..they key test for my "theory" is.. well you show me another example of something that generates information and doesn't have an intelligent creator bla bla. Man I wasted 20 minutes of my life in this crap, I feel sorry for Prof. Ward for having to sit through this and waste even more time defending against this wishful thinking wanna-be science bullshit.
Why is it when any creationist is asked to define their terms they dodge the question? Could it be that if they actually nail down the parts of their proposal it will make that much easier to blow it out of the metaphorical scientific water?
@chris7777777777777 Then give me the time code you wanker. ID is a bankrupt theory that only appeals to the slack jawed religious idiot. What does it predict? What operational knowledge can we pull from investigating it? What possible benefit can it be to anything?
This is all pointless. If ID had any merit at all it would already be a scientific theory. These creationists can't successfully argue their case in the peer reviewed scientific domain. So, their only option is to indoctrinate impressionable children before they can think for themselves - turn them into brain-dead morons like Meyer.
many atheists nowadays are philosophically retarded. Meyers is explaining his case in detail. Ward arrogantly laughs and says "science is....science does....hehehe".
This is an excellent question, but I don't think it is anything like devastating for intelligent design. ID does not say that every feature of every living thing was the direct result of intelligent design. Life has had a history, and much of it can be explained in Darwinian terms.
That said, it is not obvious that a paramecium should have less DNA than humans. DNA is not the same as the information it carries. A paramecium may have more DNA than us but less information.
@SnoopyDaniels well, are you admitting that not all the DNA has a purpose? do you think the paramecium with several times more DNA than a human may not use all that for a purpose? In fact, the vast majority of it!
Why do you think a designer would put all that DNA in there?
Also , if you are a ID person, do you think a God designed a system where mutations that occur in the "junk" DNA cause no harm, but others cause cystic fibrosis?.
No, I am not admitting that at all, because as I said before, to do so would be a statement of ignorance. I'm simply explaining to you what Intelligent Design theory says. It has never been the position of ANY ID scientists that ALL features of the physical or biological worlds are best explained by intelligence. Stephen Meyer says this very clearly in the debate. Did you watch the whole thing?
@SnoopyDaniels It is not an argument from ignorance...it is a reasonable inference made from observation...one can delete, mutate this dna with no apparent functional loss. Hard to imagine a design here......Hard to imagine a design when one looks at the nested hierarchical bush of life,when one understands the mechanism of mutation(errors made by a mechanical unit ( DNA polymerase))..really hard to imagine a design by a "Good" designer...smallpox etc
It is NEVER reasonable to infer that because you don't know what something does it therefore has no function. You can have your appendix removed and still live, and for a long time that was taken as evidence that the appendix had no function. However, now we know that the appendix plays a role in our immune system. The fact that you can delete certain portions of an organism's DNA without *obviously* affecting function does not justify the conclusion that it is junk.
@SnoopyDaniels You do like to talk out of both sides of your mouth..."some things are better explained in Darwinian terms"...I regularly see people with appendicitis, not to mention those with wisdom tooth problems, prostatic obstruction and aspiration pneumonitis. You think this is consistent with design because some guy finds some lymphatic tissue in the appendix?. The fact that we currently cannot explain how some things evolved is not evidence for a space timeless being.design..bad as it is!
@adstanraThat is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. "It does not *seem* to have any function" is a euphemism for "We don't know what it does."
Still, I would be very interested to see examples in the scientific literature of genome manipulation involving broad deletions with no loss of function if you can provide them. My guess is that these examples only exist on evolutionist propaganda websites and outdated biology textbooks.
@SnoopyDaniels we have tons of experience with retroposons and endogenous retroviruses inserting themselves randomly into the genome effectively disrupting the DNA sequence without inhibiting function. Unfortunately we also have experience with these things inserting into absolutely necessary DNA leading to things like hemophilia and Neurofibromatosis. Some design eh! we also have evidence of polyploidy increasing the DNA complement. you should not speak of propaganda and biology textbooks..lol
As ID scientists constantly repeat, design does not mean PERFECT design. You're making a straw man argument. Dr. Meyer in fact responds to this objection in the debate, but I'm beginning to wonder if you actually watched the whole thing.
How am I talking out of both sides of my mouth? Some features of the world are a product of design, some are not. That is a perfectly non-contradictory statement.
@SnoopyDaniels Well, if its a design, its not a very good one! A biological world based upon predation, where life subsists off death, where 99.9 % of all species are now extinct, where a relatively simple life like a paramecium contains more "information" than a human...not to mention the larygeal nerve of the giraffe...lol. the nested hierarchical pattern, the waste, the randomness of mutations, the poor design as mentioned in last post...all consistent with a mindless process.
@adstanra As you know, evolution cannot go back and fix "design" features, like an appendix or a left laryngeal nerve of a giraffe, or wisdom teeth. We are stuck with what evolution gave us. No designer , with any foresight, would rely on such a process.
What a singularly silly thing to say. The biological world is a symphony of complex specified interdependent parts producing millions of beautiful and elegantly efficient organisms that totally eclipse man's greatest technical achievements. Of what consequence is some paramecium with a bit more DNA than you have arbitrarily deemed necessary for it to work? I would like to see you or any of these pointy-headed evolutionists design something half as magnificent as a paramecium.
@SnoopyDaniels "pointed headed evolutionists"(lol).You are arguing from incredulity.You can't imagine how a natural mindless process could produce such complex and subjectively beautiful things.Well, that is what the evidence suggests.Increasing complexity evolving through random mutation and natural selection over billions of years.It is wasteful.It is based upon predation.There is no opportunity for "reverse engineering". It has resulted in smallpox,appendix and huge maternal mortality etc...
In other words, the pathetic examples of supposedly poor design do nothing to discount the overwhelming evidence for design elsewhere. They may merely be examples of an original design which has subsequently been corrupted, information that has been degraded.
@SnoopyDaniels Not only is there no evidence of design, there is no evidence of a designer...where is he/she/it? The designer appears to have buggered off, or is hiding.Maybe they dialed in the physical constants as an experiment to see what happens? Your comment about degradation reveals your religion....there is no evidence of degradation, but huge evidence that life proceeded from simplicity to complexity from common ancestors. Are you going to blame the corruption on "Man"?
That is such a completely intellectually dishonest statement. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the biological world looks designs. He simply tries to reason away that strong impression. Design is SELF-EVIDENT in nature. Add to that the notion of complex specified information and irreducible complexity and you have a very solid case indeed. The fact that you and other evolutionists AREN'T PERSUADED by the evidence doesn't mean that there IS no evidence.
@SnoopyDaniels No doubt it appears to casual observation that a "design" exists. I understand how humans would see design. i don't blame our ancestors for inventing Gods to explain things like environmental catastrophe, disease,the complexity of a tree, but sometimes "self -evident " observations are wrong..like the sun going around the earth. ID has never shown anything to be irreducibly complex, but have merely asserted that things like a flagellum are. This is an argument from ignorance.
I already said that self-evidence is not enough. And ID has demonstrated that the flagellar motor is irreducibly complex. Ken miller has shown that a molecular machine with a dozen or so parts removed and other unique parts added can function as an injection system. But that does not solve the problem. You need a STEPWISE process such that by removing ONE part the flagellar motor still has function.
@SnoopyDaniels there are now many models that describe how a flagellum could have evolved in a step wise manner. ..Admittedly, we do not know exactly how the flagellum evolved and Behe has raised a challenge..which is fine, but before we conclude that some alien designed this, lets just call this one of the huge number of things we don't yet know. All too often, religious people have jumped to the God hypothesis. let me ask you this...con't
@adstanra con't..do you think the designer simply set the laws of physics such that things would evolve naturally, or do you think the deity is currently intervening? ..perhaps designing a new parasite or something?
Speaking of Flagellum. The design of the flagellum WRT Vibrio cholera, is surely to allow it to burrow into the lining of the stomach and avoid the body's defenses. It then activates a mechanism that opens channels allowing water to flow into the GI tract..diarrhea ensues.Brilliant.
All I ask of evolutionists is that they exercise just a bit of intellectual honesty and concede that Intelligent Design IS a scientific theory and that there IS evidence of design in nature. Note that this does NOT mean that evolutionists must admit that ID is a *good* scientific theory or that the evidence for design in nature is conclusive.
@SnoopyDaniels there may be a problem with the term design....Certainly an eye is "designed" to transmit an image to the brain, reflecting light patterns.Smallpox virus is designed to replicate inside a human ( torturing her along the way), but there is no evidence that a space timeless alien is involved. No one designed H1N1 virus. In fact we know how it evolved through random mutation and selection. We know why the left laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is the way it is,because of its ancestors
Not a single ID opponent has been able to show that by removing one part from the flagellar motor you can retain any function at all, much less propulsion. The flagellar motor, therefore, is irreducibly complex by definition. This is not an argument from ignorance because there are a discrete number of protein parts and therefore a limited number of possibilities for removal, meaning that we can exhaust all possibilities.
A broken motor would be a drag on the reproductive efficiency of a bacterium since it would require valuable biological energy to reproduce. This means that a nonmotile bacterium would be favored by natural selection at the expense of the organism with the useless motor. It's an evolutionary dead end.
@SnoopyDaniels But, a slightly working motor might be better than no motor at all, and a slightly better motor even better than that...natural selection. you do raise an important point though wrt energy. this is why eyes have de-evolved (lol) in certain moles and bats that live in complete darkness. what kind of designer do you think designed that ?
The motor doesn't "slightly work." It doesn't work AT ALL.
Random mutation and natural selection offer a perfectly good explanation for how organisms can loose certain features in response to their environment. It is easy to *lose* information. But getting information in the first place is another thing entirely.
@SnoopyDaniels we have observed many examples of organisms acquiring new "information" as a result of mutation and selection. there is lots of DNA to work with packed into each cell....this is what affords organisms adaptability. Sometimes, organs and organelles take on new roles, sometimes genes freakishly become active again(atavisms) ..dolphins with hind legs etc. what is the bet that humans will find out how evolution produced a flagellum vs some space timeless incoherent designer?
I think we are both replying at the same time and our comments are getting muddled together. Blasted youtube comment length limits...
First, I am perfectly aware of potential biases on my part and on the part of ID scientists. But ALL scientists have potential biases, including atheist scientists. You speak as if only religious people possess certain underlying assumptions that inform their reasoning and observation. Intellectual honesty demands that we all acknowledge our respective
biases. But even if ID scientists were the only biased scientists, it would not excuse evolutionists from actually engaging their arguments. Simply accusing people of bias does not make their arguments invalid.
Second, with regard to Behe's argument and not "jumping the gun," the problem with your reasoning is that you seem to misunderstand the historical scientific method. When trying to explain current observation with past causes you run into the problem of affirming...
@SnoopyDaniels i admit I have certain biases, but science is designed with this admission. We try to eliminate biases and base things on empirical evidence. You have already revealed your religion in subtle ways. Science is geared to eliminate bias and there is a certain intellectual honesty in this. I am an atheist because I think this is the most rational world view given the evidence. i like to think I am not rejecting God . I would be willing to make its acquaintance.
...the consequent. In other words, when there are multiple possible causes for a given effect, you cannot infer any single cause purely on the basis of the given effect. Instead you have to use multiple competing hypothesis. I.E. since we do not have an exhaustive list of all possible causes we must look to a limited numbmer of competing proposed hypothesis and compare them against each other in terms of causal efficacy and explanatory power...
...Unless and until evolutionists provide a complete stepwise explanation on both a macro and microbiological level for a single organism (which so far they have failed to do), Intelligent Design wins the competition between competing explanations.
That does not mean that scientists should not be LOOKING for stepwise explanations for organisms, and you will find no ID scientists that argues that evolutionary biology is a waste of time....
...and that life as we know it then proceeded to evolve using an adaptive capacity built into various biological systems. This hypothesis resembles the polyphyletic view of the history of life proposed by some evolutionists.
@SnoopyDaniels I'm not sure really where you stand. Have you watched some of the debates that go on in state legislatures? This is about creationism my friend,and holding together a certain view derived through religion. If some scientist wants to say that the primordial organisms contain information somehow derived from some intelligence that subsequently led to human beings, I will simply say "where is the evidence?" If another person says that the primordial organisms were perfect...con't
@adstanra con't ..and that some "decay" has produced death, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, predation, I also say "show me the evidence".... but I am not so daft as to not recognize where this is coming from! At present, ID is not science.
By the way, evolutionists do NOT know why the laryngeal nerve is the way it is. They have an explanation (common ancestry with fish), but having an explanation does not mean the explanation is sufficient or correct.
As it turns out, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe enervates part of its heart as well as numerous other organs in the neck, not just the larynx and is therefore not "longer than it needs to be." Another argument from ignorance bites the dust.
...It DOES mean that it is pure silliness and grandstanding to say that ID is not a scientific explanation and that ID scientists are not scientists. That's just the cowards way of avoiding a real argument.
Third, ID scientists are not jumping to the God hypothesis. They are jumping to the intelligence hypothesis. From what I understand, there are ID scientists that contend that the capacity for adaptation and evolution could have been built into aboriginal organisms...
@SnoopyDaniels I certainly appreciate some of what you are saying here, but the problem with ID is that it is basically a bunch of assertions. They say that this or that is irreducibly complex but have never actually shown that it is irreducibly complex, and they have no designer or any mechanism by which a designer can affect changes that do not amount to magic. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, ID is completely perfused by religion-and everyone knows it! con't
@adstanra con't. I have no objection to a professor or teacher explaining to students that some people believe that certain organelles cannot have evolved in a step wise fashion and say that a designer is required, but that is pretty well the extent of ID "science". Perhaps in the religious class or philosophy class or the Vatican, discussions can occur as to how this all relates to Christian theology.At present,evolution provides the greatest explanatory power for the diversity of life!
@SnoopyDaniels the "built in aboriginal idea". are you suggesting that the aboriginal organism may have contained genes for human teeth, dinosaur bones, snake venom? The original mammal had genes for platypus bills, gorilla hemoglobin etc?
@SnoopyDaniels The nerve exists the brain stem, travels down the neck, around the arch of the aorta, then back up to its destination travelling 15 feet to innervate the larynx a few inches from its origin. You think this is a good design? We do know why this happens. It originates in embryology and is the result of common ancestry. There is no reverse engineering possible. The "design" of embryological development did not foresee an animal like a giraffe, which evolved from an earlier ancestor.
@SnoopyDaniels you need to be intellectually honest-that your religion is affecting your interpretation and that the ID movement is motivated by this. I really don't care if a designer exists or not.. If it does, I have some questions for it. We feel we have a better theory-that life evolved from common ancestors over billions of years governed by random mutation and natural selection..the evidence is exactly as we would expect and it allows predictions and valuable knowledge to face H1N1 etc.
Unfortunately, Ward does a terrible job putting forth the argument for evolution. He lets Meyer get away with clouding the issue and throwing out irrelevant pseudo-facts. Obviously, Meyer came very well prepared with a list of canned points that he wanted to throw out, while Ward simply figured that the overwhelming weight of science would see him through against a silver-tongued debate adversary. What a shame.
@sunzoltar I disagree, Meyer didn't answer any of the questions and it was revealing. Evolution isnt under attack or needs defending Id does and is asked to make predictions from its "theory" which it cannot.
It's true that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and by most Americans. There is, however, a group of Bible literalists who have been bombarded with misinformation trying to poke holes in evolution. If Ward isn't even going to bother to try to reach that crowd (even starting out with a disparaging remark about Bush to further alienate them) why even have the debate?
@sunzoltar How do you reason with someone who doesn't value reason.Theists believe, not find reasons to believe, therefore the only way for them to come to the realization that religion is not true is by showing them the "doubt" they feel is there brains telling them "hey this is bullshit". People like Meyer dont actually care what science actually says, he is just trying to validate that some one talked to a snake and a bush two thousand years ago.
@pandorachild I find that defeatist attitude depressing. People can learn and grow, if you treat them with respect and give them a chance to accept science without rejecting their faith. I've reasoned with a number of literalist Christians by showing them that the first two chapters of Genesis offer different Creation stories that should be taken as parables rather than literal accounts of Creation. I only wish our evolutionary scientists were better persuasive communicators.
@sunzoltar your comment seems reasonable but impractical,If someone was reasonable to begin with, they wouldn't actually believe past childhood, yet I meet and talk with people who say they do not believe in any contradicting evidence on the sole merit that the book is right and everything else is therefore wrong. I don't even want to get started on how many haven't even read the bible,new or old.
@pandorachild If you think there's no hope in changing anyone's mind, you might as well not watch or engage in debates with Creationists. I still have hope that minds can be changed--if we start the discussion in a respectful way.
@sunzoltar you are right again, I do think there is hope, Until someone throws out reason, logic, and evidence.
I don't classify Meyer as being honest, and i am well aware of the activities with the discovery Institute. People like this have an agenda and are using manufactured dissent to promote there ideology as science. Ill say it again I agree with you on almost every point, I will debate any creationist assuming he is honest, but when someone like Meyer LIES to people, I lose all respect.
Wow! Meyers totally destroys Ward in this debate! Meyers is quick to respond to all of Ward's questions and effectively lay out the case for ID theory as real science. Ward seems to struggle with just answering the moderator's questions at all. I'd like to see Meyers debate Eugenie Scott. Maybe she could give him a run for his money, but I doubt it.
Using fancier language and changing the subject does not mean "Oh, this guy knows what he is talking about." Unfortunately, Ward doesn't seem up to the task of this debate. The question is, no matter how complex things are, how do you come up with "God did it". This is a non-sequitur, yet Ward seems to follow Meyer into never never land rather than pointing out the fundamental problem with ID.
Meyer says that he believes most of Darwinian evolution.He then argues with twisted logic and NO evidence for some Designer.Not good science however you define it.
Also,he can't answer a straight question with a straight answer.
@leapinglizardking Are you a brain dead idiot? … You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast. I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin, ”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud.
@leapinglizardking Your Slothful Induction is meaningless in the scientific as well as the logic arena. Maybe you should pick up a textbook sometime before running off at the mouth with diarrhea again.
You’re nothing but a God-hating, two bit no talent parrot that’s never beaten anyone that’s even borderline respectable.
@leapinglizardking kudos for helping me prove my point. You’re being used for my pleasure and academic recall, and nothing more. And just barely at that.
Meyer says that he believes most of Darwinian evolution.He then argues with twisted logic and NO evidence for some Designer.Not good science however you define it.
remember that ID must also preclude God to remain a scientific theory. So ID as science is saying a materialistic entity is the designer, or they have to provide a testable hypothesis to show GOD, good luck with that. and then of course exclude any other Gods except the Christian one. (that could be tricky)
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[56]
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[124][125] In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[126][127] wiki
So what I can gather, even though ID proponents have differing beliefs, IDers believe that science has got the age of the earth right, and some, including Behe believe in the evolution of primates, but they believe in "divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity""
ID proponents love to through around scientific sounding words that would have the average non scientific person believe what they say. A more simpler way to put it is, we don't know how it happened or could have happened naturally, god did it!
@algadykhalifa dude the difference between ID and evolution is tht ID is nt testable, evolution is science is not philosophy, or religion, or free speech, i think many ppl confuse the scientific method with free speech the terms are not interchangeable. and evolution isnta myth is been proven its just tht may organized religions like ot keep many ppl like sheep so they cna earn their living
certain species of paramecium have multiple more times the amount of DNA in their genome than a human has in our genome. Does he think all that dna is required for a paramecium to function. Is it more complex than we are ? Why would an intelligence put that " junk" DNA there?
@SnoopyDaniels it is not an argument from ignorance...We know that some dna can be mutated ..or even deleted without causing any change to the organism. In some cases we know how and where dna was duplicated by an error of dna replication. Do you really think a paramecium needs far more dna than a human to function?....come off it.
They've been saying that for years, yet we are constantly finding new functions associated with these non-coding regions. Keep up with modern genetics. Coding for protein is not the only function of DNA, and not all functions of DNA require internal sequence specificity. But even if some of the paramecium's DNA WAS pure junk, which may well be the case, it should be obvious that this does not demonstrate that that part which is NOT junk was NOT intelligently designed.
@SnoopyDaniels well, it would not be inconsistent for evolution to find some regulating role for some of this DNA...but what intelligent mind is going to pack a paramecium with all of this DNA..several times more than a human cell...with all those specialized functions. How much regulation does a paramecium require..there is another species of paramecium that can hardly be distinguished with the one I refer to..that has less DNA that a human...how do you explain that?
@dangle66 Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
@dangle66 No, no, no -- you have it all backwards! Evolutionism peddlers have duped their subject audiences with mendacious obfuscations since its inception with Charles Darwin. To wit, Stephen Jay Gould's fig leaf of 'punctuated equilibrium' to cover up for the stark absence of imagined transitional fossils between major kinds organisms.
@RussianPunch Darwinian Evolution has stood the test of time. Leading scientist hold to it and IDers have not formed an ID theory and no papers have been produced and peer reviewed.
ID uses the god of the gaps and argument from ignorance fallacies.
As far as transitional fossils, there are plenty of transitional fossils, but creationist will never be happy with anything that has been or will be discovered because it contradicts their view.
@Ricardius1710 Asserting that Darwinist bunk is true does not make it so. What part of evolutionism do you assert has yet to be debunked? Everything from the imagined missing transitional fossil intermediates to the debunked notions of vestigial structures and "junk DNA" continues to show how pathetically desperate evolutionists are. Evolutionism was developed by bitter atheist Charles Darwin, with a theology degree, to attack the God whose creation account is delineated in Genesis.
@Ricardius1710 The logical fallacy of appealing to authority whom you regard as "leading" is of your own making. As for peer review, did you not listen to this video where Meyer points out that the process is tainted by the conflict of interest with dogmatic "common descent" evolutionists doing the peer review. Did you not hear what Meyer related about his and other peoples experience regarding the corrupt peer review? Have you not also heard of the corrupt peer review during "Climategate"?
@RussianPunch You need to read up on what appealing to authority is. You have just done this with Stephen Meyer. I referred to experts in the particular field of study.
Also, you have a big misconception of what science is. Scientists would jump on the idea of debunking evolution if they could, this would put them in history books for all time!
As far as Darwin being an angry atheist, you must be a nut if you think that? Have you read "The Origin of Species?" I highly doubt it!
@Ricardius1710 Dr. S.C. Meyer is not a part of the ruling establishment of evolutionists, but your logical fallacy naively appeals to the ruling neoDarwinist establishment "authorities," who have corrupted peer review to suppress scientific dissent against the prevailing materialist ideology of neoDarwinism.
@RussianPunch Well, this sounds to me like a basic mistrust of the science community as a whole. It sounds very much like a conspiracy theory, along the lines of the 911 truthers bs.
Basically, it is the ID community, that has a real stake in pushing anti-evolution propaganda (check out The Wedge Strategy). These folks have made an unbelievable PR campaigne that has gained great public support and has the ability to damage scientific studies in this country beyond comprehension.
@Ricardius1710 2) Scientists are human, and thus most realize that they can expect ridicule and persecution for speaking truth to power, as saying the emperor has no clothes: The persecution that the few have had to face discourage the majority from daring to challenge materialist dogma. Consider Dr. S.C. Meyer's personal testimony of the persecution that he and science journal editor came under after the publishing of his paper. Consider, too, the persecution related in Ben Stein's
@RussianPunch This was debunked in "Expelled Exposed". You need to read opposing materials on this, because, it's usually somewhere in the middle you will find the truth my friend.
@RussianPunch No, if you want to believe in god, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you need to realize it's by faith. This is what the Bible states. Scientific studies should not bother you. You should separate your faith from scientific evidence. The great church reformers Luther and Calvin did just this and many modern scientist, like Francis Collins does just this. Why are you so adamant about proving something that can't be proven scientifically? Do you need reasons to believe?
@Ricardius1710 Evolutionism is tautological bunk based on the faith that unguided, mindless occurrences with natural selection simply contemporaneously assumed had the capacity to produce novel forms of life -- despite the fact that true form mutations increase harmful information, and natural selection reduces variation. Evolutionism requires fantastic leaps of imagination and blind faith.
@RussianPunch said "Evolutionism requires fantastic leaps of imagination and blind faith." The theory of evolution is confirmed by all the sciences, not just biology, which happens to be the one that gets attacked the most by creationists.
@Ricardius1710 You evolutionism adherents are really sneaky. Evolutionism mixes two mutually exclusive aspects together, one real and one imaginary. Variation, or speciation, is the real one. Evolutionists are in denial of the implications of the strict limits to variation that are never crossed, the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters. The other requiring the fantastic leap of imagination and blind faith is universal common descent.
@RussianPunch You are incorrect once again. Please, you need to read up on the theory of evolution. You may be able to fool some people with your rhetoric, but not all, especially in this age.
Is it that all you can do is critique the theory of evolution and it's scientist that hold to it?
How has ID convinced you? Where you a believer before you took hold of ID or vice versa? What are some of the problems with ID? (yes scientist routines critique various aspects of evolution)
@Ricardius1710 "This is not true." Et suppositio nil ponit in esse; simply saying otherwise does not make materialist bunk any less illogical than it already is . Intelligent design, as Dr. Meyer quite correctly points out, is a logical inference based on universal, repeated observation of the only known thing that produces digitally encoded information sequencing and processing systemsl but again, as a passionate adherent to materialism, you are expected to dogmatically preclude ...
3) Charles Darwin before 'Origin of he Species' was seeking one of three mutually exclusive materialistic conjectures in an effort to rationalize away accountability to the God of Genesis; so, before developing his tautological bunk, Darwin was clearly hostile to the God whose account of creation is delineated in Genesis.
@RussianPunch Now I know you haven't read on Darwin. He felt like discovering the theory was like committing a murder. He even proposed arguments against it, as every good scientist does.
I don't think that was Miller's point. Miller's point (from his lecture) is that the fegellum thingy wasn't irreducably complex which Behe claimed it was. He never said that it was older or the thing that the felellum thingy evolved from. So Meyer is being deceitful here.
The "flegellum" argument is nothing more than the "eye" argument of the 20th century.
It cracks me up to hear an "educated" person say that "since we don't understand how it could have gotten here on its own, GOD DID IT."
You would think a student of scientific history would realise the lack of foresight in that opinion, since it has ALWAYS been shown to be in err and perfectly explainable in a natural context.
Its all very simple. Have we found any evidence that an intelligence is behind life and its organisms etc? NO. Until that happens there is no evidence of an intelligence or even stupider a "God" which have different meaning to every religious person in the world. If we find that there is an intelligence that have created and designed every living thing in the world then its science and an can be accepted. Until then Intelligent design is BS, and I expect it will never happen.
Pay attention to what Dr. Ward says about "science." He says Science is not TRUTH.
Then read what Obama, in whom I would say, is fundamental in putting forth the Destructive evolutionary THEORY, says about science! (look at my first post below)
“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” President-elect Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.
Nice try, Peter Ward, when Stephen Meyer is answering your question about the predictive nature of ID, and making totally good sense, you ask him to abandon the answering of the question that you badgered him to respond to and define "Darwinianism." Bully for Stephen Meyer, he graciously left the red herring stay in its pond while he gave us valuable examples of the predictive nature of design.
You really ought to try to understand ID a bit more. It might help you in your science labs.
There is a wonderful video on YT of a talk "Daniel Dennett - Is Evolution an Algorithmic Process?" about this issue. watch?v=TvH1rxIr9lA&feature=PlayList&p=2D8DC4DB6F52EF7C
@ma049 Do you read? This question, "Who designed the designer?" has been extensively dealt with by numerous philosophers and theologians. Why beat a dead horse? Stop asking questions that make you sound ignorant.
@elijah5791, That's not true. Saying that the question "Who designed the designer?" is 'beyond the scope of ID' is not dealing with it at all. It's the intellectual equivalent of simply running away.
@ananiasacts You do NOT have to know ANYTHING about the designer to know that something IS designed!
Your question is specifically intended to cast doubt on the whole concept of a designer in general; however, it's much like someone visiting an extremely remote island thought untouched by men, and there finding some pottery, and then saying, "Men have been here before!" Then someone else saying, "Impossible! How would they have come? It must be naturally occurring pottery."
@ananiasacts Or, how about this? What if in the future men travel to Mars, and when there they find a encoded message on a sliver of crystal that contains a plan for designing a "Warp Engine?"
I ask you, if one of those astronaut pioneers were to propose as an explanation for the crystal's existence that some advanced alien civilization once lived on Mars, and encoded the crystal, how ridiculous would it sound if someone else said, "That's just silly! Where did those aliens come from?"
@ananiasacts (cont'd) The answer is that it would be completely ridiculous to assert that aliens weren't the cause for the message in crystal in light of such compelling evidence of INTELLIGENCE.
I am telling you right now, the encoded message on your DNA is infinitely more complex than any plan for building a Warp Engine, and yet idiots like you insist that somehow the GENETIC CODE is just some random natural occurence. That is just beyond absurd! It is UTTERLY FOOLISH!
@elijah5791, I agree that it is utterly foolish to assume that great complexity of design could just appear out of nowhere. This is why it's so easy to rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer, like a god, is responsible for life--because there is no way for that entity to come to exist without something even more remarkable to design it. This is why Darwin's solution is so ingenious and universally accepted. It explains how the complex could evolve in small steps over a long time.
@ananiasacts First, let me apologize for being rude. You're displaying a sincere desire to have a civil discussion, and I respect that. From here on out I will honor that.
Now, let's back up. You say, "I agree that it is utterly foolish to assume that great complexity of design could just appear out of nowhere."
But, ananiasacts, are you aware that from the dawn of modern science, that is precisely what scientists thought about the universe? (cont'd)
@ananiasacts (cont'd) So, when you then say, "there is no way for that entity to come to exist without something even more remarkable to design it," you must recognize that your point of view is new, relatively speaking.
Einstein himself found the Big Bang Theory "repugnant" because it implied a beginning, and by extension, a creation.
So, here's my point: we assume the Universe MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED because THE EVIDENCE COMPELS US to accept the brute fact that IT BEGAN TO EXIST. (cont'd)
@elijah5791, I do not want to be rid of religion; I'd like to see it fixed. I feel the "concept of god" itself is responsible for all of the "magic" that religious people attribute to god. I think religion could become the science of studying how that concept can inspire and motivate us to improve ourselves. Frankly, the only problem I see with any religion is that they believe god is an actual entity instead of just an idea. An idea really can move us. A supernatural being could not move us.
@ananiasacts (cont'd) So, then, we only look for a cause because it has become clear over the past several decades that the Universe itself IS AN EFFECT.
Before we had that evidence, though, scientists actually believed that the universe was eternal, uncreated, and self-existent. If they could believe such a thing about the natural world, then why is it absurd to believe it about the cause of the natural world.
There must be and "uncaused cause," because it's not "turtles all the way down."
@elijah5791, But that doesn't imply that whatever the first cause was must have been a supernatural entity of great complexity. It points to the opposite sort of beginning; an incredible simple thing, like the generator of a fractal pattern, and a process by which that generator, or simple structure, changes in time to become more complex. There is simply no doubt that people are just a fancier sort of animal. What makes us special isn't god, but merely the amazing journey of our ancestors.
@ananiasacts "But that doesn't imply that whatever the first cause was must have been a supernatural entity of great complexity."
ID never claimed that -- you did.
Sure, a fractal pattern can produce some very complex formations, but not even close to what we witness in nature. Comparing a fractal pattern to the Universe is like comparing a child's drawing of a person to an ACTUAL person; it's just silly.
Still, you seem intent on focusing on your arguments rather the evidence. (cont'd)
@elijah5791, that is exactly what ID presupposes: An entity of great sophistication and complexity that somehow spontaneously came into being at some distant time in the past, or was "always" here. An absurd idea because it requires a much much greater leap of faith than a mindless singularity does. Believing that a singularity just popped into existence isn't that odd since we know virtual particles do so today. But a fully grown god requires a leap of faith much larger than our universe.
@ananiasacts "that is exactly what ID presupposes: An entity of great sophistication and complexity that somehow spontaneously came into being at some distant time in the past, or was "always" here."
It doesn't do any such thing, but you keep saying it does! Why? You are putting everything in a religious context.
I am going to be as simple as I can: ID attempts to detect INTELLIGENT DESIGN in nature. Period.
Heard of SETI? They do the same thing searching for little green men.
@elijah5791, Creationism, (ID is just a reworked version of it--see the Dover, PA case) was expressly invented to simply to put religion into schools. You can deny that all you like, but that court case found proof of that fact, starting from the "wedge" document that began the strategy, and showing a smooth, gradual evolution from it all the way to ID. ID only exists because creationism was ruled by the courts to be merely religion. You apparently know very little about ID or biology.
"Believing that a singularity just popped into existence isn't that odd since we know virtual particles do so today."
This argument neglects one insurmountable fact: virtual particles exist inside our time and space universe.
The "singularity" would've been forced to come into existence from an actual nothing; not a blackness or void, mind you, but TRUE, COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE NOTHING.
So, to believe that Atheists have it right, is to believe the Universe came from nothing. Ridiculous!
..they key test for my "theory" is.. well you show me another example of something that generates information and doesn't have an intelligent creator bla bla. Man I wasted 20 minutes of my life in this crap, I feel sorry for Prof. Ward for having to sit through this and waste even more time defending against this wishful thinking wanna-be science bullshit.
Chris197980CH 1 month ago
wow from 1:41 - 2:30 Stephen Meyer Smashes Him ! ... peters like uhhhhh
yhwhizlife1 2 months ago
Why is it when any creationist is asked to define their terms they dodge the question? Could it be that if they actually nail down the parts of their proposal it will make that much easier to blow it out of the metaphorical scientific water?
ptango101 3 months ago
@ptango101 He did answer it.... Are you deaf or just stupid?
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
@chris7777777777777 Then give me the time code you wanker. ID is a bankrupt theory that only appeals to the slack jawed religious idiot. What does it predict? What operational knowledge can we pull from investigating it? What possible benefit can it be to anything?
ptango101 2 months ago
How very christian of you....
leapinglizardking 3 months ago
This is all pointless. If ID had any merit at all it would already be a scientific theory. These creationists can't successfully argue their case in the peer reviewed scientific domain. So, their only option is to indoctrinate impressionable children before they can think for themselves - turn them into brain-dead morons like Meyer.
arnaldo35 4 months ago 2
many atheists nowadays are philosophically retarded. Meyers is explaining his case in detail. Ward arrogantly laughs and says "science is....science does....hehehe".
lightbrownpoop 5 months ago
Comment removed
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
This is an excellent question, but I don't think it is anything like devastating for intelligent design. ID does not say that every feature of every living thing was the direct result of intelligent design. Life has had a history, and much of it can be explained in Darwinian terms.
That said, it is not obvious that a paramecium should have less DNA than humans. DNA is not the same as the information it carries. A paramecium may have more DNA than us but less information.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels well, are you admitting that not all the DNA has a purpose? do you think the paramecium with several times more DNA than a human may not use all that for a purpose? In fact, the vast majority of it!
Why do you think a designer would put all that DNA in there?
Also , if you are a ID person, do you think a God designed a system where mutations that occur in the "junk" DNA cause no harm, but others cause cystic fibrosis?.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
No, I am not admitting that at all, because as I said before, to do so would be a statement of ignorance. I'm simply explaining to you what Intelligent Design theory says. It has never been the position of ANY ID scientists that ALL features of the physical or biological worlds are best explained by intelligence. Stephen Meyer says this very clearly in the debate. Did you watch the whole thing?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels It is not an argument from ignorance...it is a reasonable inference made from observation...one can delete, mutate this dna with no apparent functional loss. Hard to imagine a design here......Hard to imagine a design when one looks at the nested hierarchical bush of life,when one understands the mechanism of mutation(errors made by a mechanical unit ( DNA polymerase))..really hard to imagine a design by a "Good" designer...smallpox etc
adstanra 6 months ago
Comment removed
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
It is NEVER reasonable to infer that because you don't know what something does it therefore has no function. You can have your appendix removed and still live, and for a long time that was taken as evidence that the appendix had no function. However, now we know that the appendix plays a role in our immune system. The fact that you can delete certain portions of an organism's DNA without *obviously* affecting function does not justify the conclusion that it is junk.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels You do like to talk out of both sides of your mouth..."some things are better explained in Darwinian terms"...I regularly see people with appendicitis, not to mention those with wisdom tooth problems, prostatic obstruction and aspiration pneumonitis. You think this is consistent with design because some guy finds some lymphatic tissue in the appendix?. The fact that we currently cannot explain how some things evolved is not evidence for a space timeless being.design..bad as it is!
adstanra 6 months ago
Comment removed
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanraThat is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. "It does not *seem* to have any function" is a euphemism for "We don't know what it does."
Still, I would be very interested to see examples in the scientific literature of genome manipulation involving broad deletions with no loss of function if you can provide them. My guess is that these examples only exist on evolutionist propaganda websites and outdated biology textbooks.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels we have tons of experience with retroposons and endogenous retroviruses inserting themselves randomly into the genome effectively disrupting the DNA sequence without inhibiting function. Unfortunately we also have experience with these things inserting into absolutely necessary DNA leading to things like hemophilia and Neurofibromatosis. Some design eh! we also have evidence of polyploidy increasing the DNA complement. you should not speak of propaganda and biology textbooks..lol
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
As ID scientists constantly repeat, design does not mean PERFECT design. You're making a straw man argument. Dr. Meyer in fact responds to this objection in the debate, but I'm beginning to wonder if you actually watched the whole thing.
How am I talking out of both sides of my mouth? Some features of the world are a product of design, some are not. That is a perfectly non-contradictory statement.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Well, if its a design, its not a very good one! A biological world based upon predation, where life subsists off death, where 99.9 % of all species are now extinct, where a relatively simple life like a paramecium contains more "information" than a human...not to mention the larygeal nerve of the giraffe...lol. the nested hierarchical pattern, the waste, the randomness of mutations, the poor design as mentioned in last post...all consistent with a mindless process.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra As you know, evolution cannot go back and fix "design" features, like an appendix or a left laryngeal nerve of a giraffe, or wisdom teeth. We are stuck with what evolution gave us. No designer , with any foresight, would rely on such a process.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
What a singularly silly thing to say. The biological world is a symphony of complex specified interdependent parts producing millions of beautiful and elegantly efficient organisms that totally eclipse man's greatest technical achievements. Of what consequence is some paramecium with a bit more DNA than you have arbitrarily deemed necessary for it to work? I would like to see you or any of these pointy-headed evolutionists design something half as magnificent as a paramecium.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels "pointed headed evolutionists"(lol).You are arguing from incredulity.You can't imagine how a natural mindless process could produce such complex and subjectively beautiful things.Well, that is what the evidence suggests.Increasing complexity evolving through random mutation and natural selection over billions of years.It is wasteful.It is based upon predation.There is no opportunity for "reverse engineering". It has resulted in smallpox,appendix and huge maternal mortality etc...
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
In other words, the pathetic examples of supposedly poor design do nothing to discount the overwhelming evidence for design elsewhere. They may merely be examples of an original design which has subsequently been corrupted, information that has been degraded.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Not only is there no evidence of design, there is no evidence of a designer...where is he/she/it? The designer appears to have buggered off, or is hiding.Maybe they dialed in the physical constants as an experiment to see what happens? Your comment about degradation reveals your religion....there is no evidence of degradation, but huge evidence that life proceeded from simplicity to complexity from common ancestors. Are you going to blame the corruption on "Man"?
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
That is such a completely intellectually dishonest statement. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the biological world looks designs. He simply tries to reason away that strong impression. Design is SELF-EVIDENT in nature. Add to that the notion of complex specified information and irreducible complexity and you have a very solid case indeed. The fact that you and other evolutionists AREN'T PERSUADED by the evidence doesn't mean that there IS no evidence.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels No doubt it appears to casual observation that a "design" exists. I understand how humans would see design. i don't blame our ancestors for inventing Gods to explain things like environmental catastrophe, disease,the complexity of a tree, but sometimes "self -evident " observations are wrong..like the sun going around the earth. ID has never shown anything to be irreducibly complex, but have merely asserted that things like a flagellum are. This is an argument from ignorance.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
I already said that self-evidence is not enough. And ID has demonstrated that the flagellar motor is irreducibly complex. Ken miller has shown that a molecular machine with a dozen or so parts removed and other unique parts added can function as an injection system. But that does not solve the problem. You need a STEPWISE process such that by removing ONE part the flagellar motor still has function.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels there are now many models that describe how a flagellum could have evolved in a step wise manner. ..Admittedly, we do not know exactly how the flagellum evolved and Behe has raised a challenge..which is fine, but before we conclude that some alien designed this, lets just call this one of the huge number of things we don't yet know. All too often, religious people have jumped to the God hypothesis. let me ask you this...con't
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra con't..do you think the designer simply set the laws of physics such that things would evolve naturally, or do you think the deity is currently intervening? ..perhaps designing a new parasite or something?
Speaking of Flagellum. The design of the flagellum WRT Vibrio cholera, is surely to allow it to burrow into the lining of the stomach and avoid the body's defenses. It then activates a mechanism that opens channels allowing water to flow into the GI tract..diarrhea ensues.Brilliant.
adstanra 6 months ago
Comment removed
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
All I ask of evolutionists is that they exercise just a bit of intellectual honesty and concede that Intelligent Design IS a scientific theory and that there IS evidence of design in nature. Note that this does NOT mean that evolutionists must admit that ID is a *good* scientific theory or that the evidence for design in nature is conclusive.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels there may be a problem with the term design....Certainly an eye is "designed" to transmit an image to the brain, reflecting light patterns.Smallpox virus is designed to replicate inside a human ( torturing her along the way), but there is no evidence that a space timeless alien is involved. No one designed H1N1 virus. In fact we know how it evolved through random mutation and selection. We know why the left laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is the way it is,because of its ancestors
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
Not a single ID opponent has been able to show that by removing one part from the flagellar motor you can retain any function at all, much less propulsion. The flagellar motor, therefore, is irreducibly complex by definition. This is not an argument from ignorance because there are a discrete number of protein parts and therefore a limited number of possibilities for removal, meaning that we can exhaust all possibilities.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
A broken motor would be a drag on the reproductive efficiency of a bacterium since it would require valuable biological energy to reproduce. This means that a nonmotile bacterium would be favored by natural selection at the expense of the organism with the useless motor. It's an evolutionary dead end.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels But, a slightly working motor might be better than no motor at all, and a slightly better motor even better than that...natural selection. you do raise an important point though wrt energy. this is why eyes have de-evolved (lol) in certain moles and bats that live in complete darkness. what kind of designer do you think designed that ?
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
The motor doesn't "slightly work." It doesn't work AT ALL.
Random mutation and natural selection offer a perfectly good explanation for how organisms can loose certain features in response to their environment. It is easy to *lose* information. But getting information in the first place is another thing entirely.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels we have observed many examples of organisms acquiring new "information" as a result of mutation and selection. there is lots of DNA to work with packed into each cell....this is what affords organisms adaptability. Sometimes, organs and organelles take on new roles, sometimes genes freakishly become active again(atavisms) ..dolphins with hind legs etc. what is the bet that humans will find out how evolution produced a flagellum vs some space timeless incoherent designer?
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
I think we are both replying at the same time and our comments are getting muddled together. Blasted youtube comment length limits...
First, I am perfectly aware of potential biases on my part and on the part of ID scientists. But ALL scientists have potential biases, including atheist scientists. You speak as if only religious people possess certain underlying assumptions that inform their reasoning and observation. Intellectual honesty demands that we all acknowledge our respective
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
biases. But even if ID scientists were the only biased scientists, it would not excuse evolutionists from actually engaging their arguments. Simply accusing people of bias does not make their arguments invalid.
Second, with regard to Behe's argument and not "jumping the gun," the problem with your reasoning is that you seem to misunderstand the historical scientific method. When trying to explain current observation with past causes you run into the problem of affirming...
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels i admit I have certain biases, but science is designed with this admission. We try to eliminate biases and base things on empirical evidence. You have already revealed your religion in subtle ways. Science is geared to eliminate bias and there is a certain intellectual honesty in this. I am an atheist because I think this is the most rational world view given the evidence. i like to think I am not rejecting God . I would be willing to make its acquaintance.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
...the consequent. In other words, when there are multiple possible causes for a given effect, you cannot infer any single cause purely on the basis of the given effect. Instead you have to use multiple competing hypothesis. I.E. since we do not have an exhaustive list of all possible causes we must look to a limited numbmer of competing proposed hypothesis and compare them against each other in terms of causal efficacy and explanatory power...
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
...Unless and until evolutionists provide a complete stepwise explanation on both a macro and microbiological level for a single organism (which so far they have failed to do), Intelligent Design wins the competition between competing explanations.
That does not mean that scientists should not be LOOKING for stepwise explanations for organisms, and you will find no ID scientists that argues that evolutionary biology is a waste of time....
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
...and that life as we know it then proceeded to evolve using an adaptive capacity built into various biological systems. This hypothesis resembles the polyphyletic view of the history of life proposed by some evolutionists.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels I'm not sure really where you stand. Have you watched some of the debates that go on in state legislatures? This is about creationism my friend,and holding together a certain view derived through religion. If some scientist wants to say that the primordial organisms contain information somehow derived from some intelligence that subsequently led to human beings, I will simply say "where is the evidence?" If another person says that the primordial organisms were perfect...con't
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra con't ..and that some "decay" has produced death, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, predation, I also say "show me the evidence".... but I am not so daft as to not recognize where this is coming from! At present, ID is not science.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
By the way, evolutionists do NOT know why the laryngeal nerve is the way it is. They have an explanation (common ancestry with fish), but having an explanation does not mean the explanation is sufficient or correct.
As it turns out, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe enervates part of its heart as well as numerous other organs in the neck, not just the larynx and is therefore not "longer than it needs to be." Another argument from ignorance bites the dust.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@adstanra
...It DOES mean that it is pure silliness and grandstanding to say that ID is not a scientific explanation and that ID scientists are not scientists. That's just the cowards way of avoiding a real argument.
Third, ID scientists are not jumping to the God hypothesis. They are jumping to the intelligence hypothesis. From what I understand, there are ID scientists that contend that the capacity for adaptation and evolution could have been built into aboriginal organisms...
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels I certainly appreciate some of what you are saying here, but the problem with ID is that it is basically a bunch of assertions. They say that this or that is irreducibly complex but have never actually shown that it is irreducibly complex, and they have no designer or any mechanism by which a designer can affect changes that do not amount to magic. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, ID is completely perfused by religion-and everyone knows it! con't
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra con't. I have no objection to a professor or teacher explaining to students that some people believe that certain organelles cannot have evolved in a step wise fashion and say that a designer is required, but that is pretty well the extent of ID "science". Perhaps in the religious class or philosophy class or the Vatican, discussions can occur as to how this all relates to Christian theology.At present,evolution provides the greatest explanatory power for the diversity of life!
adstanra 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels the "built in aboriginal idea". are you suggesting that the aboriginal organism may have contained genes for human teeth, dinosaur bones, snake venom? The original mammal had genes for platypus bills, gorilla hemoglobin etc?
adstanra 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels The nerve exists the brain stem, travels down the neck, around the arch of the aorta, then back up to its destination travelling 15 feet to innervate the larynx a few inches from its origin. You think this is a good design? We do know why this happens. It originates in embryology and is the result of common ancestry. There is no reverse engineering possible. The "design" of embryological development did not foresee an animal like a giraffe, which evolved from an earlier ancestor.
adstanra 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels you need to be intellectually honest-that your religion is affecting your interpretation and that the ID movement is motivated by this. I really don't care if a designer exists or not.. If it does, I have some questions for it. We feel we have a better theory-that life evolved from common ancestors over billions of years governed by random mutation and natural selection..the evidence is exactly as we would expect and it allows predictions and valuable knowledge to face H1N1 etc.
adstanra 6 months ago
Unfortunately, Ward does a terrible job putting forth the argument for evolution. He lets Meyer get away with clouding the issue and throwing out irrelevant pseudo-facts. Obviously, Meyer came very well prepared with a list of canned points that he wanted to throw out, while Ward simply figured that the overwhelming weight of science would see him through against a silver-tongued debate adversary. What a shame.
sunzoltar 7 months ago
@sunzoltar I disagree, Meyer didn't answer any of the questions and it was revealing. Evolution isnt under attack or needs defending Id does and is asked to make predictions from its "theory" which it cannot.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
It's true that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and by most Americans. There is, however, a group of Bible literalists who have been bombarded with misinformation trying to poke holes in evolution. If Ward isn't even going to bother to try to reach that crowd (even starting out with a disparaging remark about Bush to further alienate them) why even have the debate?
sunzoltar 6 months ago
@sunzoltar How do you reason with someone who doesn't value reason.Theists believe, not find reasons to believe, therefore the only way for them to come to the realization that religion is not true is by showing them the "doubt" they feel is there brains telling them "hey this is bullshit". People like Meyer dont actually care what science actually says, he is just trying to validate that some one talked to a snake and a bush two thousand years ago.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild I find that defeatist attitude depressing. People can learn and grow, if you treat them with respect and give them a chance to accept science without rejecting their faith. I've reasoned with a number of literalist Christians by showing them that the first two chapters of Genesis offer different Creation stories that should be taken as parables rather than literal accounts of Creation. I only wish our evolutionary scientists were better persuasive communicators.
sunzoltar 6 months ago
@sunzoltar your comment seems reasonable but impractical,If someone was reasonable to begin with, they wouldn't actually believe past childhood, yet I meet and talk with people who say they do not believe in any contradicting evidence on the sole merit that the book is right and everything else is therefore wrong. I don't even want to get started on how many haven't even read the bible,new or old.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild If you think there's no hope in changing anyone's mind, you might as well not watch or engage in debates with Creationists. I still have hope that minds can be changed--if we start the discussion in a respectful way.
sunzoltar 6 months ago
@sunzoltar you are right again, I do think there is hope, Until someone throws out reason, logic, and evidence.
I don't classify Meyer as being honest, and i am well aware of the activities with the discovery Institute. People like this have an agenda and are using manufactured dissent to promote there ideology as science. Ill say it again I agree with you on almost every point, I will debate any creationist assuming he is honest, but when someone like Meyer LIES to people, I lose all respect.
pandorachild 6 months ago
I think ward is realizing what a heavyweight he is really dealing with.
TheForgiven2009 7 months ago
Meyer said ''the naturalisic alternative to ID '' So his must involve the supernatural, but he says it is not creationsism. Hmmmm.
gregrutz 8 months ago
The Theory of Evolution isn't trying to explain how life began.
With that logic the Theory of Gravity is false as it doesn't explain how matter originated.
XanderBBo 9 months ago
Wow! Meyers totally destroys Ward in this debate! Meyers is quick to respond to all of Ward's questions and effectively lay out the case for ID theory as real science. Ward seems to struggle with just answering the moderator's questions at all. I'd like to see Meyers debate Eugenie Scott. Maybe she could give him a run for his money, but I doubt it.
codec2003 9 months ago
@codec2003 Oh you sad deluded moron.
pieter292 8 months ago
@codec2003 For ID to be a theory it has to make predictions or be tested, that won't work.
Science is what scientists do, and they don't do ID.
gregrutz 8 months ago
The atheist on this video acts like a complete retard.
TheBloodPardon 10 months ago 4
@TheBloodPardon are you surprised? LOL
micah1116 8 months ago
@TheBloodPardon that is the only way to debate a retard idea
MrLuiS3rd 7 months ago
@TheBloodPardon wow take your bible glasses off for a second. Meyer was asked a question and for 5 mins he has babbled incoherently.
pandorachild 6 months ago
Using fancier language and changing the subject does not mean "Oh, this guy knows what he is talking about." Unfortunately, Ward doesn't seem up to the task of this debate. The question is, no matter how complex things are, how do you come up with "God did it". This is a non-sequitur, yet Ward seems to follow Meyer into never never land rather than pointing out the fundamental problem with ID.
dbriver 11 months ago
Meyer says that he believes most of Darwinian evolution.He then argues with twisted logic and NO evidence for some Designer.Not good science however you define it.
Also,he can't answer a straight question with a straight answer.
leapinglizardking 1 year ago 8
@leapinglizardking You're an idiot. Ponder that.
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Wow,you really know how to argue your point here...................oh,that's right,you have no argument.
Ponder that.
leapinglizardking 3 months ago
@leapinglizardking Are you a brain dead idiot? … You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast. I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin, ”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud.
Notice the sympathetic wince?
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Your lack of coherence,sense and wit only exacerbate your ignorance.
Why don't you move along? The adults are trying to talk.
leapinglizardking 3 months ago
@leapinglizardking Your Slothful Induction is meaningless in the scientific as well as the logic arena. Maybe you should pick up a textbook sometime before running off at the mouth with diarrhea again.
You’re nothing but a God-hating, two bit no talent parrot that’s never beaten anyone that’s even borderline respectable.
Hope this helps dummy.
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Oh Stop! you're making me blush......
leapinglizardking 3 months ago
@leapinglizardking kudos for helping me prove my point. You’re being used for my pleasure and academic recall, and nothing more. And just barely at that.
Seigu007 3 months ago
Meyer says that he believes most of Darwinian evolution.He then argues with twisted logic and NO evidence for some Designer.Not good science however you define it.
leapinglizardking 1 year ago
the fact that dna is self modifying code doesnt seem to have hit him yet
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
remember that ID must also preclude God to remain a scientific theory. So ID as science is saying a materialistic entity is the designer, or they have to provide a testable hypothesis to show GOD, good luck with that. and then of course exclude any other Gods except the Christian one. (that could be tricky)
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[56]
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[124][125] In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[126][127] wiki
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
So what I can gather, even though ID proponents have differing beliefs, IDers believe that science has got the age of the earth right, and some, including Behe believe in the evolution of primates, but they believe in "divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity""
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
ID proponents love to through around scientific sounding words that would have the average non scientific person believe what they say. A more simpler way to put it is, we don't know how it happened or could have happened naturally, god did it!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 through=throw
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Intelligent Design will destroy the myth of EVOLUTION.
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
@algadykhalifa dude the difference between ID and evolution is tht ID is nt testable, evolution is science is not philosophy, or religion, or free speech, i think many ppl confuse the scientific method with free speech the terms are not interchangeable. and evolution isnta myth is been proven its just tht may organized religions like ot keep many ppl like sheep so they cna earn their living
JKTProductionzIncNCo 1 year ago
certain species of paramecium have multiple more times the amount of DNA in their genome than a human has in our genome. Does he think all that dna is required for a paramecium to function. Is it more complex than we are ? Why would an intelligence put that " junk" DNA there?
adstanra 1 year ago 3
@adstanra
That is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what all of the DNA in a paramecium is for, therefore it is junk.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels it is not an argument from ignorance...We know that some dna can be mutated ..or even deleted without causing any change to the organism. In some cases we know how and where dna was duplicated by an error of dna replication. Do you really think a paramecium needs far more dna than a human to function?....come off it.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra
They've been saying that for years, yet we are constantly finding new functions associated with these non-coding regions. Keep up with modern genetics. Coding for protein is not the only function of DNA, and not all functions of DNA require internal sequence specificity. But even if some of the paramecium's DNA WAS pure junk, which may well be the case, it should be obvious that this does not demonstrate that that part which is NOT junk was NOT intelligently designed.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels well, it would not be inconsistent for evolution to find some regulating role for some of this DNA...but what intelligent mind is going to pack a paramecium with all of this DNA..several times more than a human cell...with all those specialized functions. How much regulation does a paramecium require..there is another species of paramecium that can hardly be distinguished with the one I refer to..that has less DNA that a human...how do you explain that?
adstanra 6 months ago
so uh....does he ever actually answer a question??
judomuerte 1 year ago 2
@judomuerte no
tompa666 1 year ago
@judomuerte Apparently Meyer's tactic is to baffle with bullshit.
dangle66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dangle66 Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@dangle66 No, no, no -- you have it all backwards! Evolutionism peddlers have duped their subject audiences with mendacious obfuscations since its inception with Charles Darwin. To wit, Stephen Jay Gould's fig leaf of 'punctuated equilibrium' to cover up for the stark absence of imagined transitional fossils between major kinds organisms.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch Darwinian Evolution has stood the test of time. Leading scientist hold to it and IDers have not formed an ID theory and no papers have been produced and peer reviewed.
ID uses the god of the gaps and argument from ignorance fallacies.
As far as transitional fossils, there are plenty of transitional fossils, but creationist will never be happy with anything that has been or will be discovered because it contradicts their view.
Do a little reading on ID and supporters. Wiki it
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 Asserting that Darwinist bunk is true does not make it so. What part of evolutionism do you assert has yet to be debunked? Everything from the imagined missing transitional fossil intermediates to the debunked notions of vestigial structures and "junk DNA" continues to show how pathetically desperate evolutionists are. Evolutionism was developed by bitter atheist Charles Darwin, with a theology degree, to attack the God whose creation account is delineated in Genesis.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 The logical fallacy of appealing to authority whom you regard as "leading" is of your own making. As for peer review, did you not listen to this video where Meyer points out that the process is tainted by the conflict of interest with dogmatic "common descent" evolutionists doing the peer review. Did you not hear what Meyer related about his and other peoples experience regarding the corrupt peer review? Have you not also heard of the corrupt peer review during "Climategate"?
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch You need to read up on what appealing to authority is. You have just done this with Stephen Meyer. I referred to experts in the particular field of study.
Also, you have a big misconception of what science is. Scientists would jump on the idea of debunking evolution if they could, this would put them in history books for all time!
As far as Darwin being an angry atheist, you must be a nut if you think that? Have you read "The Origin of Species?" I highly doubt it!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 Dr. S.C. Meyer is not a part of the ruling establishment of evolutionists, but your logical fallacy naively appeals to the ruling neoDarwinist establishment "authorities," who have corrupted peer review to suppress scientific dissent against the prevailing materialist ideology of neoDarwinism.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch Well, this sounds to me like a basic mistrust of the science community as a whole. It sounds very much like a conspiracy theory, along the lines of the 911 truthers bs.
Basically, it is the ID community, that has a real stake in pushing anti-evolution propaganda (check out The Wedge Strategy). These folks have made an unbelievable PR campaigne that has gained great public support and has the ability to damage scientific studies in this country beyond comprehension.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 You made your umpteen mistake in equating the science community with the evolutionist community.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 2) Scientists are human, and thus most realize that they can expect ridicule and persecution for speaking truth to power, as saying the emperor has no clothes: The persecution that the few have had to face discourage the majority from daring to challenge materialist dogma. Consider Dr. S.C. Meyer's personal testimony of the persecution that he and science journal editor came under after the publishing of his paper. Consider, too, the persecution related in Ben Stein's
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch This was debunked in "Expelled Exposed". You need to read opposing materials on this, because, it's usually somewhere in the middle you will find the truth my friend.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 ... "No Intelligence Allowed."
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch No, if you want to believe in god, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you need to realize it's by faith. This is what the Bible states. Scientific studies should not bother you. You should separate your faith from scientific evidence. The great church reformers Luther and Calvin did just this and many modern scientist, like Francis Collins does just this. Why are you so adamant about proving something that can't be proven scientifically? Do you need reasons to believe?
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 Evolutionism is tautological bunk based on the faith that unguided, mindless occurrences with natural selection simply contemporaneously assumed had the capacity to produce novel forms of life -- despite the fact that true form mutations increase harmful information, and natural selection reduces variation. Evolutionism requires fantastic leaps of imagination and blind faith.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch said "Evolutionism requires fantastic leaps of imagination and blind faith." The theory of evolution is confirmed by all the sciences, not just biology, which happens to be the one that gets attacked the most by creationists.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 You evolutionism adherents are really sneaky. Evolutionism mixes two mutually exclusive aspects together, one real and one imaginary. Variation, or speciation, is the real one. Evolutionists are in denial of the implications of the strict limits to variation that are never crossed, the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters. The other requiring the fantastic leap of imagination and blind faith is universal common descent.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch You are incorrect once again. Please, you need to read up on the theory of evolution. You may be able to fool some people with your rhetoric, but not all, especially in this age.
Is it that all you can do is critique the theory of evolution and it's scientist that hold to it?
How has ID convinced you? Where you a believer before you took hold of ID or vice versa? What are some of the problems with ID? (yes scientist routines critique various aspects of evolution)
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Another question for you, RussianPunch. What would it take, for you to no longer believe in ID?
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@RussianPunch You say that " Evolutionism requires fantastic leaps of imagination and blind faith." This is not true.
Now, what does ID require? lol!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 "This is not true." Et suppositio nil ponit in esse; simply saying otherwise does not make materialist bunk any less illogical than it already is . Intelligent design, as Dr. Meyer quite correctly points out, is a logical inference based on universal, repeated observation of the only known thing that produces digitally encoded information sequencing and processing systemsl but again, as a passionate adherent to materialism, you are expected to dogmatically preclude ...
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 from serious consideration the super ordinate intelligent causation for all creation.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
3) Charles Darwin before 'Origin of he Species' was seeking one of three mutually exclusive materialistic conjectures in an effort to rationalize away accountability to the God of Genesis; so, before developing his tautological bunk, Darwin was clearly hostile to the God whose account of creation is delineated in Genesis.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch Now I know you haven't read on Darwin. He felt like discovering the theory was like committing a murder. He even proposed arguments against it, as every good scientist does.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
I don't think that was Miller's point. Miller's point (from his lecture) is that the fegellum thingy wasn't irreducably complex which Behe claimed it was. He never said that it was older or the thing that the felellum thingy evolved from. So Meyer is being deceitful here.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk Watch the War on Science PBS special. It's on YOUTUBE.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Meyer mate, you fail. Your quibbling is pathetic
BabySatch1 1 year ago 2
5:40 Ward's response was epic.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
meyer is such a weasel. dodge left, dodge right, sweep the question under the table
thaterp 1 year ago
The "flegellum" argument is nothing more than the "eye" argument of the 20th century.
It cracks me up to hear an "educated" person say that "since we don't understand how it could have gotten here on its own, GOD DID IT."
You would think a student of scientific history would realise the lack of foresight in that opinion, since it has ALWAYS been shown to be in err and perfectly explainable in a natural context.
judoyodan 1 year ago
Its all very simple. Have we found any evidence that an intelligence is behind life and its organisms etc? NO. Until that happens there is no evidence of an intelligence or even stupider a "God" which have different meaning to every religious person in the world. If we find that there is an intelligence that have created and designed every living thing in the world then its science and an can be accepted. Until then Intelligent design is BS, and I expect it will never happen.
Entnor 1 year ago 2
This Ward has not addressed any argument articulated by Meyer.
mirando100 1 year ago
Pay attention to what Dr. Ward says about "science." He says Science is not TRUTH.
Then read what Obama, in whom I would say, is fundamental in putting forth the Destructive evolutionary THEORY, says about science! (look at my first post below)
solomon3181969 1 year ago
@solomon3181969
Nice quote mine. You should add the rest of what he actually said when he made that statement.
ThieleM 1 year ago
“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” President-elect Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.
solomon3181969 1 year ago
He half quotes people who are evolutionists.
LouisPlume 1 year ago
Nice try, Peter Ward, when Stephen Meyer is answering your question about the predictive nature of ID, and making totally good sense, you ask him to abandon the answering of the question that you badgered him to respond to and define "Darwinianism." Bully for Stephen Meyer, he graciously left the red herring stay in its pond while he gave us valuable examples of the predictive nature of design.
You really ought to try to understand ID a bit more. It might help you in your science labs.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Maybe the Intelligent Designer can whip up some flu vaccine next season...
leeroynaggins 1 year ago 2
Meyer dodges the question all the time
Mercuryvegetable 1 year ago
@Mercuryvegetable
That is what you do when you dont have an actual answer
ThieleM 1 year ago
There is a wonderful video on YT of a talk "Daniel Dennett - Is Evolution an Algorithmic Process?" about this issue. watch?v=TvH1rxIr9lA&feature=PlayList&p=2D8DC4DB6F52EF7C
ananiasacts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"ID does not answer this question. "
Too right, that is why it is rather flawed.
"Much like the big bang theory does not answer where the singularity came from. "
But unlike intellegent design it doesn't cast a character to fill the blanks.
ma049 1 year ago
And again, creationist swap evolution and abiogenesis... I've yet to see one creationist who actually know the difference...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
So, who designed the designer?
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049 the real question being what has god done during eternity before he created eden ?
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@ma049 Do you read? This question, "Who designed the designer?" has been extensively dealt with by numerous philosophers and theologians. Why beat a dead horse? Stop asking questions that make you sound ignorant.
elijah5791 1 year ago
Well aren't you just the bag of raw nerves.
The question has not been "extensively dealt with".
You are just parroting the unconvincingly triumphalist attitude you have seen doing the rounds on various rather silly creationist sites.
Try reading books, not websites.
ma049 1 year ago
@elijah5791, That's not true. Saying that the question "Who designed the designer?" is 'beyond the scope of ID' is not dealing with it at all. It's the intellectual equivalent of simply running away.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts You do NOT have to know ANYTHING about the designer to know that something IS designed!
Your question is specifically intended to cast doubt on the whole concept of a designer in general; however, it's much like someone visiting an extremely remote island thought untouched by men, and there finding some pottery, and then saying, "Men have been here before!" Then someone else saying, "Impossible! How would they have come? It must be naturally occurring pottery."
elijah5791 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Or, how about this? What if in the future men travel to Mars, and when there they find a encoded message on a sliver of crystal that contains a plan for designing a "Warp Engine?"
I ask you, if one of those astronaut pioneers were to propose as an explanation for the crystal's existence that some advanced alien civilization once lived on Mars, and encoded the crystal, how ridiculous would it sound if someone else said, "That's just silly! Where did those aliens come from?"
elijah5791 1 year ago
@ananiasacts (cont'd) The answer is that it would be completely ridiculous to assert that aliens weren't the cause for the message in crystal in light of such compelling evidence of INTELLIGENCE.
I am telling you right now, the encoded message on your DNA is infinitely more complex than any plan for building a Warp Engine, and yet idiots like you insist that somehow the GENETIC CODE is just some random natural occurence. That is just beyond absurd! It is UTTERLY FOOLISH!
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791, I agree that it is utterly foolish to assume that great complexity of design could just appear out of nowhere. This is why it's so easy to rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer, like a god, is responsible for life--because there is no way for that entity to come to exist without something even more remarkable to design it. This is why Darwin's solution is so ingenious and universally accepted. It explains how the complex could evolve in small steps over a long time.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ananiasacts First, let me apologize for being rude. You're displaying a sincere desire to have a civil discussion, and I respect that. From here on out I will honor that.
Now, let's back up. You say, "I agree that it is utterly foolish to assume that great complexity of design could just appear out of nowhere."
But, ananiasacts, are you aware that from the dawn of modern science, that is precisely what scientists thought about the universe? (cont'd)
elijah5791 1 year ago
@ananiasacts (cont'd) So, when you then say, "there is no way for that entity to come to exist without something even more remarkable to design it," you must recognize that your point of view is new, relatively speaking.
Einstein himself found the Big Bang Theory "repugnant" because it implied a beginning, and by extension, a creation.
So, here's my point: we assume the Universe MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED because THE EVIDENCE COMPELS US to accept the brute fact that IT BEGAN TO EXIST. (cont'd)
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791, I do not want to be rid of religion; I'd like to see it fixed. I feel the "concept of god" itself is responsible for all of the "magic" that religious people attribute to god. I think religion could become the science of studying how that concept can inspire and motivate us to improve ourselves. Frankly, the only problem I see with any religion is that they believe god is an actual entity instead of just an idea. An idea really can move us. A supernatural being could not move us.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts (cont'd) So, then, we only look for a cause because it has become clear over the past several decades that the Universe itself IS AN EFFECT.
Before we had that evidence, though, scientists actually believed that the universe was eternal, uncreated, and self-existent. If they could believe such a thing about the natural world, then why is it absurd to believe it about the cause of the natural world.
There must be and "uncaused cause," because it's not "turtles all the way down."
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791, But that doesn't imply that whatever the first cause was must have been a supernatural entity of great complexity. It points to the opposite sort of beginning; an incredible simple thing, like the generator of a fractal pattern, and a process by which that generator, or simple structure, changes in time to become more complex. There is simply no doubt that people are just a fancier sort of animal. What makes us special isn't god, but merely the amazing journey of our ancestors.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts "But that doesn't imply that whatever the first cause was must have been a supernatural entity of great complexity."
ID never claimed that -- you did.
Sure, a fractal pattern can produce some very complex formations, but not even close to what we witness in nature. Comparing a fractal pattern to the Universe is like comparing a child's drawing of a person to an ACTUAL person; it's just silly.
Still, you seem intent on focusing on your arguments rather the evidence. (cont'd)
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791, that is exactly what ID presupposes: An entity of great sophistication and complexity that somehow spontaneously came into being at some distant time in the past, or was "always" here. An absurd idea because it requires a much much greater leap of faith than a mindless singularity does. Believing that a singularity just popped into existence isn't that odd since we know virtual particles do so today. But a fully grown god requires a leap of faith much larger than our universe.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts "that is exactly what ID presupposes: An entity of great sophistication and complexity that somehow spontaneously came into being at some distant time in the past, or was "always" here."
It doesn't do any such thing, but you keep saying it does! Why? You are putting everything in a religious context.
I am going to be as simple as I can: ID attempts to detect INTELLIGENT DESIGN in nature. Period.
Heard of SETI? They do the same thing searching for little green men.
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791, Creationism, (ID is just a reworked version of it--see the Dover, PA case) was expressly invented to simply to put religion into schools. You can deny that all you like, but that court case found proof of that fact, starting from the "wedge" document that began the strategy, and showing a smooth, gradual evolution from it all the way to ID. ID only exists because creationism was ruled by the courts to be merely religion. You apparently know very little about ID or biology.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
"Believing that a singularity just popped into existence isn't that odd since we know virtual particles do so today."
This argument neglects one insurmountable fact: virtual particles exist inside our time and space universe.
The "singularity" would've been forced to come into existence from an actual nothing; not a blackness or void, mind you, but TRUE, COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE NOTHING.
So, to believe that Atheists have it right, is to believe the Universe came from nothing. Ridiculous!
elijah5791 1 year ago