sterile theory, precisely because it makes no testable predictions

That is, someone who isn't prepared to accept probabilities of the order of 10^-500 or worse for the chance creation of a single protein (there are thought to be about 10^80 atoms in the universe)

There are a couple of errors here. First, natural selection does not postulate the chance creation of a single protein. Proteins are derived from other proteins by stepwise modification. This gives much higher probabilities. Neither is it true that there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe. The number of atoms in the universe is unknown, and may be infinite. You are probably thinking of the "accessible" or "visible" universe. This merely refers to that part of the universe that is close enough to potentially be observable by us.

If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, then it should stand on its own without even a discussion of evolution.  It seems that all ID "theorists" can do is try to poke holes in evolution.  If you have some emperical evidence of supernatural direction of the development of life, then let's see it.  To say that a supernatural being directed one event or another, without presenting any evidence of this being, is simply not science.  Humanity lacking total knowledge of every physical process in the universe is not proof of "intelligence".  Since Dr. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems are frequently provided as examples of the necessary "design" in the universe, I wonder if ID adherents would accept future understanding of one of these systems as proof of no design in the universe?  If possible when responding to this message, try not to discuss evolution and just explain the evidence for ID.

I tried that tack already.  You're likely to be disappointed.

As Albert Einstein remarked, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

The antagonism between these two spheres of knowledge is well-known, and won't go away anytime soon, but there is hope that an integrated view of them will develop that will mitigate the distrust and suspicion that has necessarily been part of our heritage.

I say necessarily, because all things go through a developmental sequence. Evolutionary theory takes the view that life develops in a series of fits and starts, progressions and regressions, and religious philosophy remarks that the knowledge of good and evil, are both necessary components of the Tree of Knowledge.

The deficits of Darwin have not been surmounted by its adherents. But as a stepping stone to an integrated viewpoint it has served its purpose. Random mutation does not explain the development of wholly new evolutionary phenomena, for the universe seems to follow a more extraordinary pattern, it transcends but includes what went before. The universe is not winding down as some have 'observed.' It is winding up.

The transcendance of what went before is a hallmark of the manifestation of intelligence in the Kosmos. How many mutations would be required for a leg to turn into a wing? Scientific observations and mathematical calculations would lead us to conclude, that the random processes necessary to pull off such a feat simply do not exist. Have you ever observed a sea turtle turn into a flying fish?

Science itself has determined that the random events necessary to evolve inert materials and gases into so much as a single enzyme would take billions times billions of years.

Our universe, as a reminder, is an estimated 12 billion years old. Mathematically, evolutionary design is not plausible.

However, as Ken Wilber points out, this does not mean that creationists can march into this vacuum heralding their own anthropomorphic god as the originator of all that is. They may do so, but it is not necessarily given by the evidence.

(As an aside, in my view, any God worthy of being believed in, would require faith of His subjects, not reason alone, and would therefore never design a Universe in which his children would be incontrovertibly compelled to believe based solely upon physical evidence.)

As another observation, the distinction between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge is that they use differing methods of 'knowing' and unless this is acknowledged, the adherents of these two different viewpoints will continue to talk past each other. Science is the realm of measurement, largely of the physical realm, the physiosphere. It's language is monological. You don't have to converse with anyone else to prove its tenets (for the most part.) You may establish the verity of the physiosphere yourself. You may see its truths with your own eyes, thus knowledge of its realm is accomplished via the eye of flesh.

Religion is the realm of morals, the realm of meaning, in other words, now that we have a physiosphere, and a biosphere, (inert materials and living cells), what do we make of it? What does it mean? Science does not address these issues. It is value-less. A rock is a rock. It does not MEAN anything.

No, the MEANING of a thing is given by a body of knowledge which has transcended the merely this-worldly, it is given, not by the physiospere, nor by the biosphere, but by higher, more transcendent spheres.

Religion then, has a different language, which is dialogical. We establish its knowledge via dialogue. It's tenets cannot be 'proven' via physical world measurements. It's truths are interior, not exterior, thus its truths are apprehended with the eye of mind, or the eye of spirit. Meaning is not given in the material world, it is given in the mental and spiritual realms.

Aldous Huxley spoke of the perennial philosophy, the central core of this planet's wisom traditions, and the Great Chain of Being. It is important to understand the great chain to see how to integrate science and religion.

The essence of the great chain is that the action of the universe is to transcend but include what went before. The biosphere (living entities) transcend but include the physiosphere. The noosphere (thinking minds) transcend but include the biosphere. The theosphere (God) transcends but includes the noosphere.

In all cultures, the chain of being has existed in one form or another. Different layers have been detailed, and sublayers, but the essence of the chain of being is observable in all cultures and all histories, except one, which is found in the story of modern scientific materialism, which for the last few hundred years has pretended that it has the only claim to the truth, and that only science can establish what is Real.

In the 1960s, the geologists who believed in the static position of the earth's continents would answer someone holding the position of continental shift in a somewhat similar way as evolutionists answer their critics in ID. They would answer with information that is archaic and founded on flawed fundamentals. Any true insight was hidden by complex gobledegook that boiled down to technical jargon without relevant information. Jah?

Jah.  But you leave out a few facts.  The drifters came back with incontrovertible evidence, in the usual way of doing science.  The point here is that science is, by necessity, conservative.  There are many reasons for that, both good and bad; but it is the field you have chosen to air your ideas, so you may as well comply with the rules.  And quite whining.  You don't walk into the arena, propose a half-baked idea and call it science; much less call it science superior to the reigning paragigm. That will only buy you derision, and justifibly so.

One last thought.  What's the difference between the old theory / new theory dynamics between evolution / ID compared to the geological issues of 40 years ago?  The answer is, one big one.  There were no worldview philosophies tied up in the geology issues, except maybe for the geologists.  But Darwinism is about the culture war in our country and world.  

Perhaps to some.  But not to most scientists.  Most don't really care what you believe or anyone else believes.  And, believe me, this is not the way to fight your war.  

Atheism is an untenable philosophical position, held by very few in our country.  It's only hope for validity is in this aspect of evolutionary theory and its firm ahteistic foundations that the true believers are completely dependent upon. Eliminate macro-evolution as the zeitgeist and replace it with ID, and atheism is extinct.

So then, you are saying that ID is a religious belief system?  It is rare that a true IDist will admit to this.

That is why the reactions from most of you guys (and especially on the evolution blog) are so violent.  

Not at all.  Perhaps frustrated and incredulous that anyone can so completely reject modern science, but no violence.  At least not from me.  I don't know the evolution blog very well.

This is not about whether the continents drift, it is about cherished philosophies that impact people in the heart of the soul.

Then we agree to disagree.  To me evolution is about the evidence for how things got to be the way they are.  It is not cherished nor is it atheist in nature.  I suppose perhaps you might be talking about other people and I suppose that, in some cases, I might agree with you. But to base your science on wishful supernatural thinking and call it science is pure deception or ignorance.  You will not make any headway in your war by appealing to ignorance and trying to change the way science is done.

One thing to keep in mind is that a scientific theory is primarily a tool for making discoveries. Whether it is true or false (indeed, it is generally assumed by scientists that most theories are wrong, in detail if not in broad outline) is less important for science than its ability to generate productive research. The ability of a theory to generate research progress is closely tied to the number of predictions it makes, because a prediction is something that can be tested observationally.

So there is a kind of selection in science. Scientists that base their research on a good theory that makes a lot of interesting predictions make a lot of discoveries, not merely in the areas directly related to the theory, but in related areas. Their discovery attracts a lot of interest, they write exciting publications that inspires other scientists to use their methods and reasoning. Scientists who base their research on a poor theory that makes few predictions run into dead ends. Nobody wants to follow up their research, because nobody wants to dig in a dry hole. The reason that supernatural theories of origins have been abandoned by virtually all working biologists is that they have turned out to be dead ends. I don't know of a single major biological discovery made in recent decades by a scientist who believes in ID, much less one who uses it in his work.

Indeed, I don't know of any scientist who bases his research on ID theory. The only ID guy with any credibility at all in biology is Behe. He did some OK work in the past--not award winning stuff, but decent craftsmanlike biochemistry--but since he has gotten interested in ID, he hasn't done much of note.  I'm not talking about publications specifically about ID (which might reasonably have difficulty getting published in scientific journals do to bias against ID) but scientific publications of any kind. This is not the sort of thing that attracts others to your research methods.

Philosophically, Darwinism points to an atheistic world view; often called naturalistic atheism.  As such, there is one overriding philosophical premise in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.  It can be summed up with the phrase "Anything But Design".  This means essentially that any naturalistic process is possible to potentially explain the history of life on earth.  The only possible causes that are rejected by Darwinists are those involving the potential for Intelligent Design, or "Anything But Design" (ABD).

It is common for people outside of science to confuse science with atheism, because both seek natural, rather than supernatural, explanations of the natural world. However, they make these assumptions for different reasons, and the philosophical underpinnings are different.

Atheists prefer natural explanations because they have already decided that there is no God.

Scientists have a variety of religious beliefs. The philosophical stance that can be said to go most "naturally" with science is of course agnosticism, but many scientists believe in God. Belief in God is not inconsistent with a scientific approach, and even today many prominent and successful scientists have devout religious beliefs. Belief in God is an obstacle to scientific progress only when a scientist turns to God for explanations. A scientist seeks natural explanations, not because he disbelieves in God, or because he seeks to disprove God, but because supernatural explanations have historically been research dead ends. Scientific progress has always been made by those who were willing to say, "Let's supposed this happened naturally rather than by supernatural intervention; how could it have happened?"

Religious scientists tend to believe that God is very clever, and that it is always a mistake to assume that God was not clever enough to come up with a way of accomplishing something by natural mechanisms. A God who has to micromanage all of the details of his creation is less impressive to a scientist than a God who created a universe that is self-regulating, and that achieves His ends without God having to constantly make adjustments. So to a scientist, discovering that life evolved naturally only increases, rather than diminishes, his estimation of God

A short answer; thanks for a real question.  Dissention in the ranks just doesn't like the answer.

ID doesn't invoke supernaturalism; it invokes the premise that design can be seen emperically and descibed via emperical scientific method.  When I see Mt. Rushmore or Natural Bridge, I can see design and I can see naturalism.  I can also see the difference.  And all but the most naive or indoctrinated can tell the difference between poop and payola.

Evolution says it sees alot of things and says its all naturalism, by use of self-serving "theory" that begs the question and has a prior commitment to a metaphysical world view.

You are a victim of the rhetoric of the evolutionists, all shrilly screaming their common mantra "ID is religion".  It ain't; that is a Darwinian projection.  And remember, a mantra is meant to be meaningless.  This one is.

Gotta go.

When a new set of circumstances is to be explained, it twists and squirms and asserts the opposite of what was asserted about some other circumstances.  For example, men are promiscuous so as to spread their genes around; alternatively, men are faithful to their wives because of the evolutionary advantages of a stable family life.  Evolution will explain anything whatever, so it can't be tested or disproved.

It is a bit like insisting that gravitation is contradictory because it predicts that objects will fall, but also that satellites will remain aloft. The misperception of a contradiction reflects a fairly profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.  What natural selection actually predicts is that when there are large advantages (in terms of reproductive success) of a stable family life, then males will be more likely to remain faithful to their mates than when the advantage is small.

This is a testable hypothesis. One can look at a bunch of different species, measure reproductive success when the mates stay together and when they do not, measure fidelity by genotyping fathers and offspring, and ask whether the predicted correspondence exists. This has led to numerous published studies, another example of the ability of a powerful, testable theory to inspire and direct research.

Regarding whether I think ID is religion:  NO ONE who has studied it thinks it is and I know Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Witt, et al don't thinks so either.

My point is that when you eliminate the old story about your relatives being tree swingers, and people start learning just the facts that are essentially incorntrovertible about the nature of life and universal origins, people will take their own leap in that direction.  Most will not go after Francis Crick's space alien theory (Panspermia).  Most in America will not go Hindu or Muslim.  Most in this country will go Christian; in fact, most will go evangelical Christian, which is the only significant part of Christendom that is significantly growing in the western world.  

And that is the big down side for the liscentious and morally challenged on the secularist / atheist side of the isle.  If science class starts teaching the necessity for a creator by way of the Big Bang theory, or that naturalistic methods cannot possibly explain or anticipate the genesis of original life forms on earth (in other words, Primordial Soup is toast), the culture war is essentially over.  Well, maybe not over, but it will push the secularists /atheists into the closet or turn them into terrorists, politically speaking.  Of course, the Democrat party is already heading that way anyway.  But losing "naturalistic science" as an excuse for "anything goes"   (abortion, same gender marriage, drugs, sex, rock n roll, etc) would be the equivalent of the right losing Limbaugh, Hannity and the Terminator to NAMBLA membership.

Gotta go grill some burgers.  I'll try to reply  more fully later.

Glad you asked

So, do you believe it is necessary to observe everything before you believe that it happened? You must be a real catch for jury duty.

A court is presented with evidence from people who have seen things; speculation about events is not allowed.

To some people [the contradiction between evolutionism and ID is not a controversy.] However, if it is to you, then you disagree with Michael Behe, the principal ID theorist and proponent, who believes in common descent.

The ID theory does not exclude subsequent common descent. But that still leaves the contradiction between evolution (as a general term for the whole naturalist/materialist account of origins) and design, which implies (even if its proponents don't want to think through the implications) that the whole world was created.

For myself, I do not believe in common descent, but in a recent creation.

It is a YEC (or ID?) prediction that there should be, somewhere in the world, a Cambrian rabbit. All you need to do is find it and evolution would be altered beyond recognition.

It doubt that it would be a YEC prediction, because in YEC terms Cambrian as a definition of age is a meaningless term. Flood-model geology treats the Cambrian layer as the layer onto which everything else was dumped from above; therefore it would be unlikely to contain rabbits. (No doubt a flood-model geologist could explain that much better!) If ID'ers accept common descent, as you say, and a long age for the earth, then why should they not accept the supposed progression of creation in line with the commonly-accepted timescale?

Sorry, but in my book, a Cambrian rabbit would be fatal to the theory of evolution.

Not at all. You would just refuse to accept that it was Cambrian. After all, if it is a rabbit, it can't be Cambrian. It must be somehow misplaced, or an outright fraud or the layer is wrongly identified as Cambrian. If it has to be accepted, then you simply tear up the existing phylogenetic charts and make up some new ones.

Sort of irrelevant. Isn't a theory supposed to explain a set of phenomena? Shouldn't it explain both promiscuity AND faithfulness?

If a theory explains any set of circumstances whatever, how can it be falsified?

How does design explain this set of data?

I've no idea; as a Christian, I explain it in terms of the fall and degrees of men's disobedience to God.

...theories are not about proof. They are about evidence. The closest we come to 'proof' in science is an abundance of evidence.

There is plenty of raw data, but when you use it as evidence you apply a whole set of presuppositions to it. Both sides have the same data but apply radically different presuppositions. I consider that to presuppose the non-existence of a creator is foolish; from a Christian point of view, God is the first axiom.

What do you think that the chances are that ID will explain the fossil record?

ID won't successfully explain it, because they accept the long age chronology. From the YEC point of view, the flood explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution.
Do you really think chemical reactions are controlled strictly by random chance?
Chemical reactions are determined, given the presence of the reaction inputs and a specified set of conditions. As I understand it, no-one has yet proposed any set of conditions that could give rise to life without the intervention of a supernatural designer. I am aware that people make claims about self-replicating chemicals; to get life as a starting point for evolution they must describe a likely means for such chemicals to get to the stage where selection can happen, which requires the accurate passing on of characteristics, which is accomplished by a hugely complex sequence of steps which depend on the preexistence of the system to be copied. You couldn't explain that to any jury and get them to believe you, if they employed the same standard of proof as for an ordinary legal case.

[There are only two possible accounts of the beginning of the world.] What about natural processes creating the earth? You present a false dilemma here

Not at all; those natural processes must be part of a system that is either created or self-existent. Thermodynamics prohibits the idea of an infinitely old universe, even if it were to cycle between big bang and collapse numerous times. The fact that complete entropy has not yet been reached demonstrates that the universe is not infinitely old; therefore it had a beginning; having a beginning implies creation.

So, you say there is no evidence of past events?
There is plenty of data; as I said above, it is evidence for either side, depending on their presuppositions. Part of the evidence is God's account of what he did, in the bible. Your presuppositions prevent you from considering that.
I consider that the explanation of the data given by Creation Science guided by the bible is better than that given by evolution.

Can we observe the workings of an atom? Then particle physics cannot be science according to you.
Of course we can; what do you think particle accelerators are built for? and no doubt many other machines I don't know about. All observation is to some extent indirect; even vision is mediated through the transmission of photons to the eye.
What about archaeology? Is that not a science? Do you really want to get into this?
Do you? Archaeology is an example of applying the principles behind the ID theory. You look for evidence of human activity, which are distinguished from irrelevant material by the evidence of human design.

[We know that in every other field of enquiry, such complexity and interdependence is an infallible sign of intelligent action.] We do? Are the orbits of the planets designed?

By God? Yes. In the sense we are using here, no. Orbits are described by equations that are very simple compared to the complexity of life.
Is the formation of metamorphic mineral assemblaged designed?
In the sense of ID, no. There is no specified complexity; even if the mineral is complex, it carries no meaning.
Are climate patterns designed? Each of these can be incredibly complex and yet I don't see any evidence of design. Physical laws, sure, but design?
Again, no. Nor does ID say they are. The patterns carry no meaning. But DNA code is a different kind of thing: it is analogous to words written on paper. The paper (DNA) can contain any words (combinations of base pairs) whatever; their meaning is independent of the material they are fixed in. Further, the meaning is dependent on an agreed semantics, which is another characteristic of intelligence. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's because it is a duck.

So, just because something is complex beyond our understanding means that it was a supernatural event.
You insist on presupposing that nothing exists but the material world; with those blinkers on, you will always miss the more important half of whatever is happening. We do not assume that something is supernatural because it is complex; we assume it first because God tells us so (leave the ID people out of that one) and secondly because what we know about the physical world tells us that it is not just complex but impossible without intelligent intervention.

I'm interested in the fact that you agree with primitive religions who ascribed supernatural forces to weather, volcanos and earthquakes.
Ah - if I agree with some aspect of primitive religions, my arguments don't need to be considered! As to disasters, they have proximate physical causes but everything is under the control of God - "If a city falls, has not the Lord done it?" The whole human race is under the sentence of death for our rebellion against God and to eternal punishment in the lake of fire after death. He offers life and mercy to whomever will receive him, but most don't want him. Events like the recent hurricane are just a foretaste of the disasters that are yet to come.

"God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."
-- C.S. Lewis

It sounds like you do not understand what it means for a scientific theory to be "testable." It is important to know that "testable" does not mean "capable of being proved true." In contrast to mathematics, no scientific theory can be proved true. "Testable" means capable of being proved untrue.

So what does it mean for a theory to be testable? A testable theory must make strong predictions, which can be checked by observation, and which if found incorrect would require rejection of the theory in its current form. Testability derives from a theory's limitations. That is, for a theory to be testable, there must be certain things that cannot happen if the theory is true. For example, Darwinian theory predicts that it is impossible for any two vertebrates to have a radically different genetic code. It predicts that all of the major metabolic enzymes of vertebrates will have DNA sequences that are similar in different species, differing only by the kinds of sequence changes that have been observed to arise by mutation.

That isn't a prediction; it is a description of what is observed. If something different were to be observed, the theory would be altered to compensate.

The idea that all life originates from a single source is the underlying assumption, but I don't at all see why evolution requires that. If life can arise from non-life, why should it not have done so in multiple ways? Or do you assert that only one configuration of chemicals is capable of giving rise to life? I would suggest that if abiogenesis were true, many different forms of first life would have arisen and we should see them now; since we don't, the hypothesis should be discarded.

There are a huge number of other predictions of Darwinian theory. Indeed, although Darwin did not know of genes or mutations, he predicted that something of the sort would have to exist, because his theory would not work without them.

Darwin said that if many transitional forms were not discovered in the fossils, his theory would be invalidated. Such numbers of transitional forms have not been found. If you assert the contrary, please provide numerous specific examples showing features under development; for instance amphibious creatures that are in the line of descent from land mammals to whales, or creatures with a half-developed eye. (I'm sorry if I'm oversimplifying here.)

Every time the DNA of an organism is sequenced, it provides a new test of natural selection that has the potential of proving the theory wrong.

Such as the recent completion of the mapping of human and chimp genomes: it is said to differ by 1.23% in single base pair substitutions (representing about 35 million mutations); in addition there are about 40 million bases present in humans and missing in chimps and another 40 million the other way. So there are about 115 million differences, representing about 40 million mutation events, to be accommodated in about 300,000 generations over 10 million years. That is about 33 mutations per generation. Is this rate of change actually observed? I think not. Does not Haldane's Dilemma show that such a rate of change is not possible even theoretically, let alone in practice?

At present, there is no scientific theory of ID, in the sense of offering strong tests.

I am not an ID scientist, but an obvious test would be to demonstrate a way in which specified complexity could arise without design. (Demonstration is required, not mere story telling.)

For there to be such a theory, it would have to be demonstrated that there are certain things that a creator cannot or would not do. For example, comparing the genetic codes of different species provides a test of natural selection.
Natural selection is accepted by all sides. What is in dispute is the scope over which it can operate. The evidence that it can generate the information required to create a new genus is signally lacking.

It does not provide a test of ID, because a creator could reasonably choose to use either the same or different genetic codes for different species. This is what scientists mean when they say that a theory is not "testable."

As I have shown above, evolution is not testable, because either the tests proposed are not true tests, or unsuccessful tests are ignored.

A theory that is not testable is a scientific dead end, because if it is wrong, you will never find out. It is important to realize that to a scientist, a theory is a tool to guide research. Its value does not reside in its truth, because science is incapable of establishing truth--science can only establish falsity. Thus, science considers only hypotheses that can potentially be shown to be false.
You describe an idea of science that has been deliberately designed to exclude consideration of divine action; it is true that you cannot run experiments on God, but it is not sensible to refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of his action. The object of science should be to look for truth; your definition is actually an acknowledgemnt of the futility of men's trying to live without God.

The real reason that creationism was abandoned--and the reason that there are virtually no scientists who use ID in their work--is that they have historically been sterile theories.
The whole of modern science is founded on the efforts of men who believed in the God who has revealed himself in the bible; men who therefore knew that enquiry into what he hs made was both possible and worthwhile. The assumptions about repeatability that underlie experimental science were laid down by them because they knew that God is faithful and not capricious and that the world could therefore be relied on to keep on operating in the same way, because God is maintaining it.

For decades, all of the great biological discoveries have been made by scientists who used evolution as a tool to guide research.
I don't believe that any real discoveries depended on evolution as a framework; those who make advances in discovering how the world actually works don't need evolutionary theory to do it. In many cases (such as medical theories about posture and back strain) evolutionary ideas have been positively damaging.

ID remains a sterile theory, precisely because it makes no testable predictions.
I wouldn't know what predictions ID makes; since it ignores the true God in favour of a theoretical designer, it will be handicapped. The creation science account of origins, based on the historical record of the bible, should be able to make predictions about the world, on the basis of flood geology for example, that can be tested and confirmed; however, there are still very few people working in the field, so it will no doubt take a long time.

"Most in this country will go Christian; in fact, most will go evangelical Christian, which is the only significant part of Christendom that is significantly growing in the western world."

Have you been reading Jack Chick?

"If science class starts teaching the necessity for a creator by way of the Big Bang theory, or that naturalistic methods cannot possibly explain or anticipate the genesis of original life forms on earth (in other words, Primordial Soup is toast), the culture war is essentially over.  Well, maybe not over, but it will push the secularists /atheists into the closet or turn them into terrorists, politically speaking."

Do you actually support homologizing society like you've just described? Repression like you are implying? That's sick.

Okay, you say that a science class should start teaching that a creator was necessary. Tell me what that curriculum looks like. How does the teacher discuss the subject with the students? How do the students learn about ID?

I took a physics class last year. We were on the topic of light refraction and reflection. The teacher filled a glass beaker with cooking oil, filled another glass beaker with oil, and put the second beaker inside the first one. The first one became invisble to our eyes. Putting it simply, where is ID's equivalent? How do I learn about it in a practical lab setting?

There are a couple of errors here. First, natural selection does not postulate the chance creation of a single protein. Proteins are derived from other proteins by stepwise modification. This gives much higher probabilities.

You have to have a first protein to derive others from it. You need (I understand) a significant number of proteins in order to create one copy of an existing one, let alone a new kind of protein. To create proteins you need amino acids, but they need a mechanism to produce and preserve them; I believe that no one has yet succeeded in producing in the laboratory, by processes assumed to be operating in the primitive earth, all 20 amino acids used by life, nor in proposing any method by which they could come into existence by chance and combine into a protein. You need to look at the initial probabilities, not those in operation after the initial hurdles are overcome.

Furthermore, before you can have anything which is capable of reproducing itself accurately, you need a vast array of proteins and complex machinery to control their interactions. The naturalistic theory of origins requires this to occur by chance. If I proposed that a Boeing 747 was actually assembled by a tornado going through a junk yard, that would be a proposition of equal idiocy...ah, improbability.

Neither is it true that there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe. The number of atoms in the universe is unknown, and may be infinite.
If the number of atoms is infinite, then the universe must be of infinte extent in order to contain them, which would put the big bang theory out of consideration, wouldn't it?
You are probably thinking of the "accessible" or "visible" universe. This merely refers to that part of the universe that is close enough to potentially be observable by us.
The astronomers claim to be able to see objects at the fringe of the expanding universe, objects supposedly 13 billion years old or so. Is that not the case? If they are right about the age of the universe, it obviously follows that they can see say 13/15, or at least a very substantial proportion, of the total universe.

The misperception of a contradiction reflects a fairly profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. What natural selection actually predicts is that when there are large advantages (in terms of reproductive success) of a stable family life, then males will be more likely to remain faithful to their mates than when the advantage is small.

I think that that is not a prediction but a description of what is observed, with a concealed circular argument: how do you decide whether a stable family life is advantageous? It is advantageous when it is being pursued; it it is not then it is not advantageous. How many species were observed to be monogamous or promiscuous to their disadvantage?

(Incidentally, I was only talking about people, not animals.)

This is a testable hypothesis. One can look at a bunch of different species, measure reproductive success when the mates stay together and when they do not, measure fidelity by genotyping fathers and offspring, and ask whether the predicted correspondence exists. This has led to numerous published studies, another example of the ability of a powerful, testable theory to inspire and direct research.

I don't agree that it is a test of the hypothesis; it is a description of what happens, but has no explanatory power because of the concealed circularity of the definitions.

A good test of evolution would be to create a new environment, introduce a population of animals and predict and observe the emergence of a new genus to suit the new environment; however, the timespans involved (if the theory were correct) make that impossible.

Sigh indeed.

This man claims to be sensible and conservative, but either deliberately or ignorantly, he entirely misses the point.

For the last 200 years, a war has been waged between a Christian and an atheist world view; the dominance of the atheist world view in our countries (I'm British) has led to a whole host of evils and our rapid descent into appalling moral decadence.  This is founded on individualist philosphy in the USA and socialism in Britain, both of which deny different parts of God's teaching.  The thing that has carried atheism forward is the support it has been given by supposed scientific knowledge, which is absorbed by children from an early age and undermines what their parents want to teach them.

John Derbyshire thinks that parents ought to take their children to church to teach them their own point of view or homeschool them, but it is very hard to fight against a whole culture.  Most parents don't have sufficient understanding of the issues to do more than deny "scientific" accounts; they are unable to debunk them.  When children want to rebel against God, it is so much easier when they can convince themselves that the bible is wrong.  Let it be quite clear: evolution and Christianity are completely opposed, since if evolution is true, there was never any first human nor fall and salvation is unnecessary and meaningless.  Furthermore, God's word would necessarily be false, since he describes the creation as very good, and the world described by the evolutionary atheist side is definitely not good.

If evolution and ID are honestly compared, most people will be convinced by ID, but there is an intense campaign going on to suppress ID, so as not to threaten the dominance of atheistic thought.  That problem is even worse in Europe than in the USA; because church attendance in Britain is no more than 5% and true biblical belief probably less than 2% of the population.  

(I hit the wrong button there.)

In the last three weeks there have been several articles in The Times, the Guardian and no doubt other British papers attacking ID.  The arguments are weak and mostly rehashing the ones that we are used to seeing on the US side of the Atlantic; but there is no attempt to present the other side.  The British media in general are very much atheist and, I believe, interested in suppressing Christianity.  My impression is that the same is true at least of the wider circulation US papers.

This may be a futile appeal, but we have to realise that we are in the middle of a spiritual battle which is waged by deception and seduction.  The behaviour of some people in New Orleans this last week demonstrates how weak the bonds of civilisation have become as a result of surrender to evil in the government and throughout society.  In America, you have made an idol of the constitution, but you are allowing its interpreters to lead you to destruction.  Here, we don't even have a nominal protection from a constitution, since there is none; only an atheistically inspired Europoean Convention of Human Rights, which is interpreted in favour of atheism and against Christian teaching.

The ideals which provided the foundation for both our countries' freedoms were founded on Chriswtain faith; with that undermined, freedom will soon be lost too.  If you want to avoid that, you need to relaim your constitution from liberal atheistic interpreters; you don't have much time left.

ID is science.  You don't teach it with any religious inference; ID makes no religious comments, just like physics. What is taught is that tightly controlled naturalistic explanations (matter, energy and their interaction only, or "methodological materialism") do not have within their scope the ability to account for complexity in biological systems, including DNA, "cellualar machines", and complex processes like blood clotting, to name a few biological examples.

When teachers demonstrate the enormity of the specific information required for DNA to be DNA, and that it could never self-create from inorganic matter, regardless of environmental conditions (the correct term is "impossible"), and that DNA information looks just like other complex information that is always from an intelligent source, then inquiring minds may ask themselves "who's the intelligent designer".  The correct answer is "science doesn't know".  

Your question is a good one in that it illustrates the lack understanding out there about the the intent of ID.  ID is just good science that let's "nature speak for itself" (Dembski).  Your example about your physics experiment does not apply.  Try the biology example.

You have taken my comments about the implications of teaching ID and debunking Darwinism out of context.  What I am saying is that currently, one of the things that drives young people to an atheistic world view is being taught atheistic naturalism in science class in high school as though it was incontrovertible fact.  Once impressionable students hear that God didn't make man in the Garden of Eden, and that man came from monkeys (that's what the average student will hear), some students move from there and see it as a chance to disavow the religion they have been raised in.  Its not uncommon to see these young people driving around with their "Darwin Intermediates" (the Christian sign of the fish with evolved feet proclaiming "DARWIN") on the rear bumper of their cars.  They have taken an unproven and unprovable theory they learned in science class and turned it into an atheistic world view, just like the neo-Darwinists intended.

Should that science lesson change in the future to one that says "that old theory of macro-evolution with apes and men coming from the same source is really impossible", emperical science understanding will not change too much.  But the culture will change.  The Darwin bumper stickers will become fewer.  And the point I make is, when you start teaching that many aspects of life on earth are demonstrably identical to other types of "information" we observe that only comes from an intelligent source, the students may actually start to think.  And many of them will indeed start thinking about religion.  

I'm just being a soothsayer here; this is what I prophesy.  But I'm not that brilliant; it is the neo-Darwinian establishment that knows of this potential as well, and fears it greatly.  Because the Darwinian establishment has their place of tenure and authority; also great power and don't forget the money.  So this becomes quite quickly politics, man.  

But don't blame ID.  Intelligent Design is just science done the right way, with no ulterior motive but good science, following where the evidence leads. Einstein's theory of General Relativity can be considered an early theory that points to Intelligent Design.  And it changed Einsteins mind from being an atheist to being a Deist after he discovered his theory.  He had to go where the evidence lead him, because Einstein was an honest guy.

But Darwinists don't go where the evidence leads.  They have built a theory on what they want to be the case: macro-evolutionary theory.  Where it falls down, they gloss over by calling it gaps.  When other theories fall down that way, scientists call it "wrong".  

I'm glad you asked.

Thank you.

Am I reading that you support a religious state? Look at all of the historical precedent. Yessir, the Taliban sure was a barrel of fun. And look how well India and Pakistan get along.

"Let it be quite clear: evolution and Christianity are completely opposed, since if evolution is true, there was never any first human nor fall and salvation is unnecessary and meaningless.  Furthermore, God's word would necessarily be false, since he describes the creation as very good..."

Bull**. Any good Christian will tell you that evolution and Christianity are not opposed.

By the way, if God's word is never false, then shouldn't we be living on a flat earth? The Bible contradicts itself so much that it isn't even funny.

You're not even reading God's word. The Bible was A) Written and edited by many different authors over a several-decade span; B) Mostly invented by a barely literate, hallucinating drifter.

"... and the world described by the evolutionary atheist side is definitely not good."

What ills are you willing to blame on atheism? How far does your dogma stretch?

Generally speaking, throwing some asterisks into profanity isn't exactly smiled upon. It is allowed if you are, say, quoting someone else verbatim, but in most cases everyone knows what you are going to say given your current approach, and we try to keep the level of discourse higher than that around here.

If you are simply incapable of making arguments without resorting to schoolyard language, find a thesaurus.

My bad. I knew the rule about profanity. Next time it will be "nonsense" or "poppycock" or "ridiculous"

We appreciate your consideration.

But if you stick to more of the same catch-phrases and buzzwords then the conversation is pointless.

ID is science.  You don't teach it with any religious inference; ID makes no religious comments, just like physics. What is taught is that tightly controlled naturalistic explanations (matter, energy and their interaction only, or "methodological materialism") do not have within their scope the ability to account for complexity in biological systems, including DNA, "cellualar machines", and complex processes like blood clotting, to name a few biological examples.

Throughout history people have criticized science because it tries to answer the "unanswerable".  Science has made tremendous strides in understanding DNA in the past 50 years but there is certainly far more to learn.  But to suggest that cellular systems are beyond our understanding is sophistry.

What I am saying is that currently, one of the things that drives young people to an atheistic world view is being taught atheistic naturalism in science class in high school as though it was incontrovertible fact.  Once impressionable students hear that God didn't make man in the Garden of Eden, and that man came from monkeys (that's what the average student will hear), some students move from there and see it as a chance to disavow the religion they have been raised in.

So you are arguing that since evolution allegedly promotes people to turn away from Christianity that means it should not be taught?  

Should that science lesson change in the future to one that says "that old theory of macro-evolution with apes and men coming from the same source is really impossible", emperical science understanding will not change too much.  But the culture will change.  The Darwin bumper stickers will become fewer.  

So here we are at the crux of the matter.  You don't really care about the science.  You care about the cultural issues at hand.  The science is irrelevant to you.

Intelligent Design is just science done the right way, with no ulterior motive but good science, following where the evidence leads. Einstein's theory of General Relativity can be considered an early theory that points to Intelligent Design.  And it changed Einsteins mind from being an atheist to being a Deist after he discovered his theory.  He had to go where the evidence lead him, because Einstein was an honest guy.

So explain to us how Intelligent Design explains that our DNA is 99% the same as a mouse?  How does it explain For 99% of the history life on this planet mankind didn't exist?  

That isn't a prediction; it is a description of what is observed. If something different were to be observed, the theory would be altered to compensate.

The commonality of the genetic code was a prediction before it was observed. So for those that have been checked, it is a confirmed predition. Even today, not every species has had its DNA sequenced, so for those that have not, it remains a prediction. Every time that a new gene is sequenced, it is an additional test of natural selection.

I am not an ID scientist, but an obvious test would be to demonstrate a way in which specified complexity could arise without design.

That is a test of natural selection, not a test of ID. Finding that complexity could occur without design would not prove that it was not designed, so such a result would not disprove ID. The challenge is to describe a prediction of ID that can be tested by observation. Care to try again? Don't be disappointed if you can't. Even the few who call themselves ID scientists have been unable to do so.

Oh, and by the way, computer simulations have demonstrated that randomization/selection algorithms based on natural selection can generate complexity.

Darwin said that if many transitional forms were not discovered in the fossils, his theory would be invalidated. Such numbers of transitional forms have not been found.

And in agreement with Darwin's prediction, a large number of transitional forms have been found since his time. Note that Darwin never predicted that every transitional form would be found. Indeed, natural selection predicts that many intermediates will have existed in such small numbers that the likelihood of a fossil example being found is close to zero. So the absence of particular transitional fossils is much less of a problem for natural selection than the continual discovery of new intermediates (generally one or two new ones every year) is for ID

Such as the recent completion of the mapping of human and chimp genomes: it is said to differ by 1.23% in single base pair substitutions (representing about 35 million mutations); in addition there are about 40 million bases present in humans and missing in chimps and another 40 million the other way. So there are about 115 million differences, representing about 40 million mutation events, to be accommodated in about 300,000 generations over 10 million years. That is about 33 mutations per generation. Is this rate of change actually observed?

Easily. Based on mutation rates, each individual in a population can be expected to have one or two mutations on average. In a population of millions, each individual having one or two mutational differences, 115 million over 300,000 generations is nothing.

Natural selection is accepted by all sides. What is in dispute is the scope over which it can operate. The evidence that it can generate the information required to create a new genus is signally lacking.

Gene sequencing studies have found that at the genetic level, differences between species and genuses are of the same kind that occur as a result of natural selection. This constitutes such evidence. Occam's Razor says that one selects the simplest hypothesis until it is disproved. It is certainly simpler to have one mechanism of change than two--especially when it all looks like the same mechanism at the genetic level. So the burden of proof is on those who wish to argue that an additional mechanism is required. So far, they have failed to offer such evidence.

You describe an idea of science that has been deliberately designed to exclude consideration of divine action; it is true that you cannot run experiments on God, but it is not sensible to refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of his action. The object of science should be to look for truth; your definition is actually an acknowledgemnt of the futility of men's trying to live without God. Throughout the history of science, the supernatural has been a dead end; progress has always been made by those who said, "Let's assume that this is natural. If it is, how would it work."  Those who said "We've reached the end of science, beyond this point is God" found themselves at a scientific dead end.

No, science doesn't work by looking for truth. That is the domain of philosophy and religion. Science works by eliminating error. Thus, only those ideas that can potentially be shown to be erroneous are the domain of science. A testable wrong idea is better--for the purposes of science--than an untestable true idea.

The whole of modern science is founded on the efforts of men who believed in the God who has revealed himself in the bible

And many scientists so believe today. What they don't do is turn to God for explanations of natural phenomena. Religious scientists believe that one should never presume to assume that God wasn't clever enough to come up with a natural way of achieving something without resorting to supernatural intervention.

The assumptions about repeatability that underlie experimental science were laid down by them because they knew that God is faithful and not capricious and that the world could therefore be relied on to keep on operating in the same way, because God is maintaining it.

And fundamentally, this excludes the supernatural, which by definition is capricious and outside the normal rules of nature.

I don't believe that any real discoveries depended on evolution as a framework; those who make advances in discovering how the world actually works don't need evolutionary theory to do it.

Evolution is as basic to biology as addition is to mathematics. Every biologist I know (and I've met quite a few of the greats) uses evolution routinely as a tool to think about biology and design experiments. I certainly do, and I work in an area of biology that is not directly related to evolution.

I wouldn't know what predictions ID makes; since it ignores the true God in favour of a theoretical designer, it will be handicapped. The creation science account of origins, based on the historical record of the bible, should be able to make predictions about the world, on the basis of flood geology for example, that can be tested and confirmed; however, there are still very few people working in the field, so it will no doubt take a long time.

Flood-based notions of geology did make predictions--wrong ones. Which is why flood geology had been essentially abandoned even before  Darwin came along. That's why there are very few people in the field--anybody with any sense left long ago.

You have to have a first protein to derive others from it. You need (I understand) a significant number of proteins in order to create one copy of an existing one, let alone a new kind of protein. To create proteins you need amino acids, but they need a mechanism to produce and preserve them

Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life--it is a theory of how life has changed once it existed. There are theories of the origin of life, but no one that is well accepted or that has strong evidence comparable to that for evolution.

If the number of atoms is infinite, then the universe must be of infinte extent in order to contain them, which would put the big bang theory out of consideration, wouldn't it?

No. An infinite universe can still have a big bang. The big bang requires expansion from high density, not from a finite size. The universe is infinite in a number of cosmological theories.

The astronomers claim to be able to see objects at the fringe of the expanding universe, objects supposedly 13 billion years old or so. Is that not the case? If they are right about the age of the universe, it obviously follows that they can see say 13/15, or at least a very substantial proportion, of the total universe.

No. Because of the speed of light, we see the light that left distant stars far in the past. At a great enough distance, all that we can see is the big bang itself. That doesn't mean that there aren't stars beyond that point now--only that the time since the big bang has not been long enough for their light to reach us. Moreover, because of the expansion of the universe, light from stars that are sufficiently far away will never reach us. These limits define the "visible universe," which is what astronomers generally mean when speaking of the "size" of the universe. Not all that there is; only all of it that we can see from here.

Am I reading that you support a religious state? Look at all of the historical precedent. Yessir, the Taliban sure was a barrel of fun. And look how well India and Pakistan get along.

Not to mention John Calvin's Geneva, or the Catholic countries under the Inquisition.

No, I don't. But there is a vast difference between a government and society founded on a broad acceptance of Christian faith and one founded on atheism. The latter is what we increasingly have, and it is not a pretty sight.

"Let it be quite clear: evolution and Christianity are completely opposed, since if evolution is true, there was never any first human nor fall and salvation is unnecessary and meaningless. Furthermore, God's word would necessarily be false, since he describes the creation as very good..."

Any good Christian will tell you that evolution and Christianity are not opposed.

It would help if you had a better understanding of these things. A good Christian is, among other things, one who obeys God ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments") and has the mind of Christ, who certified all the biblical account ("The scripture cannot be broken.") A good Christian is not defined as someone who goes along with the majority without thinking.

By the way, if God's word is never false, then shouldn't we be living on a flat earth? The Bible contradicts itself so much that it isn't even funny.

Such statements show that you don't actually know the bible well, if at all, and that you have picked up a load of atheistic claptrap from others with the same lack of knowledge.

You're not even reading God's word. The Bible was A) Written and edited by many different authors over a several-decade span;

About 1500 years, actually. It is no problem at all to the infinite creator to ensure that what his chosen men wrote was what he wanted written, while at the same time preserving their own individuality.

B) Mostly invented by a barely literate, hallucinating drifter.
Again, this shows your abysmal ignorance. If you want not to be taken for a complete fool, you should think about what you say before exposing yourself to contempt.

"... and the world described by the evolutionary atheist side is definitely not good."

What ills are you willing to blame on atheism? How far does your dogma stretch?

Just as far as God says.

I greatly thank you for your rapid response, however, I believe you left a few questions unanswered?  

You explained that design could be observed in viewing Mt. Rushmore, which I can understand since men have created many statues in history and Mt. Rushmore would certainly be an example.  I'm not sure this method of observation could be considered "empirical" or "scientific", but we will set this issue aside for now.  How would someone see design in other objects such as a frog or leopard, which are not so obviously created by humans?

I'm sorry for having made the assumption that Intelligent Design refers to a supernatural intelligence.  What forms of natural intelligence are you referring to?  I'm sure these forms of intelligence can be empirically studied to determine their effect on nature.  If there is another form of intelligence that I have regretfully forgotten, aside from natural and supernatural, then please inform me of its existence.  

Your omission of any response to my question about "irreducible complexity" I assume is merely due to a lack of time to commit to it at that moment.  I would appreciate you addressing this though.  I believe it's a fair question about a topic in which ID theorists place great significance.  I'll repeat it here again...

Since Dr. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems are frequently provided as examples of the necessary "design" in the universe, I wonder if ID adherents would accept future understanding of one of these systems as proof of no design in the universe?  

Once again, if possible when responding to this message, try not to discuss Evolution and just explain the evidence for ID.  If its truly a scientific theory, then discussions of Evolution should in no way be relevant to the validity of Intelligent Design.

"For one thing, no one seems to have a cogent, airtight theory developed around the idea.  All it is right now is a thought, and thoughts are not the domain of any classroom."

This is why the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the most prominent voice for ID, does not advocate teaching ID in classrooms.  The field of study is too new to present to school kids.

I think that that is not a prediction but a description of what is observed, with a concealed circular argument: how do you decide whether a stable family life is advantageous?

"Advantageous" in natural selection boils down to reproductive success. So you do it by measuring the fraction of offspring that survive when the mates stay together and compare it to the fraction of offspring that survive when they do not. It's a simple, quantitative measurements, with no circularity whatsoever.

There is already quite a bit of evidence to support this prediction, but it has certainly not been checked for all species, so it cannot be dismissed as a mere "description of what happens." There is plenty of room for more studies to test this particular prediction of natural selection. Of course, the motivation for such studies is because of the predictions of evolutionary theory, another example of how a testable theory leads to increases in scientific knowledge.

A good test of evolution would be to create a new environment, introduce a population of animals and predict and observe the emergence of a new genus to suit the new environment; however, the timespans involved (if the theory were correct) make that impossible.

An impractical experiment is obviously not a good test. Fortunately, there are many, many predictions of natural selection that can readily be tested (we're still waiting for the ID guys to come up with one).

It is notable that creationists used to demand evidence of emergence a new species, but there are so many examples of that now that they seem to have upped the ante to a new genus. I imagine that eventually they will be demanding a new phylum....

Darwinism as a movement has been demonstrated to use all naturalistic explanations to maintain its position.

Actually, it is science that seeks natural explanations. The fact that natural selection is an example of a natural explanation is one of the things that qualifies it a scientific theory, as opposed to a philosophical idea or religious doctrine.

you said --How would someone see design in other objects such as a frog or leopard, which are not so obviously created by humans?

As I posted somewhere else around this convoluted site (they need to prioritize "new" comments), the "how would?" is the theoretical firing line of ID.  Dembski is working on the equations.  Although I dislike using this example, the people at SETI ("earth to Dr. Crick") have used the example of a signal of prime numbers would give conclusive evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence: design. Being a layman and not a scientist (just a former science student that got carried away for a year or two), I can't tell you Dembski's process; go ask him on his site.  I understand he'll respond from time to time.

I know Behe will; I've spoken with him (e-mail) and I'm sure he can speak for himself.  But your IC question is skirting the issue.  My post is about problems in Darwinism (Teach the Controversy).  IF the Lord Jesus Himself appeared to you in person, walked on water and changed some into Pinot Noir, and then stated clearly that Genesis is 100% accurate, would you change your mind?

"...I'd like to call him somethin'; think I'll just call it a day."  Alan Jackson / "It's Five O'clock Somewhere"

IF the Lord Jesus Himself appeared to you in person, walked on water and changed some into Pinot Noir, and then stated clearly that Genesis is 100% accurate, would you change your mind?

I would be shocked that Jesus would make such a statement, seeing as how it is impossible for Genesis to be completely correct when it contradicts itself on creation itself. There are numerous contradictions throughout the Bible.

I would then befriend Jesus because free wine is awesome... but is it sinful to drink it? So much to weigh on the issue...

You're inviting threadjack. This is a stupid enough debate to have on a political site. Let's not make it any more mud-intense.

(which I agree) then why are so many political leaders  Bush, Frist, and McCain weighing in on it?

As long as they do it is a political topic.  And certain people are their idoelogical children.

Stupid and inappropriate.

«Science itself has determined that the random events necessary to evolve inert materials and gases into so much as a single enzyme would take billions times billions of years.

Our universe, as a reminder, is an estimated 12 billion years old. Mathematically, evolutionary design is not plausible.»

I'm not sure where this obseveration comes from.  In any case, I think it underestimates exactly what 12 billion years looks like.  12 billion year is a very, very long time.

The underlying difficulty in this debate, it seems to me, is the failure to appreciate the particularities of sciences as a discourse.  As a student of the humanities who started out in the sciences--the so-called hard sciences--I have no problem admitting the fundamental philosophical differences between science and religious discourse.  On the other hand, I do have trouble with religion that is passed off as science.

Science has its own assumptions, foremost of which is the idea that the natural phenomenon can be explained by natural explanations.  ID relies on a supernatural explanation, ie. that some supernatural being created the universe, or man, or whatever.  There is no way to disprove a theory that resorts to supernatural expanations since by definition such theories rely on explanations that go beyond what is available to empirical explanation.  There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it is not science, it is something else.  

To state over and over again the limitations of macroevoluation as a "theory" of the origin of life does not change this basic fact.  The theory may be flawed, it may have limitations, but it is still a scientific theory precisely because it takes as its point of departure the underlying premise of all science that nature begets nature.

Now does this mean that theories based on the idea of a original creator are wrong?  To me this seems to be a misdirected question.  ID assumes that a supernatural being--i.e. God--created life.  To the extent that that is true, it is not a scientific assertion any more, rather one that asserts what I would call the "end of science", that is, the place where science doesn't function as a meaningful discourse anymore, since it has been superseded by explanations that are "by definition" not scientific.  

I think most scientist are reluctant to engage in this debate because it has nothing to do with what they do.  Some scientists believe in God, some do not. But as scientists, those questions are not part of their professional life, but rather part of their spiritual life.  

In any case, this debate, like the debate over global warming, will be decided by future generations when the scientific evidence for evolution has either confirmed the assertions of macroevolution or not.  In the meantime, I guess I don't see why people get so worked up over the issue.  

 Furthermore, I'm not sure that I buy the cynical argument that the scientific mainstream is trying to deny the ID crowd equal time.  In any case, how do you prove that God or any other supernatural being created life?  I'm still waiting for an answer on this one and have yet to see it.  If anyone has an ingenous experiment to show this to be true and has done the research, I'd love to see it.  As it is, all I read about are the flaws of evolution.  But disproviing one theory is not the equivalent of proving one's own theory.

Evolution as random mutation and natural selection has been studied scientifically for a couple centuries.  Intelligent Design, if by that we mean controlled change and artificial selection, has been observed and employed for several thousand years.  The first farmers and husbandmen began it, Mendel and Burbank used it and we are getting very close to the point where we can effect it on demand in the lab.  Homunculus erred when he counted the Cockapoo as an example of evolution as commonly understood.  Every breed of dog, from Irish Wolfhound to Chihuahua, is the result of careful directed mutation and isolation to prevent natural selection.  I would suggest that most Biologists use ID, not random mutation and natural selection, in their scientific experiments.

The primary flaw in evolution is the assumption that there is unlimited time for random mutations to produce an observed result.  If the fabled troop of monkeys has not yet produced the works of Shakespere, undoubtedly they will eventually.  However, our scientific observation of the introduction of a single new species into an environment suggests that there is a very limited time to produce a so-called "balance-of-nature."  My favorite example is the Woodpecker, with substantial differences from other birds in bill, skull, brain, neck muscles and feet, none of which, alone or in less than complete combination, contribute to survival.  Let's assume that hard-bark trees have appeared on Earth, followed shortly thereafter by insects that feed under the bark.  Now can we calculate the likelihood of those five specific mutations occurring simultaneously and randomly to one among the small flock of birds occupying that particular forest in the time period before the bugs eat all the trees?  Is it roughly the same as the likelihood that three people chosen at random will have the same results on DNA tests?  If you don't like that one pick your own "balance-of-design" and figure the probability.  The derivation of the dung beetle is left to the readers' imagination.

We know, post-hoc, that bisexuality is highly favorable for survival of the species.  But, can some evolution genius explain to me how, in the vast primordial goo composed of unicellular, asexual or even hermaphroditic organisms, the first randomly mutated bisexual organism exhibited superior survival?  And, by the way, was it male or female?

The title of your post suggests that you are going to discussthe scientific basis for intelligent design.  But the content of your post merely attempts to debunk macroevolution.  Fair enough, but as I said in my previous post, where is the alternative scientific evidence of inteligent design?  I'm very interested to hear about it as it would revolutionize the discipine of science as we know it...

Without even knowing the specifics of a woodpecker's anatomy, I can tell you that the chances of the evolution of another species of bird towards a woodpecker are more than acceptable. I saw it stated earlier that 33 mutations per generation of a species in a population of millions is an easy matter to attain. What trouble is five mutations?

One species of bird is born with the requisite mutations (or maybe not even all of them). These mutations give the bird an advantage over others of its species. It has more success breeding with other birds and it doesn't take long for the woodpecker to emerge as its own clearly defined species.

I am not a biologist, and the way I wrote that, I certainly don't look it, but the theory goes back to the most basic tenet: natural selection.

The evolution vs. Intelligent Design?  Or the your religion is wrong because....?

For myself, I am referring to evolution vs. Intelligent Design.  I have nothing against anyone's religion, unless they dress it up in a white coat but a slide rule in it's pocket and say it's science.

Homunculus...it seems you are unwilling to answer some simple questions about Intelligent Design. I reread you article and it seems you make repeated claims about the scientific validity of ID throughout it.

My question about irredicible complexity I beieve is one of many questions at the heart of the debate. For ID to be considered science, falsifiable conclusions must be presented and then tested. The question below is a simple example:

Since Dr. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems are frequently provided as examples of the necessary "design" in the universe, I wonder if ID adherents would accept future understanding of one of these systems as proof of no design in the universe?

If members of the ID community are not willing to engage their beliefs scientifically then they should find a new forum to express those beliefs.

If you feel you are not qualified (since you either avoid questions or redirect me to other people) to address these issues, then maybe you should refrain from writing articles on the subject until you are better prepared to continue discussion.

To answer your question:

IF the Lord Jesus Himself appeared to you in person, walked on water and changed some into Pinot Noir, and then stated clearly that Genesis is 100% accurate, would you change your mind?

Yeah I definitely would! I might not necessarily believe the bible is 100% accurate, but I certainly would be swayed that the individual in front of me was supernatural in some way.

Now maybe I've misjudged you and you indeed are serious about this subject. If so, then please answer some basic questions about ID and present some basic evidence for the belief.

I've never had a discussion with Dr. Dembski, however, I've heard Dr. Behe lecture many times in the past....I'm a former student of his.

***sorry, forgot to add line breaks***

Homunculus...it seems you are unwilling to answer some simple questions about Intelligent Design. I reread you article and it seems you make repeated claims about the scientific validity of ID throughout it.

My question about irredicible complexity I beieve is one of many questions at the heart of the debate. For ID to be considered science, falsifiable conclusions must be presented and then tested. The question below is a simple example:

Since Dr. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems are frequently provided as examples of the necessary "design" in the universe, I wonder if ID adherents would accept future understanding of one of these systems as proof of no design in the universe?

If members of the ID community are not willing to engage their beliefs scientifically then they should find a new forum to express those beliefs.

If you feel you are not qualified (since you either avoid questions or redirect me to other people) to address these issues, then maybe you should refrain from writing articles on the subject until you are better prepared to continue discussion.

To answer your question:

IF the Lord Jesus Himself appeared to you in person, walked on water and changed some into Pinot Noir, and then stated clearly that Genesis is 100% accurate, would you change your mind?

Yeah I definitely would! I might not necessarily believe the bible is 100% accurate, but I certainly would be swayed that the individual in front of me was supernatural in some way.

Now maybe I've misjudged you and you indeed are serious about this subject. If so, then please answer some basic questions about ID and present some basic evidence for the belief.

I've never had a discussion with Dr. Dembski, however, I've heard Dr. Behe lecture many times in the past....I'm a former student of his.

Your example of the woodpecker is not a very good one.  

The trees, insects, and birds all evolve on their own pace. If the trees start to develop bark, for whatever reason, the insects eventually learn how to use that bark as protection against birds.  Birds, eventually, learn how to get around that bark defense.  This can take millions of years.  

A flaw in the irreducible complexity theory is that there is some sort of Adam and Eve for every species.  The truth is that there are MANY Adams & Eves.  

...and making a rhetorical comment when Fred made his fishy comment.  His reply proved my point.  This is just flashy debate technique, Thomas.  

I really did appreciate the comment; it illustrates that Fred knows more than God. When I was an undergrad the door on the psych department had a sign on it that said "psychologists know everything".  I see now that they were wrong; neo-Darwinian atheist evolutionists are the ones that know everying. See, I told you Darwinism is a religion!  Bet fishyfred has footed fishy on the back of his Toyota hybrid.  Good for him!

Talk about barrel fish shooting...

Google "rope-a-dope"...

"...For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie..." 2 Thessalonians 2:11

"...pour me somethin' tall and strong, make it a hurricane before I go insane"  A. Jackson / J. Buffett

"...I bet you think this song is about you"  C. Simon

If you've studied under Behe, then tell us what the flaws in IC are; I've just read 'Darwins Black Box' once, as well as critiques from both sides, and Michael's follow up. But again, the bottom line, which is a foundation of this current debate, is that Darwinism is flawed foundationally and many other ways that many brilliant scientists think significantly degrade the theory as valid science.

I cannot say it is all bad; I'm saying that your side thinks it is "settled science, like gravity".  Well, it ain't.  At least, there are hundreds of really well educated scientists that do not think it is so.  Furthermore, the behavior of the old guard looks like the behavior of people who have something to hide; including claiming "there is no controversy" regarding macro-evolution.

Before Rush Limbaugh's program, there was no significant controversy to the "news" as it was presented by the MSM.  Rush, and the many that followed, demonstrated there is controversy.  Controversy has now hit the science classrooms.  There are legitimate discenting voices.  Rush was demonized without mercy by the left when he started, and still is.  But Rush is often right.  And when the history books are written, Rush will be in them; his detractors will be a footnote.  The controversy with ID begins with the controvery about evolution.  This controversy is relatively new; the first shots are being fired.  We'll see where it goes.

Final point:  how is neo-Darwinian theory able to give critique to other, more emperical scientific observations if it cannot clean its own house and become emperical?  And guys way smarter than me (Dembski) say methodological materialism begs the question, and it certainly does by any definition of the term, so how in the world can you use a flawed measure to measure something else?

Or to paraphrase Someone else far more insightful:  "...first take the beam out of your own eye so you can see to take the beam out of your brother's eye."

Gotta go for now.  WORK!

having a beginning implies creation

I am not a scientist, but I know that an inference does not an implication make.

You say that ID is not a religious theory, yet you also say that without evolutionary theory, atheism will fall. ID seems to be exclusive to closet Christians, yet I believe the most recent study showed that 30% of people in the life sciences believe in some sort of higher power. You claim that there is no religious connection with ID, although individuals may hold their own beliefs, yet you seem to (contradictorily) that the 'other side' is composed of atheists. Consistency and clarity is the key to winning people over to your side.

Brilliant

It seems as though nemevoso did not understand what he read.  In simple terms, every dog breeder throughout history was conducting a scientific experiment using ID to produce the specific characteristics he was after.  He did not wait for a pack of canus canus to produce by chance the characteristics he wanted.  He used intelligence to select the breeding pairs and kept them and their progeny isolated (not natural selection) until the desired characteristics were reproducible (essential for science.)  A different breeder can follow his procedure and replicate the results (another essential of science.)  Whether it is a botanist looking for a new color rose or a virologist investigating a specific virus, the one thing they don't do is watch for random changes in the entire population and wait for natural selection to determine survival.  If nemevoso is looking for a scientific proof of the origin of life let me state categorically that a unique event cannot, by definition, be replicated, so science cannot handle it.

The woodpecker story was intended to demonstrate that there are neither millions of years (flyerhawk) nor millions of birds (FishyFred) available to produce the essential woodpecker characteristics.  If the characteristics had occurred in a flock of penguins or a flock of seagulls on a palm island, they would not have survived.  Had they occurred in a hard-bark forest before the introduction of under-bark insects they would not have survived.  They are survival characteristics only if they occur before the bugs kill all the trees.  If we observe the behavior of rabbits in Australia, Kudzu in the South, etc., we can estimate the time limits to be a few centuries or a few thousand years at most.

FishyFred should forget biology and brush up on statistics.  It's not just any five mutations occurring within a flock in a generation, but five specific mutations occurring in the same egg, otherwise they do not contribute to survival.  With some reasonable assumptions I can get you started.  The probability of 33 mutations in a flock of millions in a generation means a probability of 1 in ten that a flock of 10,000 would produce a random mutation in any one year.  But we're looking for five specific mutations out of how many possible mutations of bird genes.  Someone said that the chimp and the human are different in about 10^8 ways.  Let's say there are about 10^8 possible bird mutations.  Then the probability that the first random mutation is one that we want is 5*10^-8.  We need a second specific mutation to occur to the same egg--probability (4*10^-8)*(10^-5).  We carry this out and the likelihood that we get a single woodpecker in a single year is about 10^-59.  Give us 10,000 years and the probability is still 10^-55.  Then we have the bisexuality thing to worry about.  Unless each of the mutations produces a dominant genetic trait (highly unlikely,) we have to consider producing a female for Woody to find among the flock of 10,000.  Are you getting the point?  Random mutation just won't hack it.  Flyerhawk calls it Adams and Eves for each species.  (In familiar shorthand, "Male and female created He them.")

On the other hand, considering that even limited human intelligence produces wide structural variations within a species, and genetic manipulation by humans has begun to demonstrate trans-species desired physical characteristics (fish genes make corn rust resistant,) Occam's razor begins to find the theory of ID quite attractive.  Remember we had the theory of the ether in space as a means to explain how light traveled through space.  It was replaced with something better as we learned.  Let's use random mutation where useful for micro-evolution, use ID where it explains macro-evolution, and hope someone comes along with a better theory that explains everything.  We already use both the wave theory and the particle theory of light while we await the unified field theory.  They are both accepted scientific theories within their limits.

The woodpecker story was intended to demonstrate that there are neither millions of years (flyerhawk) nor millions of birds (FishyFred) available to produce the essential woodpecker characteristics.  If the characteristics had occurred in a flock of penguins or a flock of seagulls on a palm island, they would not have survived.  Had they occurred in a hard-bark forest before the introduction of under-bark insects they would not have survived.  They are survival characteristics only if they occur before the bugs kill all the trees.  If we observe the behavior of rabbits in Australia, Kudzu in the South, etc., we can estimate the time limits to be a few centuries or a few thousand years at most

Except that hard bark trees didn't become universal overnight and bugs hiding in the bark didn't either.    

I'm not certain what your rabbit comparison is supposed to suggest.  Let's not forget that the woodpecker may have developed their unique characters well before they needed them.  Not because of natural selection but as a byproduct of natural selection.  So when hard bark and the insects that live under the bark came around the woodpecker was uniquely ready for them.

Oh, cummon.  The woodpecker would starve to death if he tried to eat worms in competition with robins.  He is uniquely suited only for what he was designed for, preying on sub-bark insects.  If there were no sub-bark insects he would promptly go extinct.  I don't know what you mean by "byproduct of natural selection."  It either competes successfully for food or it dies.

"The probability of 33 mutations in a flock of millions in a generation means a probability of 1 in ten that a flock of 10,000 would produce a random mutation in any one year."

Stop. That is not the probability of a random mutation. Every individual creature has a few mutations of its own. Most of these mutations will not manifest in a visible form, but some do, and those that improve an animal's chance of survival will be passed on to the next generation... and life goes on.

A court is presented with evidence from people who have seen things; speculation about events is not allowed.

Nonsense.  Where have you been for the last decade?  Who actually saw DNA at a crime scene?  Not all evidence is from people who 'saw things'.

And why are expert witnesses called at trials?  Do you think that they do not speculate?  Do you not think that evidence needs to be interpreted?  Do you not call such interpretation 'speculation'?

And what do you think science does if not present evidence?  And just why is the disallowance of speculation so important?  Is speculation not necessary in making scientific progress?  

I will not respond to the rest of your post.  In fact, I have not even read it.  If it makes as much sense as the first paragraph, then you really need to work on your understanding of science and logic before I can put much energy into this.

According to evolutionists all mutations are random, i.e., they are not selected or directed by any operating force.  If "Every individual creature has a few mutations of his own," then a flock of millions would produce tens of millions of "mutations" each generation.  You are confusing the distinctive characteristics that make DNA unique to each individual with a mutation that, by definition, affects an inheritable trait.  I may have made the same error in attempting to estimate the total number of potential inheritable characteristics of a bird.  If anyone has a better number, let me know.  

In a world governed purely by chance, most mutations, including most potentially beneficial mutations, would be submerged by the more common traits.  How many red or blue starlings do you see in a flock of thousands?  In biological statistics there is a "tendency toward the norm" which means, e.g., that the progeny of very tall or very short parents are likely to be less far from average for their cohort than are their parents.  This suggests that only the most extreme survival benefits under the most severe threats to survival would enable a characteristic to emerge from extreme minority status to dominance in a large population.

You keep refering to Intelligent Design as "empirical science" and evolution as not being empirical. Where is all this experimental evidence for Intelligent Design? What conclusions can you draw or knowledge can be gained from this "science"? I'm aware that ID advocates don't take a stand on who or what the designer is, however, without doing so they remove themselves from a scientific discussion. The designer could be a frog, a rock, the Tooth Fairy, a ghost, FSM, or Jesus. Each would be equally likely possibilities. Really you could make up just about anything to fill the many gaps in our knowledge about the universe.

IC cannot be an argument unless you are willing to accept that the argument crumbles with just one example of an exception. I was trying to allude to this earlier...

Since Dr. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems are frequently provided as examples of the necessary "design" in the universe, I wonder if ID adherents would accept future understanding of one of these systems as proof of no design in the universe?

If your theory claims, "Here are three biological systems that are irreducibly complex," and one is later scientifically explained, then are the other two irreducibly complex or just examples of our present ignorance. ID is far from a new concept and it has been re-packaged over and over again. Sadly, it brings nothing new to the discussion, just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo".

Please present some of this empirical evidence. The scientific community would welcome some experimental evidence of ID to examine.

As I mentioned before, discussion of evolution should be totally unnecessary to show evidence of ID. If its really science then just drop the discussion of evolution for a moment and present some of that "empirical" evidence.

Science, by self-definition, limits itself to that which is testable (testable meaning that results are fairly constant when the experiment is repeated so a conclusion can be drawn) AND it excludes the trancendental.

Science, in limiting itself in this way, has value in study of our world, but MAY not have value in regard to finding the whole TRUTH. (We cannot prove nor disprove the trancendental by experimentation.)

Admitting this is where we have to begin.

I am not an ID scientist, but an obvious test would be to demonstrate a way in which specified complexity could arise without design.




That would not be a test, because if such a thing were to be shown, it would still be possible that a designer had interfered with natural processes. Intelligent Design would not be disproved.

In simple terms, every dog breeder throughout history was conducting a scientific experiment using ID to produce the specific characteristics he was after.....Let's use random mutation where useful for micro-evolution, use ID where it explains macro-evolution, and hope someone comes along with a better theory that explains everything.


You really think dog breeding is an example of intelligent design? If so, then I would have to agree with you that intelligent design does exist as a scientific discipline. However, certainly that is not an example of ID producing macro-evolution.

Please present some empirical evidence of ID. Anything would be a start. There really should be no reason to even discuss evolution when making the case for ID. If you really want to convince scientists of your theory, just present some testable evidence (maybe an experiment or two). Also, ID can't really consider itself a scientific theory without addressing the question of who the designer is.

Science would readily accept esp, the power of prayer, elves, biblical creation, tooth fairies and trolls were some compelling evidence presented for each of them. The following arguments, while maybe compelling to some people, are not scientific in nature.

Let us examine this ID theory in more detail and compare it to real science.  The only evidence provided for ID is that there are supposedly some flaws in evolutionary theory.  Since evolutionary theory is flawed, it is claimed ID is the only alternative. Even if such flaws exist, this in no way supports ID theory- all it tells us is that the theory we have may need some revision.  Every scientific theory is open to these kinds of revisions.  They are expected and necessary to the progress of science.  Each new theory builds upon earlier theories.  The quantum mechanical theory of atomic structure built upon Rutherford's model which built upon even earlier atomic theory going back the ancient Greece.  No doubt quantum mechanics will be replaced by a more comprehensive theory that will lead us to a deeper understanding of the nature of matter.  No doubt our current evolutionary models in biology will be replaced by more comprehensive theories that will lead us to a deeper understanding of the nature of life processes.  Scientific theories have three important attributes; they are testable, falsifiable, and they fit all the available data.  If more data becomes available that does not fit the theory, the theory can and must be changed to fit the data.  A good scientific theory is one that has been tested and fits all the data.  ID is not testable and could fit any data.  All it says is that life is the result of an arbitrary will that could obviously arbitrarily do anything.  

The claim has been made that evolutionary theory also cannot be tested.  This is a false claim.  The theory has been tested and continues to be tested and it fits all the data.  If one looked at the geologic record and discovered no pattern, could not find less complex forms predating more complex forms, could not find the evolving lineage of the modern horse for example, or the land dwelling ancestors to whales; this would clearly falsify evolution.  Quite to the contrary, the more fossils we find, the more they fit the evolutionary pattern that has been discerned to date.

Darwin's theory, when proposed, required a basic changeable building block underlying all life forms.  We could have discovered that each species has a different basic structure which could not easily be changed from one form to another, falsifying Darwin's theory.  In 1951 DNA was discovered and soon shown to be the basic changeable building block underlying all life forms.  The simple fact is that one could take the DNA of any organism, a toad for instance, and by making a series of changes to its DNA create any other organism- a snake for instance.  This is no invisible wall that separates one species from another.  We are all made of the same basic stuff.  The fact that you can take a gene from a plant, for example, and put it into fruit fly then watch the gene be expressed is clear evidence that the basic underlying structure of all earth based life is the same.

Another claim of ID proponents is that, yes, micro-evolution is an observed fact, but no one has observed "macro-evolution"- meaning the evolution of one species into another.  We have likewise never observed the sun and planets forming from a spinning disk of dust and gas, but we understand the processes and can adequately predict the results of these processes.  Evolution is no different.  We can understand and actually observe the processes in action, know the basic structure these processes are acting on and adequately predict the results.  The question ID must address to be considered in anyway viable would be how could micro-evolutionary processes that we have observed not lead to new species if given enough time?  Enough changes over enough time simply must result in significant enough changes to produce different species.  There is no known way to stop it.  Also, unless Earth's environment were the same for all of time, it would be quite impossible for species to survive here, unless they changed.  There is a simple equation that applies here Micro-evolution = Macro-evolution, therefore there is only one word that is needed here; evolution.  Like ID theory we can put these "M" words into the trash can; they serve no purpose.

Like the "M" words used by ID proponents, ID theory serves no scientific purpose.  It does not offer an explanation for any observed data.  It does not suggest to us new avenues of research or any way to test the theory.  It gives us no ideas about how and why life forms have changed over time.  The thing that ID fails to give and evolutionary theory gives in abundance is true understanding which leads to power which we can use for good or evil.  That power derived from evolutionary theory may lead us to long, healthy, and enriched lives.  It may lead us to changing our very nature, so that in a short time we may be a new species.  It may help us understand the complex relationships in the natural world and enable us to coexist and thrive without destroying the web of life.  It may also lead to any number of horrors and evils which I will not even mention here.  ID theory offers none of this.  It offers us nothing, tells us nothing, and leads to no new knowledge.  For what imaginable reason should we offer this dead end, religious notion to our children?  The only imaginable reason is so that they might come to accept the Bible as the only source of knowledge, so that they might stop thinking, stop learning, stop growing, go careening blindly down a dead end street and end up nowhere.

For what imaginable reason should we offer this dead end, religious notion to our children?  The only imaginable reason is so that they might come to accept the Bible as the only source of knowledge, so that they might stop thinking, stop learning, stop growing, go careening blindly down a dead end street and end up nowhere.

(1) This thread is old. You musta gone looking for it. We're long since caring about this topic.

(2) While I agree with the broad thrust of this comment, it would behoove you not to poke sticks at other commenters here, when your account is mere hours old.

(2), by the way, was your one warning.

Thanks.

The only evidence provided for ID is that there are supposedly some flaws in evolutionary theory.

That is somewhat true, but only to an extent.  Irreducible complexity, design detection and absence of intermediate fossil forms have merit irrespective of evolutionary theory.

The study of ID is not a scientific rebuttal of evolution.

and make a Ferrari. "The simple fact is that one could take the DNA of any organism, a toad for instance, and by making a series of changes to its DNA create any other organism- a snake for instance."

DNA was discovered in the 1870's.

That DNA was the genetic material was discovered in 1944 by Avery MacLeod and mcCarty (with a major contribution in 1928 by Griffith).

Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA in 1953.

a scrapyard, huh?

If Ferraris or lawnmowers were able to reproduce themselves with an occassional mistake here and there isn't it conceivable that they could eventually produce something new like a Hyundai or a weed-wacker?

That a million monkeys typing would not, in fact, produce the works of Shakespeare.

the Creator, thinks he must work.

If Feraris produced a Hyundai, it could not keep up with the grid and consequently would not be able to pass on it mutated genes. Same with the weedwacker,(No wheels).

I am curiously drawn to the tap-tap-tapping of my hairy distant cousins living in the blogosphere.

No doubt this is evidence of my own genetic inferiority and such a deleterious phenotype will be selected against in future generations....

can do things that Ferraris and lawnmowers can't.  Like:

1. be paid for by me.
   
   
2. trim the grass right up to the landscaping timbers in my yard

Those are selective advantages and that's why/how macro-evolution happens.

but a Howlin'Howie campaign for Dim Pres Nod.

stuff than I. "Those are selective advantages and that's why/how macro-evolution happens."

Yea....some have tried, also, to turn lead into gold.....

Sydney Brenner tells, imagining Francis Crick arriving in Heaven. Crick wants to ask him a question, and so an angel takes him to a junkyard on the other side of Heaven, where a little old man with a big spanner in his back pocket is banging away: God. "'I am so pleased to meet you,' says Francis. 'I must ask you this question. How do imaginal disks work?'. 'Well,' comes the reply, 'We took a little bit of this stuff and we added some things to it and... actually, we don't know, but I can tell you that we've been building flies up here for 200 million years and we have had no complaints.'"

You seem to have not read my post very carefully.  There is no profanity or personal attacks in it.  There is an attack on a specific idea which I do not make any apologies for. So why exactly are you giving me a warning?

I also noticed you are not very good at counting.  I hope you do not take this as a personal attack.  We all make mistakes.  I am sure you will do better next time.

>>"and make a Ferrari. "The simple fact is that one could take the DNA of any organism, a toad for instance, and by making a series of changes to its DNA create any other organism- a snake for instance.""

If you don't believe this, you have not really been following the developments in genetics and biology.  My guess is that you will see such things in your lifetime.  If not, then certainly withing 100-300 years.  

This ability to manipulate DNA in any way we chose is only a matter of time, there are no theoretical barriers to this, only learning the details of the code, and developing the tools to change it.

You can deny the future all you want, but it will still come roaring in your front door.  It is best to prepare for it and not keep looking out the back window admiring how things used to be.

>"That is somewhat true, but only to an extent.  Irreducible complexity, design detection and absence of intermediate fossil forms have merit irrespective of evolutionary theory."

I have read the books on irreducible complexity.  I do not believe the term is applicable to any natural phenomonen that has been observed.  In other words, irreducible complexity does not exist.  Tell me exactly what attributes can be used for "design detection" and then I will believe this is a viable concept.  If you actually believe there are no intermediate fossil forms, then you know nothing at all about what has been discovered by paleontologists over the last 200 years.  

>>"DNA was discovered in the 1870's."

Thanks for the clarification, but does it really make any difference?

I will revise my statement: The structure of DNA was discovered in 1951 by Watson and Crick.

>>"The study of ID is not a scientific rebuttal of evolution."

And yet two of the three things you mention: irreducible complexity and no intermediate fossil forms are meaningful only in relation to evolution.  

Now let us talk more of the third, "design detection".  Which is more beautiful to you: the caththedral of Notre Dame or one of the red rock formations in the Southwest.  One was clearly designed by man, the other by the wind.  How can one determine what intelligence is at work in either case?

a toad to a prince? And, thanks for the additional 99 years. However, "This ability to manipulate DNA in any way we chose is only a matter of time, there are no theoretical barriers to this, only learning the details of the code, and developing the tools to change it." is really a funny line. I think I will just let it speak for itself.

>>""This ability to manipulate DNA in any way we chose is only a matter of time, there are no theoretical barriers to this, only learning the details of the code, and developing the tools to change it." is really a funny line."

It is interesting that you find this funny.  The power that we will soon have really is not funny.  I do not think we are ready for it.  Power can be used for good or evil, to build or destroy.  Whatever the  future might bring, only those with the vision to see it, can shape it. Probably it is good that you are not one who can see.

bad B SciFi movie script? "I do not think we are ready for it.  Power can be used for good or evil, to build or destroy.  Whatever the  future might bring, only those with the vision to see it, can shape it. Probably it is good that you are not one who can see."  Look, the point here is that stating that humans will be able to make anything they want out of DNA sometime within the next 300 years is just such a silly statement. Is this going to happen before or after time travel and electronic matter transportation? You being such a gifted futurist I'm sure you can give us an estimate give or take 100 years.

Or rather, just short.

You seem to have not read my post very carefully.  There is no profanity or personal attacks in it.  There is an attack on a specific idea which I do not make any apologies for. So why exactly are you giving me a warning?

Because you're new here and making attacks on religious beliefs. One more, and wave bye-bye.

I also noticed you are not very good at counting.  I hope you do not take this as a personal attack.  We all make mistakes.  I am sure you will do better next time.

You know what's funny about this? Someone who can't read lecturing, incorrectly, someone else about not counting.

As you're apparently determined to leave soon, let me help you out: The second (2) was part of a sentence, not an enumeration.

Next step is yours, copain. Choose wisely.

diaries broadly critical of evolution in general and ring species in particular.  

Both are beautiful, though only one can be described as designed by an intelligent hand.

I have no intention of debating this topic with you.  I've attempted to do so in the past, and let's just say that I've learned my lesson.  You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your's.

This topic is very interesting to me, not only from a religous perspective, but a scientific one as well.  From flagellum to the Fibonacci series, I continue to be amazed.  Have we detected design?:  to myself and others, yes.  To some, no.  I accept that and am not inclined to persuade you, or anyone else, otherwise.

>>"Is this going to happen before or after time travel and electronic matter transportation?"

The point you seem to be missing is that there are no theoretical barriers to the manipulation of DNA.  What can be done, will be done.  It is only a matter of the will to do it.  Time travel and teleportation  cannot be shown to be even theoretically possible at this time.  It is very unlikely that they ever will be shown to be theoretically possible.  Atomic fission and fusion were shown to be theoretial sources of energy creation early in the 20th century.  In less than 50 years, we were using this energy for good and for bad.

You appear to be under the illusion there is some barrier that separates one species from another.  There is no such barrier.  We are all made of the same stuff.  Life is a continuum and in reality there are no species. Species are just words we use to catergorize differeces we observe in the spectrum of life.  The stuff we are made of is easily changed and manuipulated.  What do you imagine might stop us from doing it?

>>"I have no intention of debating this topic with you.  I've attempted to do so in the past, and let's just say that I've learned my lesson.  You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your's."

I am sure we have not debated this in the past.  I have only been posting here a few days.  Whoever you did debate with, probably had a similar viewpoint to mine and probably the lesson you learned was correct.  You cannot change my mind unless you choose to present logically consistent and reasoned arguments.  Most likely you are not prepared to present those.  I am also unlikely to change your mind because you do not really care about logic and reason.  I happen to believe that two people that are commited to logic and reason can change the other's opinion, if they present a fresh perspective and perhaps add some new facts to the debate.  

Yes it makes a difference if a fact is wrong or right.  It wasn't a criticism it was a helpful clarification.

To the same end, I repeat, 1953.  (And I really don't like the word "discovered" elucidated is so much more correct in this instance.)

There are some others more jermaine(sp?) to your main points such as the fact that there is a meaningful and important distinction between macroevolution and microevolution in the scientific literature.  But that distinction has no bearing on the fact that macroevolution is the process by which  speciation occurs.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

There are both simpler forms of flagellae and other sub-cellular machines that use a subset of the proteins that make up the flagellum.  Hence, reducible complexity.

  You are using the "co-option" argument against irreducible complexity for the origin of a flagellum by Darwinian evolution.  Yes, 10 of 40 proteins in a flagellum are found in other cellular structures, but so far 30 are still believed to be unique.  Even if all the other 30 proteins could be found someplace else in the cell (doubtful), the bigger problem (that seems not to be addressed by Darwinists) is how the assembly instructions for all 40 proteins arose in the first place to get a complete functional falgellum.  To assemble a flagellum, the cell needs a precise set of assembly instructions.  If not done exactly right, you wind up with no flagellum or a non-functional flagellum ... which "natural selection" would tend to ELIMINATE, rather than preserve.

  This is not unlike the mousetrap example ... yes, springs, "wire hammers", wooden plates, etc do exist elsewhere in the world, but how do we use them to construct a fully functional mousetrap by simply stepwise natural processes?

about my big issue of the day but I think this one is it.

I figure all the political disagreements are honest and fair, a matter of differing perspectives, motivations etc.  

But to reject the gathering and interpretation of evidence for the purpose of making inferences and drawing conclusions about the world is a dangerous path to tread.  

Yes, I know your big issue leads to the same cliff that the Nazi's blithely leapt from, but let me remind you that first the Nazi's burned books.

As to how I am following it, why,... I am simply procrastinating from doing the work that I really need to do.  

Thanks for reminding me.  

Hi-ho! Hi-ho!...

As Thomas reminded me this is probably not the best use of my time.  If you really want to know the answers I would suggest a 400 to 500 level course on molecular evolution at the local university.  

Suffice it to say that this argument, that because some complex molecular machine exists today (as a product of millions, no! scratch that hundreds of millions, no! scratch that, billions of years of evolution)* and we do not know what the earlier iterations of such structures or their component parts were therefore it could not have evolved, is a little like saying once you have painted yourself into a corner:  

"there is no way you could have painted yourself into that corner because all of the walls leading up to the corner already have paint on them."

*Do you have any idea how many generations of bacteria there are in a billion years?  Lets see E. coli generation time is 20 minutes, 24 hours in a day is 72 generations per day, 365 days a year makes 26280 genereations per year times 3.5 billion = 91980000000000 generations.  Plenty of time to make 30-40 proteins, or even 30-40,000 proteins.

saying:

"Because all of the walls leading into that corner have paint on them and therefore you cannot paint your way back out, you could never have painted your way into the corner in the first place."

  Considering moelcular biologists are often in the forefront of the Intelligent Design movement, you should think twice about your views.  Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University & co-author of "Biochemical Predestination" & former biochemical evolutionist, thought twice about his book and point of view ... and had a change of view on the matter!

I'm going to hang out on this side of the fence with the other 99.9999% of molecular biologists.

If you ID guys ever get around to doing an experiment, I will give your data a look though.

  Just because Intelligent Design is not yet testable (I will agree to that point), it does NOT mean that it doesn't make some very important points that need to be addressed and which seriously undermine Darwinian (molecules to man) ideas.  (Actually, Darwin never embraced the molecules to man idea ... he seemed to assume 1 or a few primitive life forms did exist and from which everything else descended gradually over long periods of time).  It was his followers that tried to push Darwin into the molecules to man idea!

is that ID is not science.  Therefore, if you feel it should be taught to children perhaps it should be taugh in philosophy class, or Church, or at home,...

Now if they ever come up with a hypothesis and test it and produce some evidence in support of their Beliefs they may publish it in the scientific literature like everyone else does and their ideas will have a chance to compete in the marketplace of ideas which is open to everyone, you just have to produce evidence that supports your theory.  

As it is, ID proponents are using the court system and co-opting school boards to force acceptance of their Beliefs instead of earning their place by proving the worth and merit of their ideas.  You ID proponents are nothing but the point at which Conservative meets liberal on the circle of politics.  You're just like the socialists, communists, PETA, and the environment wackos....  Your ideas can't compete in the marketplace, you can't defend them based on the evidence, you just think you have better ideas and you want things to be your way so you run and hide behind big-daddy government and beg and kick and scream and hold your breath and tell a few fibs to get people to believe your side of the story to try to force your Beliefs into the science curriculum.

No thank you.  If that's where American Conservatism is headed it's in worse shape than the hopeless liberal agenda.

(Please read "you" as the collective you centered around the Discovery Institute Behe Dembski etc. and anyone who tries to force their idea into science class through the government and the courts rather than by earning a place there by producing good science.)

  Intelligent Design is not testable yet, but that is not to say it is "dead in the water" and never destined to become testable.  Come on!  It took Darwin a long time from his famous "Beagle" voyage to finally publish his "Origin of the Species" book that laid out various testable predictions (some of which continue to plague him such as the Cambrian Explosion and the [general] LACK of transitional forms and the [general] LACK of evidence for speciation since the origin of mankind ... to name just a few problems).  So please give the ID people some slack and a chance to develop something.

  But what do Darwinists do? They take a flawed evolutionary model, they run to the court system & school boards & universities, they run to big-daddy government so as to NOT teach anything against evolution and then condemn Creationists for what they do!  Hmmm ... do we see a double standard here??

  I think evolution should be taught in schools and students should be made aware of it's present flaws.

  Actually, the problem goes back to what is your definition of science?  Is science limited by ONLY the study of naturalistic methodology and materialism?  Considering science developed primarily in Christian Western Europe and that most of the founding fathers of the various fields of science were Christians, the founding fathers of science would not agree with the modern definition of science!  They fully expected (for the most part) that science (the study of God's General Revelation in nature) would confirm theology (the study of God's Special Revelation, the Bible).  In the past, science had its starts & stops in the past, but always died an aborted death until the rise of Christianity.  Even agnostic/ atheist historians acknowledge this to be true.

  What Creationists need to do is develop a testable Creation Model (for Christians, this would mean a testable Biblical Creation Model).  This model, like the Darwinian model, could make predictions and be tested.  That would be science.  The ID movement (if they refuse to go along with a biblical view) would somehow have to come up with their own way of testing their ideas.

  Because of the super-abundance of evidence for an "old earth" and an "old universe," a testable Biblical Creation Model would have to be along the lines of an "old earth creation" biblical interpretation.  (Surprise, surprise, for all you "young earthers" reading this).  But, in fact, the Bible does permit this point of view (although not well known & even denied by "young earthers").

  In any case, scientific claims and biblical claims DO OVERLAP, occassionally (especially in cases of origins [origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of the species & origin of mankind]).  Therefore, both can be tested and truth claims not relegated to classes of just philosophy, church or home.  The objective testing of a model that makes "truth claims" is science.  Anyone can check out the model, its predictions, and test it out in the natural world.

  May the best model win!  (Although the implications may be profound!).    

And since we're playing the assumption game, I am assuming that you must enjoy the sound of your own voice.  I am also assuming you can read at grade-school level.  However, comprehension does not seem to be your forte. Try them both together sometime.  It works.  

I said that I wasn't going to debate this topic.  Apply your profound intellectual ability to that sentence.  

But hey, I don't really mind the jab and appreciate your 'reason and logic'.  They will come in handy should I ever run out of toilet paper.

ID's current lack of testability disqualifies it from being taught as science.  I'm happy to give them as much time as they need to conduct experiments and gather evidence, but they can't teach it in schools as science until they have the evidence and persuade the scientific community of it's validity.  

"Is science limited by ONLY the study of naturalistic methodology and materialism?"

Do you mean "...to ONLY..."?

I assume so.  And in that case the answer is yes.  This is a methodological constraint of science and does not represent a judgement on the validity of religion.  Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, so it doesn't try.  ID is a metaphysical position so it doesn't fall into the category of science.  Saying it's a scientific theory does not make it so.

Please think about what you are writing here, you are suggesting essentially that matters of Faith be subjected to scientific scrutiny.  (I believe that they cannot be.)  What will be the outcome of this?  If Faith is found wanting by science must we all abandon our Faith?

I prefer to let them each, Faith and science, operate in their own spheres and for people to choose which sphere they want to be ascendent in different aspects of their lives.  In medicine for example, I will always choose the science based sort over faith-based.  But, when science based medicine can no longer do anything for me....

  Yes, the Bible repeatedly asks people to test it to see if what it says it is true. This is REASONABLE faith ... both in the Old & New Testaments.  This is why science developed out of the Christian worldview in Western Europe.

  You have the right to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't mean it is true.  God gives you the opportunity to believe whatever you want in this world.  (We will all find out on Judgment Day what is true or not true ... but then it will be too late for most).

  If the God of the Universe (who created nature) is the God of the Bible, then logic demands that the words of the Bible (when correctly interpreted) will agree with what we find in nature.  Otherwise, God is a liar (or deceiver at best).  This is what the founding fathers of the fields of science believed.

  So I would welcome any scientific evidence in favor of, or against the Bible.  We all are to be held responsible for our faith and our actions.  That is only fair.  That is both the biblical method, and the scientific method (which grew out of the biblical method).

  Lets lay our cards on the table, best hand wins.  Anything else is both unscientific and unbiblical.  I know this is a minority position, but I believe it is the only rational position to take ... and one which will distinguish the Bible from all other "holy scriptures."  I am not a "religious relativist".  How could a good and just God send anyone to hell if the concept of "religious relativism" were true ... if there was no evidence that the Bible (and the Bible alone) was true?

  Because the spheres of religion and science do (occassionally) overlap (such as in origins issues), each needs to be addressed when they do overlap.  Each then needs to be tested.  This is not an easy thing to do, but not impossible.  And it is the only rational thing to do.  It is also the biblical thing to do.

"Also, ID can't really consider itself a scientific theory without addressing the question of who the designer is."  Profoundly disagree!

The theory of the ether was a purely hypothetical construct in which its properties were assigned to be what was necessary for light to be transmitted.  And the theory was testable.

Likewise, ID has the property that multiple genetic traits can be purposefully winnowed from various sources, isolated against the action of nature, and emerge as a distinctive type of organism.  This theory, too, is falsifiable.  Show me a litter of Great Danes with five Dane pups and a Pekenese, or cross a parrot with a macaw and get a canary, or show me an orange growing on an oak tree and I will gladly accept random mutation and abandon ID as no longer predictable or repeatable, and therefore no longer useful as science.

I repeat, useful scientific theories yield results that are observable, predictable and repeatable.  Any theory of the origin of life yields none of the three, and is therefore an expression of faith, not science.  Observations of unique past events can generate speculation, limited prediction, and no replication.  The theory of random mutation and natural selection has limited observability, marginal predictability and no practical repeatability.  The theory of ID (controlled or directed mutation and artificial selection)is in use every day in thousands of ways as scientists and non-scientists alike create and replicate a wide variety of plants and animals.

Look what you've done.

"ID's current lack of testability disqualifies it from being taught as science."

As I said above, if you understand ID as the theory that a set of genetic traits can be purposefully created and isolated against the force of nature until a replicable type of organism is established, then the theory is indeed falsifiable.  Show me an orange growing on an oak tree, a dung beetle hatch from a butterfly cocoon, or any other example of random trans-species event and ID is no longer useful in producing predictable, replicable outcomes.  Until then ID is the theory most useful to scientists and non-scientists alike in producing and replicating the wide new variety of plants and animals.

If we observe ID at work every day on our farms and in our labs, why do we reject it as a possible explanation for past events?

makes even stronger predictions than genes.  For instance, evolutionary science predicts that if it is true we will never find organisms of one type at a particular level of the fossil record.  So far, this has never been disproven.  No one has yet found a squirrel where only bacteria and plants are supposed to be.  By contrast, if ID or creationism were true, we would expect exactly the opposite.  This is a prediction in the strong sense.

are things that would prove not disprove ID.  Couldn't all all-powerful designer the Creator of life on earth make an orange grow on an oak tree?

It is the absence of such miraculous events that supports evolution.

We don't observe ID at work anywhere, genetics and natural selection are not ID according to the theory of what ID is.  If we are all going to make up what we want the ID Belief to be then there really isn't much to teach in class is there?

and I may not understand it all that well, but your claim that ID would predict advanced animals at all stages of evolution doesn't sound right. The IDers (unlike the creationists) do accept that living species come from other living species and hence that would preclude squirrels in the Precambrian. Where IDers differ with Darwinists is in the hypothseis that mutations are purely random; IDers seem to see some sort of guiding intelligence behind evolution.

>>"I am not an ID scientist, but an obvious test would be to demonstrate a way in which specified complexity could arise without design. (Demonstration is required, not mere story telling.)"

Besides not beign an ID scientist, you appear to be a bit confused.  If one could "demonstrate a way in which specified complexity could arise without design" it would be a positive indication that Darwin's theory works.  If one failed to demonstrate this, it would not specifically support design theory, but only that the method tested could not explain the specified complexity.  There may be a thousand or a million other ways this complexity might arise, one of them being design.  The test would say nothing significant about the viability of any of the other ways, including design.

A kind of test similar to what you seem to be proposing has been done with computer simulations.  If you are interested, you can check this out at this website: http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/.  What these computer simulations do is allow simple simulated organisms to evolve under conditions similar to that proposed for Darwinian evolution and then watch what happens.  Complexity has been observed that seems to mirror what we see in real life.  Obviously, these kinds of simulations cannot prove evolutionary theory is correct, but they do show that complexity can arise naturally   from very simple systems given enough time and enough iterations.  

He'll just ignore everything you say, throw non-sequitors and mis-understood/watered-down Discovery Institute talking points at you, and then act smug as though he had disproved "Darwinism" once and for all.

I'll join Thomas on the sidelines here-- I modestly predict that no one on either side will be swayed by anything said here.  Both sides have made up their mind and are now screaming at each other in different languages.

I do not intend to "prove" that an all-powerful Creator could or could not do whatever He wants.  I intend to demonstrate that intelligent design (which relies on selected mutation and UN-natural selection) is used widely today to produce observable, predictable and replicable results, and is therefore a useful scientific theory.  As such it should be taught in science classes.

To say that the lack of observation of random, unpredictable events is proof of a theory that relies on random, unpredictable mutation is beyond logic.  If your theory of ID relies on the existance of an unobservable Creator doing unpredictable things then it is as useless to modern science as speculation about the origin of life.  Tell me how evolution (unpredictable random mutation and natural selection) is a useful theory to any modern scientist other than an archeologist.

like an valid theory, it's theoretically testable, as shown in the article below.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114504.html

ID, on the other hand, isn't even theoretically testable.

Why stop at Intelligent Design?

Newtonian Gravity is a theory too. Lets explore the concept of Intelligent Grappling!!!

FAQ:

1. What is Intelligent Grappling (IG?)

Intelligent Grappling is the SCIENTIFIC Theory that Intelligent and Conscious Agents "push" things together. It is the only coherent

theory that explains why things fall.

2. Doesn't gravity explain why things fall?

NO. Gravity only attempts to describe what objects do. It does not explain WHY they do them. It is that challenge that Intelligent Grappling is intended to meet.

3. Aren't there theories that explain why things fall?

NO. There are theories by atheists and secular humanists that TRY, but they all lead to crazy conclusions no human being has ever seen, like black holes and the so-called "Big Bang". Intelligent Grappling ONLY deals with the visible world.

4. Is Intelligent Grappling a scientific theory?

YES. Intelligent Grappling is the ONLY VIABLE THEORY fore why things fall. Physicists have tried for a hundred years to explain why things fall and THEY HAVE FAILED. It is time for a new theory, one

backed up by all the evidence, to finally solve the question. IG is that theory.

5. Isn't "Intelligent Grappling" just another way of saying, "Angels push things around?"

NO. Intelligent Grappling says nothing at all about the nature or origins of the conscious agents that perform the actual act of pushing and grappling. All IG says is that conscious agents are the cause of all apparent "gravitic" phenomenon.

6. In order to accept Intelligent Design, must I accept Intelligent Grappling as well?

YES. Intelligent Design says that there is a non-naturalistic, conscious designer at work at the biological level. Intelligent Grappling says that there is a non-naturalistic, conscious grappler at the physicial level. Accepting a naturalistic explanation for one phenomenon but a non-naturalistic explanation for another is a

philosophically corrupt position and we do not advocate it.

Anyone feeling gravity? Say hello to your conscious agents for me!!!

of how science proceeds.  Darwinism is not the whole Enchilada.  Every science begins with global hypotheses explaining a particular set of phenomena.  These hypotheses break down into subhypthoses that researchers then try to confirm through experimentation and observation.  The idea of a primordial soup is one such subhypothesis.  Over the course of investigation, scientists could discover that this hypothesis is mistaken or a better hypothesis could come along.  However, if this hypothesis does turn out to be false, this does not imply that all the other confirmed elements of the theory are to be thrown out the window or are wrong.  

I think this is a point ID people often miss.  They seem to believe that because evolutionary science is open ended and still asking questions it must be false.  They then jump to the conclusion the ID must be true.  However, there are mountains of evidence to support evolution that have been confirmed and which ID cannot explain without importing skyhooks and other fanciful notions.  The impressive array of evidence entails that we keep researching the questions that have not been answered so as to answer them within the framework of evolutionary theory.

"debates" because they generally degenerate into the kind of crap demonstrated here, but I just felt compelled to point out that this doesn't even rise to the usual level of crap. It is especially humorous given your previously documented difficulty with the basic principles of logic.

Nevertheless, I would have still</i. passed over your laughable (as distinguished from humorous) post, except to point out that gravity does <i&gtnot explain "why things fall." It explains why objects are attracted to one another.

BTW, re: "metaphysics" - it's possible that you're being "inconceivable" with that word.

I do not have a difficulty with logic. You just argue using semantics.

It explains why objects are attracted to one another.

Yeah, and conscious agents push them together. Falling is just a common term.

I do not have a difficulty with logic. You just argue using semantics.

Heh.

Either one of two things is true about this statement:

1. You know what semantics means, and have firmly established your difficulty with logic
   
2. You don't know what semantics means. In which case your difficulty with logic is still a debatable proposition.

Yeah, and conscious agents push them together. Falling is just a common term.

It really just isn't as funny as you think it is. Neither is it really applicable to the debate.

Plus, I'd bet a cup of cold coffee you cut and pasted it.

Except in the Light of Evolution"

Besides that you are very confused.  What you are describing as ID most people would call Mendelian genetics and it is taught in classrooms all over the world.  It has nothing to do with ID that people are trying to get taught today, which does rely on some supernatural being who guides the force of evolution in order to produce the diversity and complexity of lifce on earth today.  As a personal view I have no quarrel with that interpretation of the world.  But it isn't science and it shouldn't be taught as science.

Evolution is the unifying theory for all branches of biology.  There are infinite ways in which understanding evolution is useful.  Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cancer resistance to chemotherapy, preserving rare species, learning the cultural history of man, finding out our and other species origins and relationships, comparative genomics, disease and pest management,  phylogenetic analysis for an infinite number of uses, directed evolution to produce new enzymes and even strains of bacteria for industrial purposes,....

See here.

Google strikes again!  First hit, even.

The Pile™ is waiting.

Pull.  The.  Lever.

I won't continue the debate on logic, semantics and etc. It seems like you are trying to goad me into saying something as to justify getting me banned.

Yes, I copy and pasted. Who cares.

It is still a point of consideration.

Maybe we do have conscious agents pulling us down. Prove that theory wrong.

I am drawing analogy between ID and IG and between evolution and newtonian theory of gravity.

Mr. Wignis is now a resident of The Pile™. Enjoy your stay!

Yes, I copy and pasted. Who cares.

Anybody who's concerned about copyright issues, for one. Just basic honesty, for another.

They'll throw you out of any school in the country for claiming another's work as your own (even if it's not copyrighted), and that works good enough for me.

should be brought back for that one.

It doesn't look like my writing.  And it certainly doesn't reflect my thoughts.

And, am I fond of saying "Look what you've done."?

It's only silly if you presume that the physical world is all the reality there is. How do you presume to prove THAT, especially when there is so much evidence that points to spiritual reality.

You missed my point, one at which I think we are in agreement: science studies that which is testable (the physical), but that is where it stops. ID has not been tested and is, at this time, not proved scientifically, (although work is being done on this by Hugh Ross and others.)

That, however, does not necessarily preclude its validity. It would be valuable to admit that there may be a realm of existence that does not respond to scientific testing.

I found it interesting that Carl Sagan would not allow himself to believe in what he could not prove. Yet he continued to believe in extraterrestrial life without evidence. (His radio telescopes never got signals indicating intelligent lifeforms.)

I totally disagree that "Religious doctorine and the search for truth have nothing to do with each other." The search for absolute truth is at the core of religion. And true science and true religion are by no means in conflict since it is God who created and sustains both.

"directed evolution to produce new enzymes and even strains of bacteria for industrial purposes"

I think we are getting very close to an understanding of our differences.  You talk casually about "directed evolution" in which, e.g., an intelligent being carefully selects specific fish genes to introduce into corn to produce rust resistance, carefully isolating the strain against contamination from nature.  In fact nearly all the experiments in what you call "Mendelian genetics" relies on an intelligent "being who guides the force of evolution in order to produce" the desired genetic traits.  In none of these events are you relying on pure random mutation and natural selection.  Those cases which exhibit random mutation and natural selection, e.g., antibiotic or pesticide resistance, produce both unpredictable and undesired results.

So much for what we can observe today with any type of scientific accuracy.  When you and I begin speculating about what cannot be observed, predicted or replicated, e.g., the origin of life, the origin and relationships of species, etc., both of us abandon the constraints of science and posit concepts which we hope will help us comprehend and order past events, some of the evidence of which we can observe.

I look at the relative frequency and success of current observable "directed evolution" and the complexity of resulting organisms compared to the observed relatively simple results of "random evolution" and find it easiest to accept that, although we cannot identify the "intelligence" that has operated, the evidence is so like what we achieve by the application of intelligence that ID supplies the most simple explanation.  

You look at the same evidence and insist that it all must have come about through random undirected action because you have no evidence of an intelligent being.  (According to evolutionists the absence of a transpecies fossil is not proof of its non-existance, but the absence of a fossilized "intelligence" is proof that no intelligence operated.)  Your faith in your religion of evolution requires you to insist that only a "supernatural being" could accomplish in the past what mankind will most certainly be able to accomplish in the next century or so.  If it weren't that random evolution alone strains both the laws of probability and our observations of interdependent and introduced species, it would make little difference which of our non-scientific concepts about the unobservable, unrepeatable past was taught.  But to satisfy the truly enquiring mind both random and directed evolution should be presented, lest we wind up teaching incompatable science.

>>"That, however, does not necessarily preclude its validity. It would be valuable to admit that there may be a realm of existence that does not respond to scientific testing."

If there are realms of existence beyond the one in which we currently reside, of what value is it to speculate what they might consist of?  Without any way to validate our speculations, they are just that;speculations.  It is a lot of fun to speculate- I love science fiction, but it really contributes nothing to our understanding of the world.

If one looks at the wide variety of religious beliefs, it is clear that humans are very good at speculating and very good at making up stories, but there does not seem to any good reason to take any of it seriously.

I found it interesting that you have discovered  "so much evidence that points to spiritual reality.".  I have personally never seen or heard of any of this evidence, perhaps you could share it with us?    

Here is a link explaining what directed evolution actually is

http://biotechnology.mq.edu.au/directed_enzyme.htm

It is not genetic engineering as apparently you think it is.  This is true for most of the other terms you mention as well but I'm not going to go in and define everything else.  

The use of inferrence is not abandoning the constraints of science.  

What I do have is evidence of a progression of species from old forms to new forms in the fossil record.  That is evidence that the new forms came from the old forms.  I have no evidence of an Intelligent Designer so I do not postulate one to account for the origin of species.  And if I did there would be no scientific way to test for Him or for His actions so I can neither prove nor disprove His existence or His involvement with anything.  So it is not a useful way of explaining the natural world if I want to find a naturalistic explanation of how the world works and where the things in it came from.  I don't have a problem with people who prefer a Supernatural explanation of the world, but such an explanation is not scientific and so I don't look for it through science.  

The fact that you think evolution is a religion pretty much precludes the possibility of further discussion.

I posted two comments asking questions for clarification about things he was saying in relation to a very bad 2002 article in Harper's about how the human genome project had disproved the Central Dogma of molecular biology and then a post he made about the latest Washington Post article about evolution.

And he deleted my posts!

What a sheltered flower Dr. Dembski is!

I mean I asked him things like does a plant or a cow or a chimpanzee have the same specified complexity as a human given that they have similar gene numbers and biochemistry?

And I pointed out in this post:

WP:"    If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

    "That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

    Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted."

Dembski: "COMMENT: Darwin's theory does not require harmful mutations but only beneficial mutations -- competition for scarce resources would then provide the necessary sieve. There is no requirement in Darwin's theory for mutations that are inherently lethal of maladaptive."

That it was the power to make predictions like this in the absence of a need for these types of mutations that lent credence to the theory of evolution.

What a wuss.

His lackey's are over there arguing about the E.coli experiment mentioned in the Post article and they haven't even bothered to look up the paper.  They are using the Post's completely inaccurate description of an experiment to (incorrectly) deconstruct it's scientific merit.  I didn't even try to correct all their errors for fear of getting banned but I got banned anyway.:-(

So now I have a burning desire to know whether a dandelion has the same CSI as me and I don't know how to use his specious formulas so I can't find out the answer!

Anybody who believes this man is a scientist is nuts.  He is a two-bit scheister, and the people over there are dumb.  Really DUMB.  They're frightening.  I may have to run for the county schoolboard in case this circus ever comes to town.

Besides....if there is evidence of spiritual reality, then it is testable and within the realm of science.  Just waiting to hear this evidence...I imagine it will be a long wait...

The theory of ID (controlled or directed mutation and artificial selection)is in use every day in thousands of ways as scientists and non-scientists alike create and replicate a wide variety of plants and animals.

Are you claiming that basic modern molecular biology techniques and procedures are the result of ID theory? If you are arguing humans as the creators of life on earth it would certainly be an interesting argument. Maybe you should explain your personal rendition of intelligent design...it seems to differ greatly from that presented by Behe and Dembski. You seem to be claiming that modern molecular biology techniques are an example of intelligent design?

Likewise, ID has the property that multiple genetic traits can be purposefully winnowed from various sources, isolated against the action of nature, and emerge as a distinctive type of organism. This theory, too, is falsifiable. Show me a litter of Great Danes with five Dane pups and a Pekenese, or cross a parrot with a macaw and get a canary, or show me an orange growing on an oak tree and I will gladly accept random mutation and abandon ID as no longer predictable or repeatable, and therefore no longer useful as science.

What you have described above in no way relates to evolution or the suppossed theory of "random mutation". No scientists are claiming that a great dane will give birth to a pekenese, however, ID scientists are claiming that imaginary beings are creating great danes.

Maybe you should let that Homunculus guy continue this argument. Your ignorance of the subject is simply overwelming. He at least was making an attempt to learn what ID is proposed to be. I can't believe I'm suggesting this, but maybe you should read one of Behe's or Dembski's books so you are familiar with their arguments for ID. While doing this you might consider a simple book on evolution by someone who supports it.

Inasmuch as it was you who introduced the pejorative religious term "supernatural" into our discussion of scientific theories, I did not expect you to squeal quite so loud when I thrust the shoe back on your own foot.

Thank you for the description of "directed evolution."  The process includes the following steps: "Transfer mutated genes into bacterial host cells", then "Select individual colonies, each with a unique mutant gene", etc. Is this not a perfect example of your definition of ID (leaving aside the "supernatural" rot)?  The more examples you provide that illustrate that useful varieties of genetic traits are currently produced only with intelligent intervention in the process, the less convincing becomes the argument that the wide varieties we observe from the past could have, and could only have, been produced without any intelligent intervention.

And by the same method, because the only corn I've ever seen grown has been grown by farmers corn could only have been grown by farmers, it could never have grown in the wild because I've never observed it growing in the wild.

The key step in directed evolution is the production of mutations RANDOMLY whithout intelligence by an error prone DNA or RNA polymerase.  Yes the technique is done by humans but the evolution that takes place can only happen with the production of random mutations leading to gradual changes in protein structure and function which are selected based on their functionality and then the process is iterated to further evolve a new protein.

It is an example of something that appears to be designed that is produced without an actual designer.  In fact, things that cannot be designed can be produced through this process. So random mutation and selection is a creative process and in certain cases it is more creative than any designer we know.  The fact that a person designed the technique does not mean that any particular new modified enzyme that results was designed, it was produced by a process of random mutation and selection just like new species are.

If you want to assert that God or whomever, created the universe, or even the first life and he built in the capacity for mutations to occur and that those mutations occurring randomly and being selected by the process of evolution has resulted in all the species past and present that have existed on the earth, and being omniscient God or whomever knew what the outcome would be I have no argument with that.  But such a belief is called Theistic Evolution many religious scientists who recognize that evolution has produced species subscribe to something like this.  But it is not the illegitimate and unfounded Intelligent Design that the Discovery Institute is pushing to be taught in our science classes.

This isn't the best link but you can use google for more.

evolution with selective breeding? There is a big difference, you know.

If you tell me where the point of confusion is I'll clarify.

I am confused about how your corn analogy fits into the discussion with treating selective breeding as evolution.

Because skorrent is making an argument by analogy, one that Intelligent Design Creationists often use:  "Because all the complex things we see in the world like watches, cars, and airplanes are designed by a designer, whenever we see something complex it must have been designed by a designer.  Living things are extremely complex, therefore they must be designed."

Skorrent has continued the analogy by declaring that since my example of humans using the technique of directed evolution requires a human designer's intervention to set up and iterate the steps of the process, it also implies that evolution of living things requires the design and intervention of a designer.  This is wrong because obviously living organisms reproduce themselves quite well without anyone's intervention, that's how the steps in biological evolution are able to iterate.  

Skorrent either did not understand or ignored the fact that the most important part of directed evolution is the production of random mutations, followedd by selection.  It is these processes, that mimic the processes in biological evolution, that are the creative process in directed evolution and their products, the new protein, is not the product of a design it is the product of a process.  The process is evolution.  

Now, as I said above, if Skorrent or others now wants to make the argument that because the process of directed evolution is itself a product of design then so too must the process of biological evolution be the product of design.  He is still wrong in his logic and is making an argument by analogy that has no evidence to support it, but I have no beef with that conclusion as many scientists of Faith come to the same conclusion in reconciling their Belief with  the evidence of science.  But, this argument is still not valid for proving that species or their biochemistry is designed because we know these things can happen through the process of evolution.

My corn analogy was trying to make the point that just because what we see in the world at the moment is true does not mean that it is true of all things, nor that it was true at all times.  There was a time when corn grew wild without farmers intervention, the fact that farmers grow far more of it now than has ever grown wild does not disprove the fact that at some time in the past corn grew wild without human intervention.

How many straw men do you need to set up in hopes that our eye will lose the ball?  I don't know of anyone who rejects the scientific observation of random mutation.  I'm waiting for someone to observe random mutation and natural selection that results in anything like the complex variation of genetic traits that occur with great frequency with intelligent intervention.

You have flogged that poor "directed evolution" experiment to death.  Starting with a specially selected strain in an artificial medium, with every step inspected and modified, the sequence repeated as necessary, the whole procedure intended, or "designed" if you will, to produce certain desired changes in the genetic traits of enzymes that will, if carefully protected from submergence in the entire population, be reproducible.  In that whole Intelligently Designed experiment you focus on the one step of random mutation as a demonstration that the rest of the process, involving intelligence in every step, is unimportant.  If, however, as you seem to indicate, "the (intelligently directed) production of random mutations followed by (intelligent) selection" is what you meant all along by "biological evolution," then we have little to argue about.

Incidently, my argument is not based on analogy, and certainly not on mechanistic anology, as I am willing to examine any scientific procedure that results in genetic variation.  What I observe can be divided into two general categories.  There are small, mostly fragile, genetic changes that result from random mutation and natural selection.  These are such things as feather color or beak shape, or survival under extreme stress like antibiotic resistance.  Then there are wide and multiple genetic variations that produce, e.g. great danes and chihuahuas, and hybrid plants and animals, and almost, if not quite, new species.  Without exception, so far, the processes that result in wide, multiple genetic variations rely on intelligent intervention.

It is then by inferrence, as you suggested before, that I suggest that when we observe wide, multiple genetic variations that have occurred in the past, and we are unable to observe the process that produced them, it is more logical to infer intelligent intervention than pure random mutation and natural selection.  This has nothing to do with watches or bridges or Gods or faith (other than a faith in the scientific method) or any of your other straw men.

I think your arguement is well stated, but not persuasive.  The real point in this discussion of man's demonstrated ability to manipulate genetic variation is that it shows that the genes are malleable, that they can and do change- the basic process Darwin proposed is feasible.  If enough changes occur over a long enough time, it would seem quite impossible to preserve the characteristics that define any species.  It seems to me that even without the directing force of "survival of the fittest" that mutation and genetic drift alone would result in new species if given enough time.  In breeding, man selects the traits that survive, rather than "survival of the fittest", but the process is essentially the same.

In a very short time substantial changes have been effected.  If we look at one example of this, corn; we see what should be considered a new species: domestic corn, which cannot reproduce without man, derived from an ancestor that has little in common with it.  The point is that selecting certain traits, regardless of how they are selected has basically been shown to be a viaable process to effect genetic inheritance.

There is nothing known about DNA or the genes that they encode that places some barrier separating one species from another.  All life could be viewed as a continuum with the separate divisions that we use to understand its diversity being merely artificial constructs with no real significance.  

ID proponents have chosen to view these artificial divisions in the spectrum of life (species) as real separate rooms with no doors between them when in fact there is no evidence that there are walls at all and no doors are needed.    

I suppose you also think because nuclear fission in a nuclear power plant is directed by an intelligent entity so too must nuclear fission in the earth's core be directed by an intelligent entity?

That is argument by analogy and yes you are engaging in it in your interpretation of Intelligent Design Creationism.

"If enough changes occur over a long enough time, it would seem quite impossible to preserve the characteristics that define any species."  And you have put your finger precisely on the difficulty with any argument that supposes a series of incremental changes over time that results in a wide variation, it doesn't happen.  Let's start by agreeing that cockroaches and sharks and crocodiles exist.  The observed scientific principle that explains how a species retains its basic characteristics through hundreds of thousands of years and perhaps millions of generations is called "the tendency toward the mean."  Simply stated, the progeny of the outliers in any population tend to be closer to the population mean than their parents.  Simple example, take a variety of dog breeds to form a feral pack of dogs.  After ten or twenty generations there will be less variation in any of the observed traits (size, coat, color, etc.) than you started out with.  While the theory of an accumulation of small changes over time to produce major changes may be enticing, the present world just doesn't work that way.  

still waiting for all that evidence of spiritual reality.....

still waiting for some evidence of intelligent design...

One of the major problems with neo-Darwinism is the implication that scientific knowledge is the only acceptable knowledge.

This does not accurately represent the dialogue here.  Scientists aren't trying to say that ID isn't acceptable knowledge at all.  They're saying that it's not science.

Remember, science is a process, not a belief system- the two occupy distinct domains.  It is erroneous to suggest that people who employ the scientific method as scientists believe only in science- in fact, many scientists are deeply religious.

To say that ID isn't science does not invalidate it as knowledge- it simply says that the scientific method is a bad tool to use to test the proposed hypothesis.  We wouldn't attempt to use the scientific process to resolve the question of whether Democrats can formulate a consistent platform, either.  That's not to say it's not a worthy discussion- to the contrary, it's endlessly interesting and quite important- but it's not science.