Intelligent Design Rockumentary Redux

[CebuBangkaRacer]

Your comment is literally loaded with fallacies. Lets try to sort them all out. Calling others stupid and "creationist" when many ID proponents are not (some are atheist, agnostic, Jewish et etc) is what is wrong. Next, design is oftentimes an inference to the best explanation, not a proof. Next, who the designer is is irrelevant to determining that design is present. Next, it makes sense if you do your research, from ID sources.

[thismortalsoul]

How is this even funny? It just shows how stupid and wrong creationists are. ID is not a theory at all, it simply points out they no one knows certain things...so how can that prove a designer? How did the designer make it happen...? No one knows...so how can you prove a designer did it if you don't know how they did it...or who the designer is...or where they came from. None of it makes any damn sense.

[Tobytrim]

This is a very silly video - Is it a satire of the way that creationists and ID proponents dishonestly edit and quote mine what REAL scientists say?

There's certainly no controversy.....I.D. got handed it's ass long since! - Lol!

[Tobytrim]

This is a very silly video - Is it a satire of the way that creationists and ID proponents dishonestly edit and quote mine what REAL scientists say.

There's certainly no controversy.....I.D. got handed it's ass long since! - Lol!

[Scruffers2011]

@Gamesbok, and lastly, Dover was in now way a precedent setting case. It was presided over by a small town magistrate judge who was not qualified to rule over matters of science, ignored evidence, relied on dated material prepared by the ACLU (verbatim in some cases, even the mistakes!), and finally, was a lowly district court in an unknown town in Pennsylvania....a town, and a court ruling that is back to being unknown to this day.

[Scruffers2011]

@Gamesbok, furthermore ID does not deny that some, limited change does occur over time., that which is commonly referred to as "evolution". Microevolution is well documented. Macroevolution is the position of faith that materialists make to perpetuate a naturalistic philosophy in public school science classes, a philosophy that is known to directly result in atheism. Neither the philosophy of naturalism or atheism belong in science class.

[Maklaka]

@Scruffers2011 Science is by definition, methodological naturalism. Naturalism absolutely belongs in the science class. Get an education and learn why irreducible complexity has died.

[Scruffers2011]

@Gamesbok - You said in your email " HJ Muller proved, and I do mean proved, in 1918 that Irreducable Complexity was no basis for judging if a system is evolved or not. ID remains an answer to a question that doesn't exist."

I'm sorry to break this to you, and as much as you would like it to wish it away, but yes, the question "Does intelligence contribute to the observed complexity in some living things?" does in fact exist.

[gamesbok]

'The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.'

Judge John E. Jones

Kitzmuller v Dover Area School District.

[sherwoodstars]

For the education of Darwinists: creationism holds that humans (and usually all species) were specially created, without lower life-forms as ancestors. Some intelligent design theorists are creationists; other ID theorists believe that humans descended from lower ancestors, but with intelligence playing a detectable role. And many ID theorists are scientists. Quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff is an ID theorist, and not a creationist. To read his comments, follow the link on my channel profile.

[sherwoodstars]

My friend Darwin B. Leaver says he believes in Darwinism because he isn't allowed to question it. It seems that some judge named John E. Jones says he believes in Darwinism, so the innumerable flaws and absurdities of Darwinist evolution must not be mentioned in any public school. Jones rides on horseback to stop that. He says:

I'm John Jones, His Ruling Grace,

Who keeps all the "low" in their place:

Should they doubt any word

From a Darwinist nerd,

My riding-crop snaps in their face!

[sherwoodstars]

These Darwinists think that a dispute about what constitutes science, or about which scientific hypotheses are true, can be decided by some judge in Dover, Pa.!

Afraid not, fellas.

[dfgggg]

But we can agree that intelligent design at least employs logical fallacies to, well, exist.

[TheGreaterSatan]

Well you creationists won't let the SCIENTISTS figure out what is science and what isn't, so who will you listen to?

[dirtyhyde8]

Hey man. Forget about religion and atheism for a second. Ever heard of the Dover trial? Watch some of the Ken Miller videos on youtube, he pretty much debunks all Intelligent Design arguments with good Science.

[sherwoodstars]

In Hoyle's book Cosmic-Life Force (1988,1990, with co-worker Chandra Wickramasinghe,) Chapter 10 is entitled The Concept of a Creator. On p.138 the authors hypothesize that "The alternative to assembly of life by random, mindless processes is assembly through the intervention of some type of cosmic intelligence...a cosmic intelligence that emerged naturally in the Universe may have designed and worked out all the logical consequences of our own living system." Intelligent design.

[sherwoodstars]

The false claim that ID is creationism reflects faulty semantics . Early texts of Pandas may have used such terms as creationism or creation. But Fred Hoyle, an atheist or at most an agnostic, entitled one of his books Evolution From Space: a Theory of Cosmic Creationism. Hoyle favored the hypothesis that an intelligence had indeed designed the first microscopic carbon-based life; but that the intelligence had emerged naturally. He was using "creationism" to mean simply "intelligent design."

[Scruffers2011]

Thanx! I like it too.

Note to those who think ID is creationism. I think you're using faith to come to that conclusion. Why? Because creationism has it's premise on a belief that God exists and seeks to make a literal interpretation of the Bible fit with existing scientific observations. ID is not based on any religious text, and as such makes no religious claims. ID is based on a knowledge base of how intelligent agents work and the evidences of their activity that they leave behind.

[Alternate2GOP]

I keep hammering countless people to find a passage in those early pandas drafts that indicate god had to be the designer, or that the earth is 10,000 years old. They never comply.

All I've ever found is things like "...but we cannot determine if the creator is natural or supernatural..."

Doesn't sound religious to me.

[rbairos1]

""...but we cannot determine if the creator is natural or supernatural..."

"Doesn't sound religious to me. "

Supernatural is religion by definition, as science is the study of the natural world, so yes, Panda is an appeal to religious faith by your own evidence.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Supernatural is religion by definition, as science is the study of the natural world, so yes, Panda is an appeal to religious faith by your own evidence."

I think the irony of this statement speaks for itself when compared to the quote I originally cited.

[rbairos1]

""...but we cannot determine if the creator is natural or supernatural..."

In other words .'...but we cannot determine if the creator is within the realm of scientific investigation or outside the realm of scientific investigation '

Things that are outside the realm of scientific investigation are not science, but are matters of faith, or else we could scientifically test them and they would no longer be 'supernatural'. The statement is either meaningless or an appeal to religion.pick 1

[Alternate2GOP]

"The statement is either meaningless or an appeal to religion.pick 1"

False dichotomy.

ID focuses on the EFFECTS of intelligence, so whether the intelligence itself is natural or not is irrelevant.

[gamesbok]

@Scruffers2011 No, it isn't. HJ Muller proved, and I do mean proved, in 1918 that Irreducable Complexity was no basis for judging if a system is evolved or not. ID remains an answer to a question that doesn't exist.

[mbouw21]

nice lil propoganda piece...

[ProphetChaser]

Great video, Scruffers.

Evolution = False therefore Intelligent Design = Truth

[Alternate2GOP]

Wow, for a second I thought those were the words of an educated person aware of how Darwin's ideas have gotten such a grip on society until I realized you were referring to the claims in the video...

[sfehrenbach]

Seperation of Church and State...it's what's for breakfast!

[GOPpersona]

"Seperation of Church and State...it's what's for breakfast!"

How is ID a violation of this rule?

[sfehrenbach]

ID is Creationism.

[GOPpersona]

How?

[sfehrenbach]

Oh please don't even start. To even suggest otherwise is just dishonest.

[Alternate2GOP]

There's no evidence for such a thing.

[sfehrenbach]

No evidence you like you mean.

The result of the Kitzmiller trial where the ruling stated "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism". Or the editing of "Of Pandas and People" with it's replacing the word 'Creation' with 'Intelligent Design'.

This ship sailed, sank, rusted and is the home of eels by now.

[Alternate2GOP]

If court cases settle everything, then should gays settle with prop 8, or did Roe v. Wade settle the abortion debate? I think not.

"Or the editing of "Of Pandas and People" with it's replacing the word 'Creation' with 'Intelligent Design'."

I asked this before, by "creation" did those early drafts say a supernatural god created everything in less than a week, that the earth is 10K years old, that everything appeared in a puff of smoke instant, anything of that sort?

[Psycnosis]

this documentary is crap, it cuts off Dawkins in mid sentence. Its made to brainwash already stupid americans.

[Alternate2GOP]

Like, totally dude.

"Judgment Day: ID on Trial" NEVER did anything of the sort.*

*end sarcasm.

[sfehrenbach]

...soooooo if someone else made a bad documentary, it, what, cancels this one out?

What kinda of argument was that? You either had that or the 'Oh Ya!' defence?

[Alternate2GOP]

Surely you would agree that you get what you give, right? I'm pretty sure it's fair enough that they get the same treatment we receive from them.

[sfehrenbach]

I'm sorry but no I don't agree. I guess I just aim for a higher personal standard. We don't get anywhere if we retard our expectations to mere mockery.

[GOPpersona]

"I guess I just aim for a higher personal standard."

Then why insist on citing misrepresentations of our arguments? (yes, I'm referring to Ken Miller's straw man that IC system's parts should have no functions of their own)

"We don't get anywhere if we retard our expectations to mere mockery."

Glad we can agree on something.

[sfehrenbach]

"Ken Miller's straw man that IC system's parts should have no functions of their own"

Your funny. Actually that's Behe's claim (The ID guy), not Miller's. "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

[sfehrenbach]

...I'm sorry but who's misrepresnting who again?

[GOPpersona]

"...I'm sorry but who's misrepresnting who again?"

I think the previous points I made will speak for themselves on that question. ;D

[GOPpersona]

"Actually that's Behe's claim (The ID guy)..."

Seriously??? Let me grab "Darwin's Black Box" really quick and see if that's the case.

(steps away from the computer).....

"Because the cilium is irreducibly complex, no direct gradual route leads to its production. So an evolutionary story for the cilium must envision a circuitous route, perhaps adapting parts that were originally used for other purposes." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 65-66.)

Oh, and there's more...

[GOPpersona]

...Yet another quote shows he believes parts to an IC structure have other roles(My words occur in brackets just to drive the point further):

"To begin, Microtubules [those are PARTS to cilia] occur in many cells and are usually used as mere structural supporters like girders to prop up cell shape."

(DBB, Page 66)

Not only has he stated the parts in an IC structure could have other functions, but when using his own analogy he points out that a system could be built from previous functions.

[GOPpersona]

"For example, suppose you wanted to make a mousetrap. In your garage you might have a piece of wood from an old Popsicle stick (for the platform), a spring from an old wind-up clock, a piece of metal (for the hammer) in the form of a crowbar, a darning needle for the holding bar, and a bottle cap that you fancy to use as a catch. But these pieces couldn't form a functioning mousetrap without..." (continued)

[GOPpersona]

*wrote some things in caps to drive the point home*

"...extensive modification, and while the modification was going on, they would be unable to work as a mousetrap. Their *PREVIOUS FUNCTIONS* make them ill- suited for virtually any *NEW ROLE* as part of a complex system." (DBB, Page 66, emphasis mine)

Not only does he state that parts to an IC structure can (and probably do) have other functions with respect to their PARTS but Behe also addresses the prospect of INDIRECT routes...(continued)

[GOPpersona]

"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously."

(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 40.)

So there you go. Anyone who has a copy of Darwin's Black Box (like I do) can read it and see that you're wrong, and Miller is full of it.

[GOPpersona]

And the very definition you cite proves my point:

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

It clearly states the SYSTEM is irreducible, not the parts. So for even though an apparatus SIMILAR to the TTSS exists within the base of the flagellum, the original system (a flagellum) is no longer functioning, so it proves nothing.

[GOPpersona]

To make it even more clear, let's take a look at a common claim Miller makes regarding a mousetrap being IC. In order to try and discredit the analogy (and the whole argument), he points out that you could remove parts to a mousetrap, then use it as a tie clip.

Since the system originally addressed was a mousetrap, it makes no difference if PARTS can be used as a tie clip, since the ORIGINAL SYSTEM is not functional.

Since a TTSS is not a functioning flagellum, it does not make it reducible.

[sfehrenbach]

Perhaps I missed your original meaning. Are you saying that Miller claims IC parts have no function on their own OR are you saying that Miller claims a tenet of IC is that parts have no function on their own?

[GOPpersona]

"Perhaps I missed your original meaning."

As did Miller.

"Are you saying that Miller claims IC parts have no function on their own OR are you saying that Miller claims a tenet of IC is that parts have no function on their own?"

The latter. Miller redefined the criteria is for something to be IC by claiming that it assumes the PARTS of systems have no functions of their OWN. The actual meaning is that a SYSTEM cannot function if you remove a part. A TTSS is functional but is not a flagellum.

[sherwoodstars]

More and more young biologists seem to be becoming interested in ID. It isn't possibe for me to analyze the evidence in a few words. But if you bother to read quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff's favorable review of the intelligent design book The Design of Life, by Dembski and Wells, you'll at least gain a better understanding. Those with open minds should do a search for "Mohrhoff" and "Dembski," and read the review: as I suggested.

[Alternate2GOP]

That book is the shit. Like Panda's and People on heavy androgenics, steroids, and myostatin genes turned off.

It literally may just be the book that changes the paradigm once and for all.

[saxmanchiro]

Controversy over the present theory of Evolution?? Care to reference any of the evidence please. I would love to read them. As a Biology teacher, I am always open to evidence that refutes what we have as accepted theory. Sorry, babble quotes won't suffice.

[sherwoodstars]

Quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff gives a thumbs-up review to the intelligent design book The Design of Life, by Dembski and Wells. Mohrhoff is not a Christian, and says "I do not subscribe to any religion." He writes: "There's no doubt in my mind that specified complexity is the 'smoking gun' of some other-than-human intelligence at work, as the authors maintain...[The intelligence] however could be very different from how it is conceived by theists." (Review in AntiMatters, on the Web.)

[GOPpersona]

Best book ever. We could use a similar book that details the case for design in physics/cosmology/properties of matter.

Maybe "Privileged Planet" meets "Nature's Destiny."

[Scruffers2011]

" Science is not a phillosophy. " Actually, not all, but much of modern science is embedded with methodological naturalism (a philosophy) and metaphysical naturalism (another philosophy), both having subtle implications toward atheism. Last time I checked, science class was suppoed to be about science, not indoctrination of atheist philosophy.

[Scrapheap71]

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in the supernatural. Science deals with natural explainations for natural phenomenon. Science can make no statements about the supernatural, so your confusion is understandable.

[cdpopham]

But they are not willing too throw out a theory because of the hidden Metaphysical Naturalism philosophy.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Science can make no statements about the supernatural, so your confusion is understandable."

Gee, wonder why PZ Meyers, Dawkins, etc. seem to think science is on their side with the existence of a supernatural god.

Are you saying their claims are therefore baseless???

[GOPpersona]

The second anyone claims to have falsified the existence of god using science they have already broken the very rules they seek to follow.

[sfehrenbach]

And which rules are you referring to? There are those who claim the Supernatural and Science share no overlap but there are others ust as Victor Stenger who believe an intervening god such as that of Christianity, Islam and Judaism can be shown through science to not exist.

[GOPpersona]

"And which rules are you referring to?"

Sticking to what's observable and testable.

"but there are others ust as Victor Stenger who believe an intervening god such as that of Christianity, Islam and Judaism can be shown through science to not exist."

That is in itself a contradiction, science cannot falsify what one cannot observe and study.

[sfehrenbach]

So some god's don't claim to have flooded the world? Burned a bush? Had a son? Make the earth 6000 years ago? Split the Red Sea? Free the Hebrews from Egypt? Turn entire towns into Salt?...there are some religions (Christianity, Jadaism, Islam) that claim their god takes an active role in personal lives (answers prayers for example). Such actions would be both observable and measureable.

[GOPpersona]

That's taking genesis and other passages that I don't know the names of a bit too literally. You can falsify a literal young-earth interpretation of the bible, but to go beyond that and say we can prove something doesn't exist when it's not observable goes beyond what science can do.

[sfehrenbach]

"That's taking genesis and other passages that I don't know the names of a bit too literally." Ah not a purist. Not a big surprise. So even if the Old Testament is metaphorical are you willing to say God does not answer prayers? If he does, he intervenes in an observable and measureable way.

Nevertheless Science can have a say in the accuracy of the Bible, the Tora and Quran when they make physical claims that many DO hold as the absolute truth.

[Scruffers2011]

It would be disingenuous to propagate science as only limited to the assumptions of an atheist worldview, which at the present time is untestable.

[Scruffers2011]

Of note, it is a known fact that Forrest and Scott at NCSE are atheists and have affiliations with humanist organizations. Regardless, it's better to avoid arguments against the person, and stick to investigating all lines of evidence. Additionally, a religious, philosophical or logical truth is no less valid than a scientific truth. Of note, the atheist worldview is based on a philosophical premise, not a scientific one.

[sfehrenbach]

There is no 'atheist worldview' since each person comes to terms with atheism using personal criteria. No scientic evidence, read the bible, lack of personal connection, raised that way, etc, etc. If you are going to hold to 'Atheist Worldview' then it's simply 'No' to the question of 'Is there a God?'. That 'No' may or may not come from a scientific foundation.

[Alternate2GOP]

So you agree that people try and use science to say there is no supernatural deity, correct?

[sfehrenbach]

Not entirely. I'm saying people use a variety of criteria. Lack of observable, measureable evidence is one for a certain amount of people. How many I can hardly say. It certainly wasn't my criteria for dismissing the idea of a god(s). My point is you can't pigeon hole where the 'Atheist Worldview' comes from since it's personal form each person. The idea of a Worldview makes it appear like atheism is an organized movement inherintly.

[GOPpersona]

"The idea of a Worldview makes it appear like atheism is an organized movement inherintly."

Which it is.

[sfehrenbach]

Provide proof please.

You could start with me about how I became an atheist as part of a group organized movement, even though my decision was made by me and me alone based on my own personal experiences and observations.

[GOPpersona]

"Provide proof please."

So "Rational [sic] response" is not an organization? Secular Humanism is not an organized movement??? I must say anyone who's spent at least a month on youtube can find plenty of proof for that one.

"You could start with me about how I became an atheist as part of a group organized movement, even though my decision was made by me and me alone based on my own personal experiences and observations."

So you agree that it's an organized movement.

Good.

[sfehrenbach]

As stated, everyone uses their own criteria to make their judgement about whether they believe in a god. No scientic evidence, read the bible, lack of personal connection, raised that way, etc. This doesn't seem very organized now does it? And it doesn't require an organization to reach being an atheist as was the case for me. If you want to say there is an Atheist Worldview that's fine...as long as that worldview is "There is no God"...and your done. That's the definition of atheism...

[sfehrenbach]

...Are there groups for Atheist's to join? Sure like the Rational Responce Squad or the Center for Inquiry. But the question was is atheism organization 'inherent' and that is a wrong assumption. Getting atheists organized is actually often called 'like trying to herd cats'.

And Secular Humanism is not 'Atheism'. Secular means not involving religion. Humanism focus's on individual matters in the here and now. In short, you don't have to be an Atheist to be a Secular Humanist...

[sfehrenbach]

"So you agree that it's an organized movement."

You know your just trying to put words in my mouth so I won't bother with the obvious retort. Instead I'll explain something. Atheism isn't even really a choice. You see the evidence before you and you have a realization. Like you look in the sky and have to say the sky is blue because saying anything else would be a lie. That's what atheism is. It's personal and it does not require an organized movement.

[GOPpersona]

I think I'll avoid religious disputes since they've always served as a distraction issue for me in the past.

[GOPpersona]

"And it doesn't require an organization to reach being an atheist as was the case for me."

The same applies to virtually any religion as well.

And I do agree with how you define atheism.

[Scruffers2011]

" think the motive of ID'ers is to promote their religion, not further the progress of science which after all is about observable nature not philosophy or theology. "

Well we could say that the motive of scientists who happen to be atheist is to promote their philosophical worldview and not further the progress of science if that's what it takes to accomplish their goals. The genetic fallacy is a double edged sword.

[owheydusoapsk]

I think it is fair to say activist atheists use science to further their agenda, (not sure I'd classify atheism as a world-view). Dawkins is an example of that. Evolutionary biology is silent on the existence of God. Because the idea of God is "why" things happen not "how". Ask a scientist why water boils in a kettle and he'll explain how the molecules are agitated by heat and turned into gas. Ask a theologian and he'll say, "because aunt Millie wants a cup of tea". There both right.

[Scruffers2011]

Or it may not. but if you're not willing to go wherever the evidence leads, then not every explanation could a true, accurate one for a natural event/object every time....only the times when it appeals to the naturalistic/materialist worldview. In my opinion, what makes ID more objective and unbiased, is that it doesn't discriminate toward or against any particular philosophical worldview.

[Scruffers2011]

" You're starting with the security blanket idea that someone made all this and then look for evidence to suggest you might be right. "

Maybe....just maybe, it's because there is other evidence that suggests design. If something has the appearance of design, it's a valid scientific question to ask "Is it designed?" and then pursue investigation to gather more evidence either way. If something has the appearance of design, it could very well be designed.

[sfehrenbach]

And yet that very arguement cannot be applied to the designer. My problem with that notion is the lack of interest people have in testing that theory (ie bacterial flagellum, human eye). They make a declaration, leave it untested simplying saying "it's far too complex." and then someone comes along and bothers to do the math and 'presto', natural processes in action once again.

[Alternate2GOP]

Someone on the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis side actually did the math on those things??? Please tell me what their findings were.

[sfehrenbach]

Ken Miller does an excellent breakdown of many of the 'irreducibly complex' topics in his 2 hour lecture here on you tube. The eye is an easy one since there are living examples of primative eyes at numerous stages of complexity.

[GOPpersona]

"Ken Miller does an excellent breakdown of many of the 'irreducibly complex' topics in his 2 hour lecture here on you tube."

Casey Luskin does a pretty excellent break down of Ken Miller's arguments in an an article entitled "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts?"

The fact that the eye comes in simpler forms does not prove that one "evolved" another via non-teleological means (see previous point on common descent), and does nothing to explain how that original light-sensitive cell came to be.

[sfehrenbach]

'Doctrine' as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "Something that is taught". So your either lazy or intentionally misleading people. What a shock. I'm sorry but science worked backwards is not science at all, it's wishful thinking. You're starting with the security blanket idea that someone made all this and then look for evidence to suggest you might be right. You can't dismiss theories because you just don't like them. We'll be here in the real world when your ready to join us.

[Alternate2GOP]

So your either lazy or intentionally misleading people.

"What a shock. I'm sorry but science worked backwards is not science at all, it's wishful thinking."

To be honest, we agree.

"You're starting with the security blanket idea that someone made all this and then look for evidence to suggest you might be right."

You're starting with the security blanket that we are just a random accident with no real moral demands placed upon us and then look for evidence to suggest you might be right.

[Alternate2GOP]

"You can't dismiss theories because you just don't like them."

We agree....

"We'll be here in the real world when your ready to join us."

Maybe apply all these standards to yourself for once???

Judging by what you call the real world, it seems like you need to get out more.

[sfehrenbach]

So your evidence I need to get out more is the fact I don't believe in your invisible friend? That I see no evidence that if you eat everything on your plate you'll be given eternal life? Your funny if you think this point of view is reversible. Life evolving is an observation. It was never required to fulfill a doctrine. "no real moral demands placed upon us"...perhaps there are no laws where you live. We have a few around here and a genuine wish to uphold them.

[Alternate2GOP]

"So your evidence I need to get out more is the fact I don't believe in your invisible friend?"

No, just the fact that you accuse us of starting with a conclusion while being guilty of the same thing.

"Life evolving is an observation."

On a small-scale yes...

""no real moral demands placed upon us"...perhaps there are no laws where you live. We have a few around here and a genuine wish to uphold them."

I was referring to a more nihilistic philosophy that I guess you don't subscribe to.

[sfehrenbach]

"you accuse us of starting with a conclusion"...you do and it's funny if your even trying to compare evolution in the same manner. Evolution is the theory in regards to explaining observations. If the theory was wrong it would not have survived a century of peer review. Small scale evolution is the only kind fast enough to be observable in the lab. The evidence for what you call macro-evolution is still abundant (indogenous retro-virus, dna similarities, chromosome 2, etc).

[GOPpersona]

"Evolution is the theory in regards to explaining observations."

So is ID.

"If the theory was wrong it would not have survived a century of peer review."

Except peer-review is done by people who already agree with the theory.

"The evidence for what you call macro-evolution is still abundant..."

Let's look over some of the things you cite...

"indogenous retro-virus..."

Correction: ENDOGENOUS retro-virus, and it's pretty funny how HIV, despi dna similarities, chromosome 2, etc).

[GOPpersona]

....despite it's high mutation rate has not accomplished anything other then drug resistance.

"dna similarities..."

At best, this is proof of common descent, it does not verify that the changes resulted from a non-guided process.

"chromosome 2..."

See the above point. You're confusing evidence for large scale changes (unguided) with evidence for common descent.

"etc..."

If there's more, then please enlighten me.

[sfehrenbach]

Care to explain how you can have common descent without evolution? If we have a common ancestor with the great Ape something must have acted to seperate our lineage. And 'it was magic' is not an answer. Seems you have to brush up on more than the spelling of Endogenous Retro-Virus. It leaves specific markers passed on through the bloodlines proving common ancestory and we have I believe 7 such markers in common with great apes, each of which with an astronomically small chance of matching...

[sfehrenbach]

..And 'no' peer review is not done by those who know and agree with the theory. New theories could not be introduced if that were so. And ID isn't a scientific theory. It's not covered by the peer reviewed literature and even the US court system (Dover) has ruled it is not a science. Behe and alike didn't even try to defend their position to a conservative judge.

[GOPpersona]

"..And 'no' peer review is not done by those who know and agree with the theory."

According to that statement editors are either unqualified for their job or are likely to agree with ID to begin with.

"And ID isn't a scientific theory. It's not covered by the peer reviewed literature..."

So you're argument can be summed up as a cath-22.

ID is not published in peer-review journals because it is not science. Why is it not science? Because it is not in peer-review journals.

[sfehrenbach]

Nice backwards talk but it's like this...it's not in peer reviewed journals because it's not science. Nice attempt to playing the victim card but sorry, no prize for you.

"According to that statement editors are either unqualified for their..." So your saying that ALL theories must be ideas that people already 'know' about and 'agree' with? How on earth do you get new theories then?.

[GOPpersona]

"Nice backwards talk but it's like this...it's not in peer reviewed journals because it's not science."

And why is it not science?

"So your saying that ALL theories must be ideas that people already 'know' about and 'agree' with? How on earth do you get new theories then?."

Ironically that's what Judge Jones seemed to believe but that is not what I said. I was pointing out the issue with you saying the following:

"And 'no' peer review is not done by those who know and agree with the theory."

[GOPpersona]

"and even the US court system (Dover) has ruled it is not a science."

It is not the job of courts to decide what is and isn't science, plus dover only has precedent within the dover school district, not the entire nation.

"Behe and alike didn't even try to defend their position to a conservative judge."

Wonder what Behe did at dover if he didn't defend his position. And also they would've been forced to defend a policy they didn't agree with.

[sfehrenbach]

"Wonder what Behe did at dover if he didn't defend his position." Funny that's pretty much what Ken Miller said as well( biology teacher and scientist for the prosecution). Behe and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture seemed more interested to making claims but not backing them up with any evidence that withstood cross examination. And what policy is it they would have had to defend that they didn't agree with?

[GOPpersona]

Don't waste your time explaining who these people are, I've debated enough people to know who Ken Miller and Behe are.

"Behe and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture seemed more interested to making claims but not backing them up with any evidence that withstood cross examination."

Like what?

"And what policy is it they would have had to defend that they didn't agree with?"

See the Discovery Institutes Science Education policy.

[GOPpersona]

"Care to explain how you can have common descent without evolution?"

You're making what Phillip Jonson coined "Berra's Blunder." To use a line of corvettes (as an example) that have "evolved" over the past few decades, you do indeed have common descent between the makes of vehicle, but this does not in itself verify that they "evolved" without intelligent intervention.

A designing force can work on prior set-ups and build up from there.

[sfehrenbach]

The Corvette analogy is a misplaced Straw Man as you can pull up the social security number of the designer if you were so inclined. On top of that automobile manufacturing is not the same a complex biological processes.

And I haven't made Berra's Blunder since I haven't sighted similarity of archtype as sufficient evidence.

Beyond that you have done nothing to suggest why 'design' should be considered. You just seem put off it isn't.

[GOPpersona]

"The Corvette analogy is a misplaced Straw Man as you can pull up the social security number of the designer if you were so inclined. On top of that automobile manufacturing is not the same a complex biological processes."

Looks like you might want to take that up with Tim Berra since he was the one who used that analogy in the first place. ;)

"And I haven't made Berra's Blunder since I haven't sighted similarity of archtype as sufficient evidence."

Then why did you bring it up to begin with?

[GOPpersona]

Forgot to mention...

"On top of that automobile manufacturing is not the same a complex biological processes."

It doesn't have to be. The point remains that even if live shared common lineage, then that in itself does not prove the changes occurred via a mindless undirected process.

[sfehrenbach]

A car does not share common lineage though. There is nothing saying the 2010 Toyota Corolla must have anyting in common with the 2009. And I know you didn't make up the Corvette analogy when I looked up your reference to Berra's Blunder. Again it sites archtypes while I'm citing different numerous biological markers. Not that I can tell you have any issues WITH these markers. As far as I can tell you agree with the idea of evolution, you just think someone's at the helm of it for some reason.

[GOPpersona]

"If we have a common ancestor with the great Ape something must have acted to seperate our lineage."

Right, intelligent intervention.

"And 'it was magic' is not an answer."

Straw man, but I agree.

"Seems you have to brush up on more than the spelling of Endogenous Retro-Virus."

I think anyone with a google search engine can verify the irony of that sentence.

"It leaves specific markers passed on through the bloodlines proving common ancestory"

Doesn't prove the changes where undirected.

[sfehrenbach]

Evolutionary changes are explained from biological terms and have been observed in controlled lab experiments. We know the processes that guide them and how AND why they work. Attempting to say they are 'guided' is baseless. We know how the natural processes work. Where's the evidence to suggest they are directed?

[GOPpersona]

"Evolutionary changes are explained from biological terms and have been observed in controlled lab experiments."

Right, in controlled conditions an on a very small-scale.

"We know the processes that guide them and how AND why they work."

Right, we know it's possible for a cell to destroy some of it's own function if it helps it survive.

[sfehrenbach]

"Right, in controlled conditions an on a very small-scale."

Sorry if we can't get the elephants to breed fast enough for your liking. It's not that small of a scale really. Getting E.Coli to consume citrate is not unlike getting a cow to consume a pickup truck.

"Right, we know it's possible for a cell to destroy some of it's own function if it helps it survive." more like take on new benefitial properties like the E.Coli or the Nylon Eating bacteria.

[GOPpersona]

"Getting E.Coli to consume citrate is not unlike getting a cow to consume a pickup truck."

And even if that were possible you would still have a cow.

"more like take on new benefitial properties like the E.Coli or the Nylon Eating bacteria."

You restated my point, nylonase bacteria are even described by proponents as being "very inefficient," having only 2% efficiency of typical enzymes (according to "New Mexicans for Science and Reason presents Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug").

[sfehrenbach]

"And even if that were possible you would still have a cow."

According to you at least.

So what can we gather from a genetic mutation that creates new information at a dramatic loss of overall efficiency? 1) Evolution can create new information. 2) Not all mutations are entirely benefitial. This speaks for life creating information and against a purposeful mind guiding evolution.

[GOPpersona]

"Attempting to say they are 'guided' is baseless."

Really? If the product is something consistent with something we would expect from a pre-planned process it's baseless to say it was?

"Where's the evidence to suggest they are directed?"

We know what produces information and synergistic systems on a regular basis, Intelligence.

[sfehrenbach]

That's your evidence? Life is complex ergo someone thought it up? You seem quite smart so I'm a little disappointed in the conclusion to be frank. To quote the ID community where's your 'missing link' from man's work to god's work? How do you disprove natural systems cannot produce it's own order? It's own blueprints?

[sfehrenbach]

Here's the flaw in your notion that evolution is directed. In that case we would see subtle benefitial mutations when they are required by God. And you could cite this in regards to the lab test done to alter E.Coli to synthesis citrate. However we see countless subtle mutations in genes, some harmful, most simply ignored as they offer no real benefit what allow them to aggressively passed on. So if it's directed, why is it happening all the time?

[GOPpersona]

"In that case we would see subtle benefitial mutations when they are required by God."

No reason to assume that they have to happen at certain times, and please don't bring god into the discussion.

"And you could cite this in regards to the lab test done to alter E.Coli to synthesis citrate."

Ah yes, that fruitful Lenski experiment. Seemed to show just how much mutations break down genes if they are to find new functions at all.

[sfehrenbach]

"and please don't bring god into the discussion."

ID 'is' Creationism. No one is going to believe any different.

[Alternate2GOP]

"ID 'is' Creationism. No one is going to believe any different."

ID is NOT creationism. There is no evidence to suggest any different.

[sfehrenbach]

Perhaps your not aware of the book "Of Pandas and People" where 150 uses of the term 'creation' was replaced in a new draft with the word 'Intelligent Design'. Or the ruling og the Kitzmiller trial where it was ruled that "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism".

So by "no evidence" I assume you mean none you personally approve of.

[Alternate2GOP]

Did "creation" mean god did it in less than a week?

[GOPpersona]

"However we see countless subtle mutations in genes, some harmful, most simply ignored as they offer no real benefit what allow them to aggressively passed on. So if it's directed, why is it happening all the time?"

It's really ironic that you've chosen to use a limitation to your own theory as evidence against mine. The copying system is imperfect, information eventually gets fragmented just as one would expect from copying an MP3 file from a website, then copying it to a flash drive...

[GOPpersona]

...then onto another computer, then onto a CD. Each time the information gets copied, information is lost, the systems are imperfect and the MP3 will lose quality. The same applies to the transcription/translation process. Though it is imperfect like the information systems I just described, it does not in itself prove the process was undesigned and is unguided.

[sfehrenbach]

I don't quite see how it's a limitation to the theory of evolution. You still leave it unaddressed it seems though. A system that constantly introduces subtle changes to genes is not showing signs of a plan. Benetial traits are carried forward when the environment makes them benefitial.

[GOPpersona]

"A system that constantly introduces subtle changes to genes is not showing signs of a plan."

Why not?

[sfehrenbach]

Because guided evolution would introduce benefitial traits when they're needed and would not find it purposeful to bombard every living organism with countless genetic mutations that usually are useless. I don't have to be all-knowing to know 'waste of my time' when I see it.

The notion that 'someone's at the wheel' is just wishful thinking imposed on a system that shows no signs of requiring a guiding hand. Escpceially when you consider that 99.9% of all that lived is no extinct.

[Alternate2GOP]

What makes you think that we should see a perfect system if it's designed?

[sfehrenbach]

It's been awhile but I don't seem to be implying 'perfect', but what I am saying is we lack any sign of a 'directed' system. We see the evidence of a system that runs without the need of a guiding hand and one could argue absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

[Alternate2GOP]

Can you point to an instance in which a new increase in information is present in the genome that results in either a. a new function that didn't require the loss of an existing one.

b. a new structure that allowed a living system to thrive more effectively?

Feel free to cite nylonase.

[owheydusoapsk]

Some people do treat science like religion. One distinction between science and religion is science doesn't contain claims that are unquestionable or not subject to revision, (dogma). There are gaps in the theory of evolution. But these gaps are not fatal to the theory as a whole. So far it's the best general theory we have on how we arrived at the state of life we currently see. ID proponents offer no scientific theory to substitute for evolution.

[owheydusoapsk]

They offer criticism's, some legitimate and some not. But the legitimate criticisms do not undermine the general theory. I think the motive of ID'ers is to promote their religion, not further the progress of science which after all is about observable nature not philosophy or theology.