Evolution and Intelligent Design: View from the Dover Trial

[blaisingm]

It is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between science and religious belief systems. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are things you believe in. You don't believe in science. Instead, you use it to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Science and religious belief systems are completely unrelated and unfit for comparison.

[nicophobia]

Is that a wig?

[Aarbutusfigeroa]

Philip Johnson quotes~~"This intelligent design movement isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science: it's about religion and philosophy." World Magazine, 30 November 1996

"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."

Forword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000)

[Aarbutusfigeroa]

"The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God."

-Hank Hanegraaf's "Bible Answer Man" radio program (19 December 2001)

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. "American Family Radio (10 January 2003)

The last quote shows that ID is a hoax intented to bypass the Establishment Clause.

[MorganMarvinson]

Robin Williams is a great scientific source for this discussion. After unsuccessfully dragging a cow into the ocean surf to get it to start the process of becoming a dolphin, he says: "Hey, do what you want. Maybe Darwin was wrong."

[Golkarian]

@MorganMarvinson right [sarcasm], because Darwin thought it happened instantly, with one individual, even though his theory requires a population (so some can have mutations, and only some are selected for). Not gradually, like the fossil record shows.

[MorganMarvinson]

@Golkarian "Not gradually, like the fossil record shows." That's the fundamental problem. The fossil record DOESN'T show gradual change. It's "hurry up and wait"--stasis (SAME, SAME, SAME), punctuated by RAPID CHANGE (if it really did change). Darwin's theory--even upgraded by the "modern synthesis"--does not explain how it could get it done.

[Golkarian]

@MorganMarvinson the fossil record does show spurts of rapid evolution, but only relative to the amount of time spent in stasis. It is still gradual relative to the amount of time required for evolution to occur, as is shown by Gingerich's paper, "Rates of Evolution" in Science, that shows that the evolution we measure today is many times faster than anything we see in the fossil record.

[MorganMarvinson]

@Golkarian From what I could tell, Gingerich's paper is quite controversial, and countered by other evolutionary theorists. See Gould (1984).

[Golkarian]

@MorganMarvinson can I get the title for that article? Obviously the Gingerich article doesn't cover everything, otherwise it would agree with the rates in the fossil record (rather than far exceeding them). I think it still shows that evolutionary change can far exceed what is seen in the fossil record. However when you consider large spans of time natural selection changes direction often, perhaps leading to the slower rates. But let me read the article (once you give the title).

[MorganMarvinson]

@Golkarian google books Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equida, p. 191.

[Golkarian]

@MorganMarvinson thanks. The author seems to agree that the difference in time scale seems to be the proplem, but then it would still support the ability of natural selection to make large changes but like a lost driver it generally doesn't in the long run. Especially when he says "This method...does not account for evolutionary reversals in individual character trends between measured endpoints".

[MorganMarvinson]

"Reared it head in the 1990s" Evolution reared its head in 1859.

Do any of you evolutionists like this description?

[MorganMarvinson]

"Evolution an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" What is wrong with the definition?

Who or what GUIDES it? (Guide means either intelligence, the constraint of laws, or programming. So what laws tell the DNA to randomly mutate a certain way?) Who or what PLANNED it? What other major force is proscribed in Neo-Darwinism besides Random Mutation and Natural Selection?

Is Padian a pantheist? Otherwise, negative sounding or not, the definition is apt.

[KittyGotSued]

@MorganMarvinson Answer to most = Nature. Other Major force is Horizontal gene transfer (in single celled organisms) and Viruses planting itself in our DNA (and all other organisms).

No one guides it, mutations just happen (mistakes in a copy).

[MorganMarvinson]

@KittyGotSued Nature invented the laws and plan to tell DNA to mutate?

"No one guides it." That's just the problem. Horizontal gene transfer only works on single celled organisms, as you have noted, and there isn't enough evolutionary time within the gaps of punctuated equilibrium for non-guided point changes or viruses planting themselves in the DNA to account for the supposed transformations of life forms. That is why those working on the extended synthesis are looking for some guiding force.

[Golkarian]

@MorganMarvinson that is limiting the method of mutation to just one. If you are considering the "puncuated equilibrium", it only considers life-forms that already have a basic tool kit for building a body. There isn't a large amount of variation in the DNA needed to account for differences in form, since most of the variation (if one agrees with evo-devo) occurs in areas that regulate genes, not in the genes (and functions of genes) themeselves.

[MorganMarvinson]

"random forces--there are a few" A few? Like RANDOM mutation? Is it specifically predictable? Does it follow a specific pattern? In what way does the RANDOM in Random Mutation not mean random?

"Everlastingly punished" That doesn't occur in my Bible. "Everlasting punishment," yes. The results are final, complete, and irreversible.

"Doesn't extend this to humans" Why then "favoured races" in the title of Origin of Species? Why then does Darwin describe whites overpowering the darker races?

[KittyGotSued]

@MorganMarvinson Please quote where Darwin says white overpowers darker races. (clue, he doesn't). Favoured races is about different varieties of the same species. And why a particular variety might be better suited to survive in a particular environment.

Besides that, "on the origin of species" doesn't deal with human ancestry.

Random mutation does indeed follow a pattern. The amount of mutations is predictable. Especially helpful in junk dna.

[MorganMarvinson]

@KittyGotSued "quote" 'I could show [that war had] done and [is] doing [much] . . . for the progress of civilization . . . The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date . . . an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.' Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Works of Charles Darwin, p. 343.

[Golkarian]

@MorganMarvinson still looking for the quote, and it is unpleasant, though it screams of group selection which most modern evolutionary scientists have rejected. Also it should be reconciled with this letter (letter 2479a, google it) to a black man and an anti-slavery advocate, and his general anti-slavery remarks. It seems to me that he may have been racsist in believing in different general abilities, but deplored cruelty to other races.

[freetdg]

This is nice, but I do not think it is appropriate to present with tax dollars.

[freetdg]

Regardless what the presenter thinks, none of the mounds of evidence presented to support any or even one of the current processes of evolution being proposed today meets the rigors of classical scientific methodology, and, as such, must be relegated to the status of an idea derived from observation, which, when believed in, is nothing more than a religion.

[freetdg]

If you cannot accept this, and wish to believe in things unseen and unproven, consider this: Even if some model of evolution were proven; logically, it would still be file-able as a sub-category of Intelligent Design.

[KittyGotSued]

@freetdg Scientific theories can't be proven. Only be proven wrong.

[2010cynic]

@freetdg either way, TPTB of christianity see evolution as a threat to their livelyhood and or prosperity. The arguments seem to be more about who is claiming to be right instead of why it matters so much.either you believe, or you don't. I mean the bible is flawed enough (wait). shouldn't believers feel alittle dissapointed that a can-do-anything God only gave them a book? and you need faith alone! is it faith or blissful ignorance? (i.e. "i'll ignore the flaws, in case hell is real")

[freetdg]

Even if a model of evolution were proven to happen spontaneously, apparently of its own accord; it still would still be file-able as a sub-category of Intelligent Design; this, because of man's lack of understanding of cosmology, and that all things could be nothing more than someone's idea.

[freetdg]

This is not a "god' issue, it is a "how" issue. Did life evolve over time, or did it arise spontaneously in a moment; and, whichever it was, was there or wasn't there a deity involved. Two separate questions.

[KittyGotSued]

@freetdg no! Evolution is NOT about that. That's Abiogenesis. The start of life can't evolve. Without reproduction you have no evolution. The first replicating molecules might not even be considered life.

[freetdg]

Further, define life. Is there something different about man? Is there something different about some men? Does religion, the ability to formulate and believe in a proposition, separate man from all other life?

[freetdg]

Finally, the scientific community doesn't know that the intelligent designer, if there is one, isn't a super-race from Xenon; and if so, do they recognize a Creator.

[freetdg]

I have been following the discussion for most my 60+ years, and have yet to see or hear a valid argument that would cause me to believe in any evolution concept; as all evidence collected and assembled by the entire scientific community in support of the belief in any one of the evolution beliefs could equally support Intelligent Design.

[KittyGotSued]

@freetdg ?? The fact that evolution is happening has been proven a lot of times. What part in ID would take care of evolution?

The theory of evolution explains the fact of it.

[averylbrooks]

@freetdg

Evolution is not a belief, it's a collection of evidence that tries to explain the natural world. You are confused about Creationism and the field of Science. Science = evidence; Dogma = Belief.

It really is that simple, so if you haven't figured it out in 60+ years; I doubt you will get it anytime soon. Once you remove the word belief from the equation your chances will increase a lot. Evolution is not a faith, we have more data on it than the "THEORY" of gravity.

[freetdg]

One sure test would be to remove their financing, and their free rides and see how faithful they are to their religion.

[stradhex]

comb your hair, dude!

[TromboneUSAlabama]

This video was informative

[citizenschallenge]

ThePregnancySlaves ,

you silly something like 2/3rds of all conceptions end in spontainious abortion

wish you could be half as concerned about living children

[necroforest]

um uh and uh um uhhhhhh ummmmm

[effyleven]

Yes. I thought the sound was pretty damn crappy, as well.

[averylbrooks]

"His arguments are really shitty and lets be honest... he's an evolutionist talking evolution and intelligent design."

Thats a really well thought out comment, sadly the three primary witnesses from the Discovery institute didn't show up to defend their so called theory in the Dover trial. I wonder why they didn't show up.

My guess is their "...arguments are really shitty and lets be honest .." backed up by nothing at all other than fantasy.

[NwZ2]

I approve of your use of satire in this comment.

That said, it's better to just lay em on their backs flat. They're just idiots (ID, Creationism).

[darwinisatwink]

@averylbrooks  evolution has not one shred of evidence to prove it, not one. Not One.!

[Aarbutusfigeroa]

@darwinisatwink Explain how humans share ape blood types A,B, and O.Explain how apes and humans have identical blood antigens. Explain how apes and humans have identical rh factors- (no other animals share ANY of these). Explain how chimpanzees and bonobos share 96% of their DNA with humans. Answer...common ancestry, and common descent. Evolution evidence that is undeniable.

[darwinisatwink]

@Aarbutusfigeroa That is not evidence. All living things have similarities, and simalarities do not prove one species changed to another.

[Aarbutusfigeroa]

@darwinisatwink Unfortunately, these are not similarities. The blood types, antigens and rh factors are IDENTICAL, not similar. And no other animals share any. Sorry...common descent demonstrated.

[darwinisatwink]

@Aarbutusfigeroa Show me one, just one evidence for evolution and I will believe. Just one, that is not a presupposition, not a fairy tale.. You can't because all your "evidence" has been proved over the last one hundred years to be lies and stretching the truth. ONly a retard would believe in evolution.

[Aarbutusfigeroa]

@darwinisatwink No, only a closed-minded deluded fool would believe in creationism. My examples are not similarities or lies...they are fact. And you are wrong.

[darwinisatwink]

@Aarbutusfigeroa Only a delusional fairy tale does not believe the weight of evidence. Intelligent Design is the only logical solution.

[ivanlagrossemoule]

@darwinisatwink Birds have the genes for teeth. Or yet a better one, humans have the genes for a fully functional tail. But one you won't dispute at all, we have genes for more than 2 nipples. They are of course the genes of our ancestors that have been "deactivated" but are still present in our DNA. They always follow the tree of evolution made according to fossiles. We have fossiles showing that we descend from apes and we have the genes showing that too.

[blaisingm]

@darwinisatwink "evolution has not one shred of evidence to prove it, "

Evolutionary theory is based on corroborating evidence from the sciences (homology, phylogenetics, fossil record, geographical distribution, etc). As a theory, it is a working model used to solve problems and make predictions. You don't believe in evolution, you use it to solve problems. Just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.

[darwinisatwink]

@averylbrooks Only a fool does not believe the Bible.

[xxNutcasexx]

His arguments are really shitty and lets be honest... he's an evolutionist talking evolution and intelligent design.