1

Thanks for this series, Joe.

2

Could someone please explain a line of argument that would when when someone complains about ID's lack of inductive reasoning?

This argument is basically that "a scientific theory is a framework that must allow you to hypothesize additional theories, and then search for evidence or perform experiments to justify or disprove your hypothesis and create more theories".

ID critics will say that ID fails at this, because the only explanation it gives is that "things were designed by the designer". There is no inductive reasoning, and therefore ID isn't a scientific theory.

This as opposed to evolution, where an evolutionist could say that if you found an animal with a certain peculiar bone structure you coul hypotheize the existance of similar animals and go dig in the hills for a while and trying to find it's ancestor.

Anyone have a reasonable argument about this?

3

And here we are...10 arguments later and not a single one of them comes anywhere colse to either refuting the solid scientific validity of the theory of evolution or validating the esotheric belief that is ID. Joe did make a valid point though...he exposed just how badly misinformed the general public is about the ToE and how currupt ID proponents do prey on that misinformation to further their political agenda.

There is something that does puzzle me though...while it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of IDists are evengelical christians and counts among them not one single athiest as far as anyone knows,they have obviously not throught their approach through because ID,if taken to its only logical conclusions actually refutes the bible.

4

LudVanB And here we are...10 arguments later and not a single one of them comes anywhere colse to either refuting the solid scientific validity of the theory of evolution or validating the esotheric belief that is ID.

True, but irrelevant. That was never the point of this series.

Joe did make a valid point though...he exposed just how badly misinformed the general public is about the ToE and how currupt ID proponents do prey on that misinformation to further their political agenda.

I should have added #11 -- accusing ID advocates of dishonesty. That's become the lazy way of dealing with all intellectual opponents nowadays. It's not enough to say someone is wrong, they must know they are wrong and be lying about it.

There is something that does puzzle me though...while it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of IDists are evengelical christians and counts among them not one single athiest as far as anyone knows,

First, let's consider that only about 5% of the population is atheist. So that narrows it down somewhat. Second, there are atheists who accept ID. Anthony Flew is probably the most notable one. Todd Moody and David Berlinski are agnostics. And David Stove, rejected neo-Darwinism and he was an atheist.

Also, what about Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. Neither of them were "evangelical Christians" and they both posited a form of "intelligent design" argument for the seeding of life on earth.

they have obviously not throught their approach through because ID,if taken to its only logical conclusions actually refutes the bible.

What?! Why didn't someone tell me this before?! Here I've been a Bible believing Christian and a fellow traveler in the ID movement and never realized that believing that an intelligent being (who I personally believe is God) had a direct, empiracallly detectable role in the creation of the universe actually refutes the Bible.

Man, my head is spinning now.

(Sorry to lay that sarcasm on so thick, but I find this as offensive and silly as the claims that there are "two conflicting creation stories" in the first chapters of Genesis and that we Christians just never noticed it before.)

5

Zack,

Basically, ID critics are just wrong on this point. First, I would question the ID critic about why they think science must work this way. Looking at any intro level book on the philosophy of science to see why this is wrong. You might also want to do a google search on the phrase "science stopper" as there are a number of good arguments on the web about why, if something doesn't allow for further hypotheses, it could still be considered science. (See, for example, Plantinga's argument here under the heading "Science Stoppers?").

Second, it is false that ID rules out the possibility of hypothesizing new theories and testing them (not in general, at least). Del Ratzsch wrote quite a bit about this in his book, Nature, Design and Science (see Chapters 10 and 11 especially), where he argues that design is a scientifically legitimate concept. Richard Dawkins, a stauch Darwinist, even argues that acting as if things are designed may have some scientific usefulness (see #6 in Joe's series). So design could be a valid concept in science, even if only instrumentally or as a heuristic.

6

Zack,

Basically, ID critics are just wrong on this point. First, I would question the ID critic about why they think science must work this way. Looking at any intro level book on the philosophy of science to see why this is wrong. You might also want to do a google search on the phrase "science stopper" as there are a number of good arguments on the web about why, if something doesn't allow for further hypotheses, it could still be considered science. (See, for example, Plantinga's argument here under the heading "Science Stoppers?").

Second, it is false that ID rules out the possibility of hypothesizing new theories and testing them (not in general, at least). Del Ratzsch wrote quite a bit about this in his book, Nature, Design and Science (see Chapters 10 and 11 especially), where he argues that design is a scientifically legitimate concept. Richard Dawkins, a stauch Darwinist, even argues that acting as if things are designed may have some scientific usefulness (see #6 in Joe's series). So design could be a valid concept in science, even if only instrumentally or as a heuristic.

7

"Man, my head is spinning now. "

Well allow me to bring it to a halt for you by explaining what i mean. Let us take Humans as an exemple. You say we are the result of intelligent design...fair enough...but if thats the case,then observation of the human design and how prone it is to breakdown over a wide variety of ailments shows either one of 2 things about the designer...

A: the design is filled with flaws which means that IT is imperfect.

or

B: The design was created to experience suffering for a good portion of its lifespan on purpose which means IT is the very incarnation of wanton cruelty

Either way,it refutes the biblical claim of a perfect and just god.

8

I have to congratulate Joe on his 10 points for the sheer hubris involved. Here's a guy with no training whatsoever in the subject, attacking a scientific theory so well established even conservative, Republican-appointed judges rule in its favor (Dover), a theory that has been around for over a century, becoming stronger and stronger every year as thousands of highly skilled scientists test it again and again and again. Libraries are filled to their ceilings with the verifiable evidence supporting evolution, yet Joe's audacity is such he mounts his attack with nothing more than than well-worn rhetorical tricks of selective quoting, wordplay, and misdirection.

One example from this last post in the series:

Joe says,

But until the theory [of evolution] can be rooted in a firm explanation for how this [abiogenesis] occurs, explanations for an “intelligent designer” will appear quite plausible.

Plausible to whom? Perhaps to someone who is completely uninformed about science. Do we doubt the theory of gravity because we can not explain its primal cause or "first attractor"? At best, this is just the wornout gaps arugment all over again.

And this:

Some scientists, such as Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick, have at least attempted to come up with an alternative explanation. Crick, realizing the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring on earth, published a paper in which he suggested that life on earth was “seeded” from another planet. (That’s something to keep in mind the next time someone mentions that real science (as opposed to something like ID theory) is submitted through “peer-reviewed science journals”.)

I think this is meant to leave the impression that ID has been unfairly criticized for failing in the peer-review realm because real scientists (like the famous Crick) sometimes publish ideas that are not peer-reviewed. An honest representation would note that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewd papers supporting evolution (many of them by Crick) and, being very generous, just a few that have anything whatsoever to do with ID — and ID has been around for nearly two decades.

9

ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
~ Erasmus Darwin

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. ~ Charles Darwin

If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature. ~ Charles Darwin

The principle of continuity renders it probable that the principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence of some general law. ~ Charles Darwin

The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems. ~ George Gaylord Simpson

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald

10

If we take point eight seriously, can theories of solar system development be challenged on the grounds of not knowing what caused the big bang?

Point ten merely confuses me. Being gay, my genes seem to be on a rather dead end course, but then again I consider evolution to be an explanation of species rather than a guide for living life.

Anyway coming from a fundamentalist background the simple fact of the old earth, human relation with chimps, lack of global flood, etc. is more than adequate reason for me to believe any supposed Intelligent Designer is not the God of the Bible.

11

Question for ID folks: If, according to God's plan, which you are fortunate to know, I am damned, then why should I not kill myself, say, today?

Sincerely,

Amy

12

Joe,

You take this little passage from Stove: "Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants as he or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one of us does."

Apparently, you agree.

This is a recycled quotation. You've used it before, and when you did I complained just as I will complain now.

Will you please explain to me why it is that Darwinism entails that every organism actually has as many descendents as was possible for it to have?

If this were so, Darwinism would imply that it was impossible for the young of a species to ever die; for if even a single one were to die, this would entail that future possible descendents would never come to exist. But of course Darwinism implies no such thing. Indeed I would think that death of young is inevitable in a Darwinian world.

This quotation does surely amount to straw-man. Indeed it so obviously amounts to straw-man that (i) I'm astounded that anyone with any sense would ever have said it, and (ii) I'm astounded that it would be repeated (multiple times).

Perhaps what Stove means to have said is that species tend to increase in number as food supply, predation, disease, social competition, etc. allow. But this is most surely not the claim that every organism has as many descendents as it was possible for it to have. The attempt to move from the first to the second is a gross non sequitur.

13

From the Wikipedia article on Stove:

"In his final years Stove began to examine and criticize Darwinism. This surprised and dismayed many of his supporters who were Darwinists and thought Stove was as well, judging from the way he sometimes spoke. However, Stove's attack on Darwinism was not as radical as it appeared - he accepted evolution was true of all living things, and said he had no objection to natural selection being true of more primitive organisms. What he wanted to attack was the allegedly distorted view of human beings proposed by some Ultra-Darwinists."

I take it then that he did not reject Darwinism. Rather he rejected a simplistic version that some thought applicable to human beings. I suspect that what is wanted here is a discussion of the role of culture in human life - it is that which distinguishes us from all other creatures; and surely on the Darwinian world-view, culture is as much an evolutionary artifact as, say, the thumb. It is novel, yes; and it effects procreation in a way not seen before human beings. But the explanation of its existence is ultimately of a Darwinian sort.

14

> Question for ID folks: If, according to God's
> plan, which you are fortunate to know, I am
> damned, then why should I not kill myself, say,
> today?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Amy

Because tomorrow you could be saved.

Sincerely,
Alexander

15

An adequate theory of speciation must begin at the beginning. Before there can be species there must first be living organisms. How did these organisms evolve from inanimate matter? No one knows. But until the theory can be rooted in a firm explanation for how this occurs, explanations for an “intelligent designer” will appear quite plausible.

You are equivocating on the meaning of "intelligent design" here. If we are to take ID advocates at their word, ID does not tell us anything about origins either. IDers claim that certain features of living organisms show evidence of design, but argue that this can be determined independent of any knowledge of the designer or the ultimate origins of the designed objects. They claim that the designer might be God, but equally, he/she/it could be some other limited entity that just fiddles around with organisms.

Only if the designer is positively identified as a transcendent God, does ID say anything about ultimate origins. Failing that, the your #8 applies equally to ID and evolutionary biology.

So, which is it? Is ID a hypothesis about the ultimate origins of life and the universe, or is it a limited hypothesis about detecting design in organisms?

#8 could be retitled "How IDers shoot themselves in the foot by failing to stick to the script."

16

Amy, let me propose the opposite. If there is no God, then in several billion years all life everywhere will die (due to entropy). So, what does life here and now mean?

17

You seem to be using an odd definition of "Darwinist," as well. If, as is usually the case, Darwinist refers to those who agree with Darwin's theory of biological common descent with modification(with modern additions and refinements), then the category "Darwinist" would include people who believe Deistic or Theistic explanations for life's origin as well as those who hold to naturalistic explanations.

Similarly, one could be an ID "fellow traveler" while holding to naturalistic explanations for the origins of life. By attempting to link "Darwinism" and ID with particular explanations of life's origin, you are thoroughly muddying the waters.

18

Well allow me to bring it to a halt for you by explaining what i mean. Let us take Humans as an exemple. You say we are the result of intelligent design...fair enough...but if thats the case,then observation of the human design and how prone it is to breakdown over a wide variety of ailments shows either one of 2 things about the designer...

A: the design is filled with flaws which means that IT is imperfect.

or

B: The design was created to experience suffering for a good portion of its lifespan on purpose which means IT is the very incarnation of wanton cruelty

Either way,it refutes the biblical claim of a perfect and just god.

The only way anyone could put forth this argument is by being so willfully ignorant of Christian teachings that they are absolutely unqualified to level any criticisms at the Christian worldview without quite a bit of education.

Every strain of Christianity out there acknowledges that the design of the universe was screwed up when sin entered the world. Rebellion against God lead to creation itself (along with humanity) becoming corrupted on a very basic level. The result is that breakdowns in design occur.

19

Joe,

Good job.
But you forgot to address our "political" agendas. We'd better hide. They've found us out! :0

The criticisms of ID as a theory certainly do take a defensive tone. Maybe a series on the speculative nature of evolutionary origins, like directed transpermia (Wasn't that Crick?) or some of the other fantasies that abound.

Collin

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

20

You are equivocating on the meaning of "intelligent design" here. If we are to take ID advocates at their word, ID does not tell us anything about origins either. IDers claim that certain features of living organisms show evidence of design, but argue that this can be determined independent of any knowledge of the designer or the ultimate origins of the designed objects. They claim that the designer might be God, but equally, he/she/it could be some other limited entity that just fiddles around with organisms.

While ID is not a mechanical theory, it is a theory of causation; and looking at the irreducibly complex structures and information patterning in even the simplest life forms tells us that the cause of structure was an intelligent agent.

The same can be said of the universe as a whole; ID addresses the fine tuning of the universe and the privileged position earth holds, as evidences again for considering intelligence as a distinct cause, as opposed to chance and necessity.

So while ID does not tell us (or attempt to tell us) about the methodology of the origin of the universe and life, it does impose a causal requirement on those events.

21

Joe: "How did these organisms evolve from inanimate matter? No one knows. But until the theory can be rooted in a firm explanation for how this occurs, explanations for an “intelligent designer” will appear quite plausible."

Not really; the "intelligent designer" hypothesis just sets aside the problem, replacing it with a where-did-the-designer-come-from-and-what-is-its-nature problem.

"Perhaps I just have too much faith in science which causes me to reject the science-fiction that neo-Darwinists explanations are sufficient."

I'm glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read this.

"Or maybe I just assume that people who resort to ad hominems have run out of arguments."

More likely they have run out of patience. Ad hominems on both sides usually, but not always, follow a period of unproductive argument. #9 applies as much to the ID side as the other.

"Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants as he or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one of us does."

No, it does not. It most certainly does not. You'll have to back this up.

"It is the heart of the theory, which is why not one recognizes it which is why few critically thinking people actually believe it."

Huh? I'm having some trouble with this sentence. Are you implying that few critically thinking people believe evolutionary theory is valid? Or are you just attacking "Darwinism"? What ,if any, difference is there? I think "Darwinism" is a confusing term, probably invented by the "Darwin lied" crowd as a pejorative to tar people who accept evolutionary theory as a valid explanation of the origins of species.

22

“So while ID does not tell us (or attempt to tell us) about the methodology of the origin of the universe and life, it does impose a causal requirement on those events.”

Putting aside the science for a moment, how then does ID conflict with evolution? Evolution says nothing about the cause, but is all about the methodology. If ID tells us nothing about methodology, then why do ID proponents hold it up as an (the only) alternative to evolution?

23

"Every strain of Christianity out there acknowledges that the design of the universe was screwed up when sin entered the world. Rebellion against God lead to creation itself (along with humanity) becoming corrupted on a very basic level. The result is that breakdowns in design occur."

Ah... So you're saying that not only is there evidence of biological organisms being so incredibly complex that there can be no other conclusion than that they are the product of an intelligent consciousness, qua "ID," yes?

And yet, the reason why some organisms have what appear to be design flaws or imperfections is the result of Eve offering Adam an apple in the Garden of Eden, yes?

Now that's what I call rigorous science!

24

"Question for ID folks: If, according to God's plan, which you are fortunate to know, I am damned, then why should I not kill myself, say, today?

Sincerely,

Amy"

Dear Amy:

I'm quite sure you're not asking this question seriously, but I'm going to answer it as if you were; because I did ask this question seriously for many years.

It sounds like you are getting to the point where all rational people eventually get: life is horrible, pointless, meaningless, and cruel. The only choice is to either live for total pleasure today or to kill yourself. (See Flannery O'Connor "A Good Man is Hard to Find.") Both decisions take their own particular kind of courage.

There is only one answer and it's neither of the above: Christ is the only way out of despair.

I would correct your point about Christians "knowing God's plan." We don't claim to know God's plan. He doesn't divulge His plans to us. We just accept that He has one for each of us.

I'm going to offend lots of people now. Get ready. As a Christian, I believe I was formerly of the damned. I don't mean just damned in the sense of burning in hell with liberals and land developers for all eternity. I mean that my former life here on earth was literally hell on earth. I "felt" like one of the damned. I believe I am no longer damned because I have accepted Christ's love for me. I also believe that until you accept Christ as Lord of the Universe you are one of the damned. You might be one of the lucky ones whose life now is pretty good and you look forward to damnation at some future date. Some poor souls are miserable their whole lives and then they go to hell. Any more questions? Have a nice day.

25

Every strain of Christianity out there acknowledges that the design of the universe was screwed up when sin entered the world. Rebellion against God lead to creation itself (along with humanity) becoming corrupted on a very basic level. The result is that breakdowns in design occur.

Sin, the sand in the gearbox of the universe.

26

Putting aside the science for a moment, how then does ID conflict with evolution? Evolution says nothing about the cause, but is all about the methodology. If ID tells us nothing about methodology, then why do ID proponents hold it up as an (the only) alternative to evolution?

Actually, ID doesn't 'conflict' with evolution, it finds it causally insufficient; that is, evolution posits chance (mutations) and neccesity (natural slection) as the only causes of the structures of living organisms.

In testing the structures of living organisms, ID finds evidence of another cause; intelligent agency. In doing so, ID isn't held up as "(the only) alternative to evolution" but a neccesary addition to the already understood cause of mutation and natural selection.

27

"Putting aside the science for a moment, how then does ID conflict with evolution? Evolution says nothing about the cause, but is all about the methodology. If ID tells us nothing about methodology, then why do ID proponents hold it up as an (the only) alternative to evolution?"

Because the causes being discussed in evolutionary biology are being artificially limitted to those which would not require a designer. Things that would require a designer are not discussed (at least not openly).

For instance:

* front-loading
* separate creation
* genome decay

These are important points, but they cannot even be considered by evolutionary biologists because they would require a designer to start.

Instead we have this idiotic clinging to random mutation + natural selection as the engine for change, despite the fact that it has never been shown to do anything remotely resembling what evolutionary biologists claim it can.

They refuse to look at other mechanisms, because those other mechanisms require a designer to implement.

28

"And yet, the reason why some organisms have what appear to be design flaws or imperfections is the result of Eve offering Adam an apple in the Garden of Eden, yes?"

Dear Raven (AKA Heckle or Jeckle)

It's the story of creation. A way for us feeble human beings to comprehend how evil and sarcasm were introduced into the world. Had Eve been a Darwinist and a true evolutionist she would have done the smart thing: she would have eaten the snake. Though some accounts substitute a talking crow for the serpent.

29

Re: #10 "Say what you will about advocates of ID, they actually believe in the basic claims of their theory".

Let's be clear on this one. The standard accepted use of the word theory in scientific circles (not in the popular media) is at least the following:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis.

Based on this, ID IS NOT A THEORY in the normally accepted scientific sense. ID has yet to the legwork through scientific research, experiments and peer reviewed papers to build a large enough body of work that is generally accepted by the scientific community.

It is best an interesting, speculative HYPOTHESIS. And until the ID movement becomes serious about doing the work (which will take many, many years) for it to become a theory, for the vast majority of scientists it will remain just this.

30

Let's be clear on this one. The standard accepted use of the word theory in scientific circles (not in the popular media) is at least the following:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis.

Based on this, ID IS NOT A THEORY in the normally accepted scientific sense. ID has yet to the legwork through scientific research, experiments and peer reviewed papers to build a large enough body of work that is generally accepted by the scientific community.

It is best an interesting, speculative HYPOTHESIS. And until the ID movement becomes serious about doing the work (which will take many, many years) for it to become a theory, for the vast majority of scientists it will remain just this.

So, based on that criteria, when did evolution 'officially' become a theory?

31

“Because the causes being discussed in evolutionary biology are being artificially limitted to those which would not require a designer. Things that would require a designer are not discussed (at least not openly).”

Again, though, the theory of evolution doesn’t address the issue of causes at all. Evolution describes how previously existing life changes and adapts over time. Whether that life developed naturally or was crafted directly by the hand of God has no bearing on the process of evolution that modifies subsequent generations.

Now, other fields of science may have something to say about what forms the origin of life took. We can dig up older and older remains to try to find what the earliest forms of life were like, or to determine what kind of environment they existed in, but evolution kicks in on existing life, in the same way that gravity works through existing matter without having anything to say about the origin of that matter.

32

Again, though, the theory of evolution doesn’t address the issue of causes at all. Evolution describes how previously existing life changes and adapts over time. Whether that life developed naturally or was crafted directly by the hand of God has no bearing on the process of evolution that modifies subsequent generations.

Now, other fields of science may have something to say about what forms the origin of life took. We can dig up older and older remains to try to find what the earliest forms of life were like, or to determine what kind of environment they existed in, but evolution kicks in on existing life, in the same way that gravity works through existing matter without having anything to say about the origin of that matter.

This is where Joe rightly pointed out that this separation is artificial; it also isn't generally found in any text on biology. Even a cursory reading of biology texts starts with the origin of life and precedes seamlessly through the development of various species.

Not to mention there is really no distinction as to when evolution 'kicks in'; is it after the development of DNA? The first cellular structure? After the first cell splits? After the first genetic mutatation?

Pretending there is a '*poof* then there was life' moment is most unscientific.

33

"Tim:The only way anyone could put forth this argument is by being so willfully ignorant of Christian teachings that they are absolutely unqualified to level any criticisms at the Christian worldview without quite a bit of education.

Every strain of Christianity out there acknowledges that the design of the universe was screwed up when sin entered the world. Rebellion against God lead to creation itself (along with humanity) becoming corrupted on a very basic level. The result is that breakdowns in design occur"

LOL....i must admit i had not expected that tired old chessnut to be unearthed in a discussion about a subject (ID) that so desperately tries to pass itself off as science.
I d be very curious to know which part of the "observed intelligent inference" in the human design allows one to logicaly come to the conclusion that the design was once perfect but then suddently became flawed through the ingestion of an apple...because to someone as uneducated as i am,that just sounds like wishy washy esotheric drivel.

34

LOL....i must admit i had not expected that tired old chessnut to be unearthed in a discussion about a subject (ID) that so desperately tries to pass itself off as science.
I d be very curious to know which part of the "observed intelligent inference" in the human design allows one to logicaly come to the conclusion that the design was once perfect but then suddently became flawed through the ingestion of an apple...because to someone as uneducated as i am,that just sounds like wishy washy esotheric drivel.

ID doesn't address how the design of the universe and life might have come to be 'flawed' (or even posits that it is) although I am hrad pressed to understand how a naturalist would see the universe as 'flawed'.

35

"Pretending there is a '*poof* then there was life' moment is most unscientific."

Indeed...which is why ID fails in its endavor to pretend as science since that is exactly what ID claims..."poof and then there was life". As far as biology textbooks goes,the reason why they dont dwell on the subject of the sudden appearance of life is because we really dont know exactly how it happened...we just know that it did (obviously since we here) and assume that evolution leads all the way back to wherever/whenever that was...a valid assumption if one examines the available evidence.

36

"ID doesn't address how the design of the universe and life might have come to be 'flawed' (or even posits that it is) although I am hrad pressed to understand how a naturalist would see the universe as 'flawed'."

Indeed a naturalist would not but we are discussing ID here which as Tim and Joe basicaly admited is little more then stealth christianity trying to pass itself off as science and the "once we were perfect but then we screwed up" nonsense is a central part of that.

37

Indeed...which is why ID fails in its endavor to pretend as science since that is exactly what ID claims..."poof and then there was life". As far as biology textbooks goes,the reason why they dont dwell on the subject of the sudden appearance of life is because we really dont know exactly how it happened...we just know that it did (obviously since we here) and assume that evolution leads all the way back to wherever/whenever that was...a valid assumption if one examines the available evidence.

Actually, ID does no such thing; and misrepresenting ID in such a way goes to another of Joe's points.

ID looks as life as it is, and infers from the patterns of the structures that compose living organisms what caused them to come into existence; and in doing so, concludes intelligent agency was a necessity.

There is no *poof* there.

38

Indeed a naturalist would not but we are discussing ID here which as Tim and Joe basicaly admited is little more then stealth christianity trying to pass itself off as science and the "once we were perfect but then we screwed up" nonsense is a central part of that.

I don't really care what 'Joe and Tim' may or may not have admitted; it simply isn't a part of ID theory.

Indeed, it isn't even neccesary to attempt to explain such a thing to validate ID.

39

A: the design is filled with flaws which means that IT is imperfect.

Ooh, it's the bad-design-equals-no-design argument again.

Perhaps LudVanB is an exception in this regard, but this argument is commonly advanced due to an astonishing degree of hubris and ignorance in roughly equal proportions.

To give one example of "bad design" cited by evolutionists (you can find more here), S. Jay Olshansky et al. writing in Scientific American suggest that the human esophagus is badly designed because sometimes we choke when food or water goes down the wrong way. They suggest that it would be better to have two tubes instead — one leading directly from the nose to the lungs and another leading directly from the mouth to the stomach.

Brilliant! The first time we caught a cold we would suffocate on our own snot. We couldn't even communicate our peril to our attendants — in fact speech would be difficult even under the best of circumstances — since we would now be talking through our noses (unless, like some pre-adolescents, we learned to speak words while we belch.)

This only one of many examples of the obtuse arrogance of evolutionists in proclaiming "bad design" and it is so wrong in so many ways. If this is what passes for science among evolutionists, is it any wonder that the ignorant fundies (such as myself) are not buying it?

40

And now a word from Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and evangelical. The following comes from an interview by Tucker Carlson.

----------

Carlson: What do you think of this statement read to the Dover, Pennsylvania public school children that the theory is just a theory and explaining briefly intelligent design? Is that that be read to kids?

Collins: It sounds as if it's a good idea to suggest anybody listening to a discussion about science to keep your mind open and to be sure that facts are actually backed up by data. But, of course, that statement is full of a lot more than scientific facts and data and concerns about them. It is a statement that reflects a battle that's going on right now. And in my view, an unnecessary battle. So let me explain why I say that. As somebody who has watched our own D.N.A. sequence emerge, our own instruction book over the course of the last few years, all three billion letters of our code, and watched how it compares with that of other species, the evidence that comes out of that kind of analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of a single origin of life from which various forms were then derived by a process which seems entirely consistent with Darwin's view of natural selection. By saying that, some people listening to my words will immediately conclude that I must therefore be opposed to any role for god in the process that's not true. But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either.

Carlson: Why?

Collins: Intelligent design is a fairly recent arrival on the scene. Been around 15 years or so. It argues that there are certain constructs in biology, certain particular features that can't be explained by evolution because they have irreduceable complexity. Take the eye, for instance. How do you develop something as complicated as the eye by a process of natural selection. It doesn't seem like that would fit with the slow gradual process where small changes get selected for. You'd never get there. The problem with that argument is biology actually is identifying multiple intermediate steps from the simplest single light-sensitive cell to something as complicated as the eye which clearly could have evolution acting upon them and result in a complicated structure. I worry about intelligent design, though I admire its advocates for wishing to put forward something in the way of a rebuttal to the idea that evolution says there's no god. And we'll come back to why I think that's an unfortunate argument. I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.

Carlson: Does evolution even imply that there's no god?

Collins: Of course not. Evolution, although it's called a theory, in science a theory is a collection of observations that are pulled together into a consistent view of things. Electromagnetic theory, for instance. It doesn't mean it's still hypothetical and people don't think it's right. Biology makes almost no sense without evolution to undergird it. Saying as the opening statement did evolution is a theory, not a fact, that's not really quite an adequate explanation of the solidity of information we have that --

Carlson: Do we need a new term?

Collins: We need a new term. Evolution has reached the point it's not going to be discarded.

Carlson: Why don't we call it a law?

Collins: Law in science, perhaps a little different. You're talking about physical laws, say, of gravitation. This is in fact a way of understanding how biological things came into being. But it in no way excludes god. Let me come to that. Science investigates the natural world. It is the way to investigate the natural world. But if god exists, god must be outside the natural world and so science really is silent in terms of answering that question. In that regard, atheists, who say there is no god. Where does god fit in to this, if you think evolution explains life forms including our own? I think it's fairly straightforward. I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that requires god to step in and fill in these gaps in the development of the eye. I think evolution is self-sufficient.

41

"Ooh, it's the bad-design-equals-no-design argument again"

thats not at all what i said. I made the point that a flawed design would imply a flawed intelligence which means that it could not be the result of the perfect christian god,since perfection as an absolute cannot result in imperfection.

42

"Actually, ID does no such thing; and misrepresenting ID in such a way goes to another of Joe's points.

ID looks as life as it is, and infers from the patterns of the structures that compose living organisms what caused them to come into existence; and in doing so, concludes intelligent agency was a necessity.

There is no *poof* there."

Perhaps...but since you did not adress the rest of my statement about biology textbooks then i ll assume you now agree that they dont contain any "poof" either.

43

Carlson: Why don't we call it a law?

Collins: Law in science, perhaps a little different. You're talking about physical laws, say, of gravitation. This is in fact a way of understanding how biological things came into being. But it in no way excludes god. Let me come to that. Science investigates the natural world. It is the way to investigate the natural world. But if god exists, god must be outside the natural world and so science really is silent in terms of answering that question. In that regard, atheists, who say there is no god. Where does god fit in to this, if you think evolution explains life forms including our own? I think it's fairly straightforward. I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that requires god to step in and fill in these gaps in the development of the eye. I think evolution is self-sufficient.

I find it interesting that Collins is making a theological argument against ID here rather than a scientific one; he is basically saying, God is transcendent, so we can't observe His working in our world. Elsewhere he has said, "When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

This would seem to completely contradict this idea that God's handiwork can't be observed. Either way, he has a definitive metaphysical position, and his opinions about ID seem to be drawn from that position rather than from a weighing of the actual scientific evidence.

44

Perhaps...but since you did not adress the rest of my statement about biology textbooks then i ll assume you now agree that they dont contain any "poof" either.

I didn't realize you had made a 'statement' to this end. You agreed biology texts discuss the origin of life and do so in the context of life's development, which contradicts the notion that they are separate issues.

The '*poof* life occurred' is found in the arguments of evolutionists in forums like this, not in text books, which was my point.

45

thats not at all what i said. I made the point that a flawed design would imply a flawed intelligence which means that it could not be the result of the perfect christian god,since perfection as an absolute cannot result in imperfection.

Even if a "flawed design would imply a flawed intelligence" it would still be evidence of a designer whatever the presumed designer's nature; that is the point of ID.

46

#8 By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations. – Nature is too complex to be encompassed in any one field. That is why it’s necessary for scientific disciplines (physics, biology, chemistry) to be broken down into sub-disciplines (cosmology, zoology, biochemistry, etc.). But while most scientists may not have no problems thinking in unconnected categories, the average person expects the various parts to be stitched back into a seamless whole.

Strange, most people are content to enjoy their ipods and air conditioning without demanding to know where did all these really useful electrons come from? Where the universe wasn't born with an equal amount of antimatter making it impossible for us to enjoy these things today and so on.

An adequate theory of speciation must begin at the beginning. Before there can be species there must first be living organisms. How did these organisms evolve from inanimate matter? No one knows. But until the theory can be rooted in a firm explanation for how this occurs, explanations for an “intelligent designer” will appear quite plausible.

Perhaps but as for when an adequate theory must begin, it will begin wherever it can be usefully applied period. You've nicely established yourself as living in the gaps wherever possible. You should have titled this point "ID shall be the theory that lives in any and all gaps in evolutionary theory".

Are you saying then that ID is really a theory of abiogensis and not evolution? That once ID created the first living cell or whatever evolution kicked in to produce life as we know it today? That's fine but if so your theory is very much like:

Some scientists, such as Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick, have at least attempted to come up with an alternative explanation. Crick, realizing the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring on earth, published a paper in which he suggested that life on earth was “seeded” from another planet. (That’s something to keep in mind the next time someone mentions that real science (as opposed to something like ID theory) is submitted through “peer-reviewed science journals”.)

Yes although Crick's speculation is just that, speculation. When and if he or someone finds a way to test such a theory out it will become less speculative and more of a theory. A while ago you linked to a very detailed paper that did explore such a theory. It, unlike you, actually took science seriously and attempted to make estimates of how much material from the various planets in our solar system has been exchanged over time and attempted to estimate if microscoptic life could survive a trip from on planet to another onboard a rock or dust.

Finally,

For example, philosopher of science David Stove notes that ultra-Darwinists assert that while man was once trapped in the struggle to survive and pass on our genes, we no longer are trapped in the spiral of natural selection. Stove calls this the “Cave Man” attempt to solve “Darwinism’s Dilemma”:

You just don't understand what you are talking about in #10 and neither did Stove.

First you seem to think being under 'natural selection' means being hungry and having to bash other animals over the head a lot to keep them away from your food. In reality natural selection simply means that some traits yield better reproductive success than other traits, success here being a measure that includes both quantity AND quality. Are you seriously asserting that even today in the human animal some traits are helpful for reproductive success and others are harmful?

Second

Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants as he or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one of us does. For there can clearly be no question of Darwinism making an exception of man, without openly contradicting itself. ‘Every single organic being’, or ‘each organic being’: this means you.

Errr no it doesn't. Darwin and all other serious thinkers on the subject have always recognized that many species do not just have as many children as they can come hell or not. Quantity and quality matters. While many species try to win the game with quantity, many also try winning with quality. Not only humans but many mammels require a lot of energy and time to raise hence many employ a strategy of having fewer children but devoting more resources to them.

Neither Darwin nor any evolutionary textbook states that every organism at every moment reproduces as much as it is physically able to with no exceptions.

47

#8 is again nothing more than a reason why uninformed people don't understand the theory - not a reason why they should actually reject it. Pre-biotic evolution, or abiogenesis, is a different subject from the ordinary subject matter of evolution theory, and it is harder to study because, to all indications, the conditions under which it occurred no longer exist, while we see evolution all around us and have preserved evidence of past evolutionary history. That's simply the way it is. Thinking that that's somehow suspicious is merely a sign of ignorance. Scientists can hardly be charged with undermining their own theory by telling the truth about what they know; if that fuels the weird conspiracy-theory claims of creationists, the only reasonable response is to continue telling what they know, not repackage it to cater to someone else's confusion.

As for #9, you have to distinguish true ad hominem from merely factual, relevant description. Most critics of evolution theory are gaspingly ignorant, not just of evolution, but of all biology and science in general. Their arguments are howlingly asinine, and they can't grasp it. Look at their "evidence": repeated claims that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits either biological evolution or even the existence of the universe; flat refusals to accept a huge range of widely used and mutually supporting techniques for dating the earth (one clown from the ICR claims he has proven radiometric dating is false because his claimed dates for Grand Canyon rock layers come out backwards - a result, in fact, of fraud on his part); ubiquitous witless calculations of probabilities of random assemblages (DNA bases, protein residues, body parts), with the claim that because it is statistically impossible for (say) a protein molecule to assemble randomly, it is therefore impossible for it to have evolved; continual reliance on claims disproven decades ago, such as that the moon does not have enough dust to be old, or the ocean does not have enough salt, or that the earth's magnetic field is decaying too rapidly, etc. (And all this not to mention the gross dishonesty that permeates creationist "evidence", such as continual references to supposed human footprints among dinosaur tracks in Texas, after their status as hoax had already been admitted, the scores of misleading and distorted quotes from staunchly rational scientists and other prominent figures, purporting to support creationism, or simply bizarre stories that are completely made up, such as Darwin's "deathbed retraction" or the discovery of Noah's Ark.) This is simply the work of people who can't or won't come to terms with the actual substance of the subjects they are discussing. It's important to recognize that, and "ignorance" (if not "dishonesty") is the name for it.

As for #10, it's frankly idiotic. (See "ignorance", above.) Evolution scientists certainly believe their theory, and they walk their talk - they use it not only to explain phenomena in the natural world, but to engage in animal testing of new drugs and medical procedures (meaningless if the similarities between species are mere arbitrary coincidences), to explain and intervene in human psychology (impossible if psychology is unrelated to human origins or history), and to develop pest-control and public health strategies premised upon the reproductive strategies of the target vectors (pointless if reproductive competition has no relationship to species survival). For that matter, creationists are pretty convinced of evolution, too, when the chips are down: there are plenty of them willing to ostentatiously spout some gibberish they picked up from a Watchtower pamphlet, but none I've ever met who was willing to choose their own drugs or medical treatments on the assumption that animal testing or research models have no relationsip to human biology, or who openly deny that bacteria evolve resistance to drugs, or that predator introduction has an effect on species stability.

As for whether humans are still evolving, it is often claimed that human evolution is impacted by the fact that our survival and reproduction are now much more influenced by social and cultural factors - our access to effective fertility control, and our use of medicine to extend the lives of the physically impaired - than by mere reproductive efficacy. This makes perfect sense. But it doesn't contradict anything in evolution theory. The circumstances in which we live and reproduce have changed, and so the consequences of those processes are affected - what else would you expect? Certainly no biologist expects otherwise. The claim that this contradicts some aspect of evolution theory is - again - simple ignorance.

And, finally, the claim that “If the theory says something which is not true now of our species (or another), then it is not true—finish”, or that evolution theory predicts that all species will reproduce at maximal rate, is beyond ignorance - it's sheerest stupidity. The claim about "all species at all times" is nonsense; evolution theory has always - beginning with Darwin - proposed multiple mechanisms for evolutionary change, which have differing consequences under differing circumstances; later work has only deepened the complexity of this picture. (For that matter, every broad scientific theory is the same: cosmology claims that conditions in the universe are different now from what they had been in the past; geology propounds a continually changing earth; geochemistry tells us the basic chemical makeup of the earth, sea, and sky has altered dramatically since the planet cooled. Things change. The theories are expected to incorporate that fact.) And nobody has ever claimed that evolution theory expects a maximal number of children. Darwin observed that more children are born than survive - and that their survival is not random - but he did not say that as many children are born as are possible. Biologists have known since before Darwin's time that some species tend to produce large numbers of offspring and provide little care for them (salmon, dandelions, spiders, etc.), while others produce few offspring and invest heavily in raising them to adulthood (humans, elephants, bears, etc.). This is so well-known that the two strategies have names (the many-offspring strategy is known as "r-selection"; the high-investment strategy is known as "K-selection"; both are predicted by standard evolutionary models regarding environmental stability and selective pressure). To claim that "Darwinism says that every single one of us does [have 'as many descendants as he or she could have had']" is simply unbelievable ignorance; it's a staggeringly dumb misapprehension of extremely well-known biology, and of evolution theory, and of "Darwinism" (Darwin himself was under no such delusion). This objection is not merely off-base, it suggests that Stove holds some second-had caricature of the theory so garbled that he can't even state its most basic claims accurately.

48

Strange, most people are content to enjoy their ipods and air conditioning without demanding to know where did all these really useful electrons come from? Where the universe wasn't born with an equal amount of antimatter making it impossible for us to enjoy these things today and so on.

Actually, most studies of the development of the universe attempt to address it’s beginnings. In fact, a significant portion of physics is devoted to why the universe works the way it does.

Are you saying then that ID is really a theory of abiogensis and not evolution? That once ID created the first living cell or whatever evolution kicked in to produce life as we know it today? That's fine but if so your theory is very much like:

Actually, ID addresses the origin and development of life in the same manner (making it incidentally, a more complete approach to the matter); it looks at life from top to bottom and attempts to infer whether intelligence was a factor in the cause of its existence.

Errr no it doesn't. Darwin and all other serious thinkers on the subject have always recognized that many species do not just have as many children as they can come hell or not. Quantity and quality matters. While many species try to win the game with quantity, many also try winning with quality. Not only humans but many mammels require a lot of energy and time to raise hence many employ a strategy of having fewer children but devoting more resources to them.

Even with ‘quality’, all organisms still try to have as many offspring as possible; it is their length of gestation that prevents the elephant from having as many offspring as say, a bacteria; not ‘strategizing’ on the part of the mammal.

49

#8 is again nothing more than a reason why uninformed people don't understand the theory - not a reason why they should actually reject it. Pre-biotic evolution, or abiogenesis, is a different subject from the ordinary subject matter of evolution theory, and it is harder to study because, to all indications, the conditions under which it occurred no longer exist, while we see evolution all around us and have preserved evidence of past evolutionary history. That's simply the way it is. Thinking that that's somehow suspicious is merely a sign of ignorance. Scientists can hardly be charged with undermining their own theory by telling the truth about what they know; if that fuels the weird conspiracy-theory claims of creationists, the only reasonable response is to continue telling what they know, not repackage it to cater to someone else's confusion.

Again, biology texts simply don't separate the discussion of life's origin from its later development the way evolutionists do when challenged - and there is no reason why a biologist would. If it happened as an unguided natural event, it would have been a seamless process, not a leap.

If it's matter of "the conditions under which it occurred no longer exist" then our knowledge of all of life's development is suspect because many conditions existed in the course of life's history that no longer exist.

How can we say that those unknown past conditions, which prevent us from being certain about life's origins, don’t also mask our full understanding of its later development?

50

“How can we say that those unknown past conditions, which prevent us from being certain about life's origins, don’t also mask our full understanding of its later development?”

Scientists have a pretty decent idea of how the earth formed, of how the oceans and atmosphere came to be, and the like, but there remains a tremendous amount of detail that is unknown or just an educated guess. Our lack of knowledge about the precise way in which the planet formed does not mean that our knowledge of plate tectonics, our ability to forecast areas where earthquakes and volcanoes are more likely, or even our ability to look at geology and see how earthquakes, volcanoes, and glaciers have behaved in the past as the continents moved about the planet is all useless. (apologies for the run-on sentence gone wild)

Similarly, we use our knowledge to predict the weather on a daily basis, within a certain realm of uncertainty, without being able to pin down the origins of our atmosphere and oceans to perfect accuracy.

Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life, though it offers some clues. Despite Joe’s claim in point #8, this doesn’t invalidate our ability to use evolution to study modern life, the conditions affecting it, or to study the past development of life on Earth since its origin.

51

Scientists have a pretty decent idea of how the earth formed, of how the oceans and atmosphere came to be, and the like, but there remains a tremendous amount of detail that is unknown or just an educated guess. Our lack of knowledge about the precise way in which the planet formed does not mean that our knowledge of plate tectonics, our ability to forecast areas where earthquakes and volcanoes are more likely, or even our ability to look at geology and see how earthquakes, volcanoes, and glaciers have behaved in the past as the continents moved about the planet is all useless. (apologies for the run-on sentence gone wild).

Similarly, we use our knowledge to predict the weather on a daily basis, within a certain realm of uncertainty, without being able to pin down the origins of our atmosphere and oceans to perfect accuracy.

Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life, though it offers some clues. Despite Joe’s claim in point #8, this doesn’t invalidate our ability to use evolution to study modern life, the conditions affecting it, or to study the past development of life on Earth since its origin.

Joe didn't claim that the lack of of the ability to explain the origin of life 'invalidated' "our ability to use evolution to study modern life"; he said "until the theory can be rooted in a firm explanation for how this occurs, explanations for an “intelligent designer” will appear quite plausible.".

In other words, saying the equivalent of "no comment" when evolutionists are pressed about life's origin helps ID.

And indeed, it does.

52

"I didn't realize you had made a 'statement' to this end. You agreed biology texts discuss the origin of life and do so in the context of life's development, which contradicts the notion that they are separate issues.

The '*poof* life occurred' is found in the arguments of evolutionists in forums like this, not in text books, which was my point"

No i dont...why do you insist on misrepresenting what i write? Biology textbooks do not discuss the origin of life because A: its not a matter of biology but rather of chemistry and B: the origin of life is not the least bit relevent to the theory of evolution which explores the origin of SPECIES...as far as argument made by evolutionists on this board reguarding the "poof life occurs" drivel,kindly provide an exemple and then we ll discuss it.

53

"Actually, most studies of the development of the universe attempt to address it’s beginnings. In fact, a significant portion of physics is devoted to why the universe works the way it does."

Good grief man...are you doing that on purpose? the point was clearly made that understanding how a Ipod works is not dependant to the knowledge of its origin...same thing with the ToE...it is a means to explain how life changes over time and NOT how it came into existance in the first place...those are seperate fields of scientific inquiries and they are not co-dependant.

54

No i dont...why do you insist on misrepresenting what i write? Biology textbooks do not discuss the origin of life because

Wait, wait; they do discuss it. Simply peruse the contents of any general biology text and you will see it.

A: its not a matter of biology but rather of chemistry and B: the origin of life is not the least bit relevent to the theory of evolution which explores the origin of SPECIES...as far as argument made by evolutionists on this board reguarding the "poof life occurs" drivel,kindly provide an exemple and then we ll discuss it.

Having studied biology, I don’t understand how someone can say the development of the genome can be irrelevant to understanding its later modification; there simply is no clear distinction between the two.

It’s like saying how a computer program is coded is irrelevant to how it runs; that is absurd.

55

I should have added #11 -- accusing ID advocates of dishonesty. That's become the lazy way of dealing with all intellectual opponents nowadays. It's not enough to say someone is wrong, they must know they are wrong and be lying about it.

So ID advocates are always honest? Or are they to be given a 'get out of dishonesty free' card because you tell us it is 'lazy' to point out dishonesty?

Also, what about Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. Neither of them were "evangelical Christians" and they both posited a form of "intelligent design" argument for the seeding of life on earth.

Well yea if by Intelligent Design you mean, what? As a scientific theory ID asserts you can detect design by measuring complexity in a system. But here it seems to be just a catch all phrase that means everything and nothing. If you don't like evolution for whatever reason you're a member of the ID club.

First, let's consider that only about 5% of the population is atheist. So that narrows it down somewhat. Second, there are atheists who accept ID. Anthony Flew is probably the most notable one. Todd Moody and David Berlinski are agnostics. And David Stove, rejected neo-Darwinism and he was an atheist.

Here we go again, ID isn't about religion. Yet Joe presented, in a deceptive manner, a poll he claimed showing atheism was the dominante belief of scientists and this was evidence that ID wasn't getting a fair shake. Yet if ID isn't about religion then why would the religion of scientists in the field matter at all? When the Shroud of Turin was studied by scientists did it matter if the scientist looking under the microscope, categorizing the pollen and fibers found, was Jewish or Christian? Yet even though something as major as the Shroud of Turin can be examined by science without having to care about the religious beliefs of the scientists Joe finds its important to know whether scientists evaluating ID as a theory are religious.

jhudson
This would seem to completely contradict this idea that God's handiwork can't be observed. Either way, he has a definitive metaphysical position, and his opinions about ID seem to be drawn from that position rather than from a weighing of the actual scientific evidence.

I recommend seeing my 'lottery' analogy on the comments of I&II. I think Collins is saying that since God is by definition outside of and superior to nature he is free to interact with nature if he wants to or to let it do its business. Since what happens is God's will in the sense that God could not only intervene in nature if he wants but also that he set up nature knowing it would do what it did. This comes with the territory of being an infinite beign. We, however, are not such a beign and whether or not one exists we must make do with the scientific method we have available to us.

In my lottery example I asked would you mock your mother if she won the lottery and thanked God for it? If not why not? Any standard textbook on probability will tell you the lottery winner is a random function (assuming it isn't rigged). I never heard anyone object to probability science on religious grounds. Yet by definition God, if he exists, not only knew she would win the lottery but created the universe knowing 18.8322522 billion years later jhudson's mom would win the lottery.

The resolution to this is that God is defined as outside of nature so yes the description of the lottery as a random function is fully accurate for HUMANS who are trapped in nature. At the same time God is free to either interven in nature (making your mom the winner, that would be the ID perspective) or to let nature go ALREADY knowing and approving of the outcome.

Using this analogy, ID is like saying the odds of you mom winning were really low therefore God must have rigged the game in her favor. However this would not be a scientific theory unless you had some actual evidence from nature....say you mom won the lottery 30 times in a row....that could back it up. Until then you can thank God for your mom's good fortunes but the guys in the math department don't have to change their probability textbooks.

Actually, most studies of the development of the universe attempt to address it’s beginnings. In fact, a significant portion of physics is devoted to why the universe works the way it does.

No most studies do not and many of the theories of how our universe works starting with Newton and before made little or no issue of how the universe began. To illustrate it was only until the second half of the last century that the consensus in science swung away from the idea that the universe always existed more or less as it does now to the idea that it had a beginning.

Even with ‘quality’, all organisms still try to have as many offspring as possible; it is their length of gestation that prevents the elephant from having as many offspring as say, a bacteria; not ‘strategizing’ on the part of the mammal.

Why would evolution prohibit an organism from 'strategizing' reproduction?

Again, biology texts simply don't separate the discussion of life's origin from its later development the way evolutionists do when challenged - and there is no reason why a biologist would. If it happened as an unguided natural event, it would have been a seamless process, not a leap.

1. Yes biology texts do separate them.

2. Yes if it was all a natural event it would be seamless but our knowledge about nature is NOT seamless.

If Joe's point was simply that we should not be content to understand just evolution but also how life originated I would agree with him fully. However Joe's point seems to be if you don't understand the beginning of the story what you know about the middle must be untrue.

56

"In other words, saying the equivalent of "no comment" when evolutionists are pressed about life's origin helps ID."

Only in so far as the misinformed and the ignorants go

57

Good grief man...are you doing that on purpose? the point was clearly made that understanding how a Ipod works is not dependant to the knowledge of its origin...same thing with the ToE...it is a means to explain how life changes over time and NOT how it came into existance in the first place...those are seperate fields of scientific inquiries and they are not co-dependant.

We don't concern ourselves with the origin of the Ipod because we know it's origin.

If someone were to contend that the Ipod were an unguided accumulation of circuitry over time, then we would concern ourselves with the origin of a system that allows circuits to do this; or at least any intellectually curious person would.

58

Only in so far as the misinformed and the ignorants go

Ah, yes, ad hominems; you keep proving Joe's points.

59

thats not at all what i said. I made the point that a flawed design would imply a flawed intelligence...

All such arguments of the form "I could have designed x better, therefore something-or-other..." sound to us like "If there is a God (which there probably isn't), I'm smarter than He is!" Being the fair and open-minded person that I am, I am willing to admit if proven wrong that perhaps LudVanB really is smarter than God. But as amply shown here, assertions that "I could have done it better" generally tend to be badly and obviously mistaken.

60

"Having studied biology, I don’t understand how someone can say the development of the genome can be irrelevant to understanding its later modification; there simply is no clear distinction between the two."

Obviously there is a distinction since i and most other science minded people see it clearly.

"It’s like saying how a computer program is coded is irrelevant to how it runs; that is absurd."

No..its like saying knowing how program runs is not relevant to knowing WHO coded it.

61

"All such arguments of the form "I could have designed x better, therefore something-or-other..." sound to us like "If there is a God (which there probably isn't), I'm smarter than He is!" Being the fair and open-minded person that I am, I am willing to admit if proven wrong that perhaps LudVanB really is smarter than God. But as amply shown here, assertions that "I could have done it better" generally tend to be badly and obviously mistaken."

i dont pretend to be smarter then anyone...i merely observed that an imperfect design implies an imperfect intelligence

62

In other words, saying the equivalent of "no comment" when evolutionists are pressed about life's origin helps ID.

And indeed, it does.

Do you realize how pathetic this is? This is like me saying I'm a better golfer than Tiger Woods as long as he doesn't actually play me. I guess it's plausible in the most technical of senses but why is this worth so much to you?

Having studied biology, I don’t understand how someone can say the development of the genome can be irrelevant to understanding its later modification; there simply is no clear distinction between the two.

It’s like saying how a computer program is coded is irrelevant to how it runs; that is absurd.

A better analogy would be to say it's not really important to know how a program was first coded for you understand how it works. Look at something open source like Linux. You can understand how the program works without knowing who wrote the code or when. Maybe knowing who wrote it and when would help you with some things....for example if programmers in Poland are prone to make a certain type of mistake it may be helpful to know that a particular module was heavily coded by contributors from Poland but many who make a serious contribution to Linux don't know the 'origin' of the program in that manner.

Now if your subject was the history of Linux then yes you'd like to know how it all started and such but many contributions might have been lost and deleted. You could use science to comb through old archives to fill in many of your gaps but there will most likely be some gaps that are just not able to be filled in. However that in itself does not mean it is sensible for you to argue that off the wall theories make the most plausible explanations for what happened in those gaps. If the original contributors of some module are lost it is not sensible to argue that time traveling Star Trek characters contributed that code and then covered up their tracks.

63

I recommend seeing my 'lottery' analogy on the comments of I&II. I think Collins is saying that since God is by definition outside of and superior to nature he is free to interact with nature if he wants to or to let it do its business. Since what happens is God's will in the sense that God could not only intervene in nature if he wants but also that he set up nature knowing it would do what it did. This comes with the territory of being an infinite beign. We, however, are not such a beign and whether or not one exists we must make do with the scientific method we have available to us.

In my lottery example I asked would you mock your mother if she won the lottery and thanked God for it? If not why not? Any standard textbook on probability will tell you the lottery winner is a random function (assuming it isn't rigged). I never heard anyone object to probability science on religious grounds. Yet by definition God, if he exists, not only knew she would win the lottery but created the universe knowing 18.8322522 billion years later jhudson's mom would win the lottery.

The resolution to this is that God is defined as outside of nature so yes the description of the lottery as a random function is fully accurate for HUMANS who are trapped in nature. At the same time God is free to either interven in nature (making your mom the winner, that would be the ID perspective) or to let nature go ALREADY knowing and approving of the outcome.

Using this analogy, ID is like saying the odds of you mom winning were really low therefore God must have rigged the game in her favor. However this would not be a scientific theory unless you had some actual evidence from nature....say you mom won the lottery 30 times in a row....that could back it up. Until then you can thank God for your mom's good fortunes but the guys in the math department don't have to change their probability textbooks.

And if your mom won the lottery 100 times in a row, could one come to a reasonable statistical conclusion about the workings of the lottery?

No most studies do not and many of the theories of how our universe works starting with Newton and before made little or no issue of how the universe began. To illustrate it was only until the second half of the last century that the consensus in science swung away from the idea that the universe always existed more or less as it does now to the idea that it had a beginning.

Well , then, most modern studies of the universe (for example, string theory) consider the origins of the universe along with the studies of the phenomena contained therein. My point stands.

Why would evolution prohibit an organism from 'strategizing' reproduction?

Organisms (other than man) don't 'strategize' their reproduction; from our perspective we may see a 'strategy', but that is a product of genetically determined behaviors and gestation periods, not intention on part of the organism.

1. Yes biology texts do separate them.

Again, peruse any text; Miller–Urey is genrally right there preceding a discussion of Darwin.

2. Yes if it was all a natural event it would be seamless but our knowledge about nature is NOT seamless.

Agreed; but that is true of all of life's development.

However Joe's point seems to be if you don't understand the beginning of the story what you know about the middle must be untrue.

No, his point was that if you act like the beginning doesn't matter, you help ID.

64

"We don't concern ourselves with the origin of the Ipod because we know it's origin.

If someone were to contend that the Ipod were an unguided accumulation of circuitry over time, then we would concern ourselves with the origin of a system that allows circuits to do this; or at least any intellectually curious person would."

Really? so you know exactly who invented the Ipod,how the idea came to that person in the first place,when and how it was first put donw on paper,how many years of research went into its developement...because i dont know any of this and i still understand how an Ipod works.

65

Obviously there is a distinction since i and most other science minded people see it clearly.

Most 'other science minded people' don't see a clear distinction; just evolutionists in debates.

No..its like saying knowing how program runs is not relevant to knowing WHO coded it.

Doesn't have to do with who, but how.

66

Really? so you know exactly who invented the Ipod,how the idea came to that person in the first place,when and how it was first put donw on paper,how many years of research went into its developement...because i dont know any of this and i still understand how an Ipod works.

That's because you are rightly arguing that it was the product of intelligence - you are an Ipod intelligent Design advocate; if you weren't, then there would be a question as to it's origin.

67

And if your mom won the lottery 100 times in a row, could one come to a reasonable statistical conclusion about the workings of the lottery?

No you would come to two possible conclusions. One is that someone has rigged the lottery and the other is that you have just observed something that happened by pure chance that was very unlikely to have ever happened but was not impossible.

If the lottery machine was examined with every gadget we had on earth and found to be 100% unrigged what could you then say? Again just that something was observed that had a very low, but not zero, probability of happening.

From God's perspective what would we say? Either he intervened in nature, altering its laws, to produce this outcome or that he knew the very, very unlikely thing would happen and let it happen. The ID argument seems to say that we should conclude it was the former rather than the latter. IMO, this serves to diminish God by insisting on trapping him intervening in nature rather than having the option to 'throw the dice' knowing he would be happy with how they landed.

Well , then, most modern studies of the universe (for example, string theory) consider the origins of the universe along with the studies of the phenomena contained therein. My point stands.

Heh, is relativity modern? If so it was developed at a time when the scientific consensus was for a static universe. Ditto for quantum theory.

Organisms (other than man) don't 'strategize' their reproduction; from our perspective we may see a 'strategy', but that is a product of genetically determined behaviors and gestation periods, not intention on part of the organism.

Really? How do you know that?

Again, peruse any text; Miller–Urey is genrally right there preceding a discussion of Darwin.

Yes covering abiogensis, not evolution. The study of the Roman Empire is different than the study of Modern Europe, that a history text might put one in front doesn't change that. Yes there was a 'seamless' flow from one to the other but that doesn't mean our understanding of both is the same.

No, his point was that if you act like the beginning doesn't matter, you help ID.

True but then as you insist on the 'biology texts' that discuss Miller-Urey evolutionists don't generally act like the 'beginning' doesn't matter. In fact it does matter a lot but not to the theory of evolution.

68

"No, his point was that if you act like the beginning doesn't matter, you help ID."

As i said in an earlier post none of the points Joe make either validate ID or refute the ToE from a scientific standpoint. No one who has a clear understanding of the ToE and what it actually says can possibly be swayed by any of them...they can only work on people who's knowledge of these matters is at best limited. If IDist were any kind of scientists,they would be appaled that the only headway they seem to making rests on public relations instead of good science.

69

Do you realize how pathetic this is? This is like me saying I'm a better golfer than Tiger Woods as long as he doesn't actually play me. I guess it's plausible in the most technical of senses but why is this worth so much to you?

I was re-stating Joe’s argument, which you mis-stated.

A better analogy would be to say it's not really important to know how a program was first coded for you understand how it works. Look at something open source like Linux. You can understand how the program works without knowing who wrote the code or when. Maybe knowing who wrote it and when would help you with some things....for example if programmers in Poland are prone to make a certain type of mistake it may be helpful to know that a particular module was heavily coded by contributors from Poland but many who make a serious contribution to Linux don't know the 'origin' of the program in that manner.
Now if your subject was the history of Linux then yes you'd like to know how it all started and such but many contributions might have been lost and deleted. You could use science to comb through old archives to fill in many of your gaps but there will most likely be some gaps that are just not able to be filled in. However that in itself does not mean it is sensible for you to argue that off the wall theories make the most plausible explanations for what happened in those gaps. If the original contributors of some module are lost it is not sensible to argue that time traveling Star Trek characters contributed that code and then covered up their tracks.

The flaw in your argument is that you already know that intelligence played a part in the development of Linux; if someone contended that an information system like Linux had developed incrementally through chance processes, and indeed, that is how it continued to be modified, then the origin of that sort of system would be of some importance.

70

Furthermore i would like to point out that while IDists love to attack evolutionists for not adressing the "first cause" in the ToE,they balk at the notion that ID requires both the identity of the designer and the means by which design was implemented with supporting evidence for both in order to qualify as any kind of scientific theory...a clear case of the kettle calling the pot black if ever there was one.