Popcorn's on, ready for the fireworks...

See you in 2 hours or so...

That was a nice prayer to open with.

I find it riveting..

[Link: www.corante.com...]

I believe in I.D., but this is personal faith. I wouldn't expect it to be taught in a public school any more than I would want the Koran taught in one.

Charles, I am grateful to you for posting this but I am going to hide now before the villagers arrive with the pitchforks looking for the atheists...

Just playing it in the background, 2 hrs may not be too much. He is a great speaker.

re: #8 snowcrash

I like his sense of humor.

Why mention that Miller is a Catholic. Is that supposed to make his suppositional position stronger. Al Capone was also a Catholic?

this is theology not science.

Charles,
This is a non-issue.
The Discovery Institute is not mandating that ID be taught in schools. The Discovery Institute, and the creationist organizations, say that the teachers should be free to present the scientific (not religious) evidence that go against the prevailing darwinian dogma.

Surelly, if evolution is a scientific theory, then it doesn't fear scientific criticism, right?.....Right...? ......Right?!

Baptist minister is applying at a church.
Someone asks him, "Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?"
He answered, "Hell, I can preach it either way, what do y'all want?"

Ken Miller is one of the leading voices in exposing what is wrong about the claims of creationists and about so-called Intelligent Design Theory.

There's really lots more at his website on the topic:

[Link: www.millerandlevine.com...]

Don't be deceived with the "prayer" at the opening. Miller's views are at odds with the views of his own catholic church, who says that there is good empirial evidence for a Designing Inteligence behind the biological features.

Miller, on the other hand, and contrary to his church, says that there is no evidence for deisng in Biology. so not only Miller contradicts what can be observed, but he goes against his own church. Oh, the irony!

or another variant: God, the devil, and Darwin walk into a bar. The bartender notices them and says, "What is this? Some kind of a joke?

re: #7 buzzsawmonkey

However, vast amounts of time can be measured and its existance proven/disproven, God's intelligence cannot. Thus, reducing something to vast amounts of time enables scientific debate. Saying "God did it" inhibits debate, and thus scientific innovation. #5 Capitalist tool sums up my views pretty well.

re: #12 Mats

Charles,
This is a non-issue.
The Discovery Institute is not mandating that ID be taught in schools. The Discovery Institute, and the creationist organizations, say that the teachers should be free to present the scientific (not religious) evidence that go against the prevailing darwinian dogma.

Surelly, if evolution is a scientific theory, then it doesn't fear scientific criticism, right?.....Right...? ......Right?!

And the merry-go-round starts all over again.

This is why it is actually not worth trying to convince many people. The arguments are ignored, the original claim is repeated, the rebuttal is ignored, the original claim is repeated yet again, the refutation is ignored, the origial claim is repeated...ad infinitum.

re: #18 zombie

zombie,
I didn't get your post. Are you against freedom of speach in science classes?

re: #10 edward cropper

Why mention that Miller is a Catholic. Is that supposed to make his suppositional position stronger.

That's because creationists often try to claim that evolutionary science is an atheist thing. It's clearly not.

re: #5 CapitalistTool

I believe in I.D., but this is personal faith. I wouldn't expect it to be taught in a public school any more than I would want the Koran taught in one.

THANK YOU! I creationist I agree with!

have a good one folks since i don't debate religion i will come back for the next thread, remember just don't take it personal as we are friends here. ok?

This sort of questioning is inevitable, isn't it? I think it's called the scientific method.

re: #19 Mats

I didn't get your post.

It's another easily debunked talking point. Just because people still keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

re: #20 Killgore Trout

Atheists themselves say that evolution made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled atheist. Is Dawkins a creationist?

zombie i will see you in the next thread

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

Who would want to serve a "god" who makes mistakes?

re: #26 Mats

I don't like basketball.

About 90 minutes in, a "World Can't Wait" moonbat tries to get Miller to agree that America is like Nazi Germany, and Miller shuts him down very nicely.

re: #19 Mats

zombie,
I didn't get your post. Are you against freedom of speach in science classes?

Yes, I certainly am.

I want sound science taught in science classes. I don't the "freedom of speech" of any crackpot coming in an indoctrinating my children in his pet theology with the imprimatur of science to give it credibility.

Teach intelligent design to your own children -- not mine.

re: #16 Timbre

or another variant: God, the devil, and Darwin walk into a bar. The bartender notices them and says, "What is this? Some kind of a joke?

...Go on....what drinks did they order?

re: #31 zombie

They don't want to teach ID! They, and the majority of americans, want teachers to be free to present the SCIENTIFIC evidence against darwinism.

Are you saying that we can't present science in classrooms anymore?

I must admit the history of alchemy is interesting.

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

The arrogance of "Intelligent Design" is breathtaking, in that it says that everything must have been designed by an Intelligence because it seems that way to us.

This assumption suggests that the human mind, in discerning "intelligent design," is co-equal to the mind and intent of the Deity. This, it seems to me, veers close to blasphemy in its overwhelming hubris. It also denies the Deity the right to make mistakes, or to change Its mind--to realize that a design of plant or animal is not, in fact, working out as intended.

I agree 10,000,000,000,000,000%

My agnosticism tells me this: just because my limited human mind cannot grasp something, or my limited human senses cannot perceive all the evidence, does not mean that something must necessarily be supernatural, or beyond comprehension. It is merely beyond my comprehension. It is the height of hubris to assume that one's one limitations are in fact universal limitations.

Creationism is the idolization and glamorization of the lack-of-knowledge. We don't know all the answers? Must be a miracle!

re: #35 zombie

What about "we don't know all the answers. Natural selection did it!" ?

Science and religion are not in opposition. Religion without free inquiry and reason remains limited to rite and superstiton. Science without accepted apriori moral stricture is ungoverned and destructive to the natural. The difficulty is mankind achieving the balance required to create an ever advancing civilization as intended by the Creator.

re: #33 Mats

LOL- yeah right:

"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."

-Phillip Johnson

Like I said, this is a non-issue. No oneis mandating the teaching of ID in classrooms. Most americans just want to be taught evolution as a scientiic theory, not as a religious dogma.
Only the science, ma'am.

pimf: "universally accepted moral stricture".

re: #33 Mats

They don't want to teach ID! They, and the majority of americans, want teachers to be free to present the SCIENTIFIC evidence against darwinism.

Are you saying that we can't present science in classrooms anymore?

Seeing as your point has already been presented and then spectacularly debunked about, oh, ten thousand times here, I will simply scroll past your question to something substantive.

"And the merry-go-round goes round...."

re: #28 Mats

Who would want to serve a "god" who makes mistakes?

Ouch! :D

I give you the universe. Dead, dark, and lifeless. The bigger the telescope, the more so the universe seems.

But thoughout the Universes infinity of bareness, there is found this one colorfull little ball with an almost infinitely limitless form of life on it. THAT is not evolution. THAT, in context to a vast dead universe is a miracle.

re: #39 Mats

Perhaps you should watch the video. You might learn something about the topic.

re: #36 Mats

What about "we don't know all the answers. Natural selection did it!" ?

That's called "The best scientific theory currently available, that best explains the vast majority of the evidence."

Got a better theory? A more viable mechanism besides natural selection? Let's hear it.

(And no, "A mystical 'intelligent designer' created all life!" is not a theory, it's a religious belief.)

re: #39 Mats

Like I said, this is a non-issue. No oneis mandating the teaching of ID in classrooms. Most americans just want to be taught evolution as a scientiic theory, not as a religious dogma.

What is this, Groundhog Day?

re: #38 Sharmuta

Phil Johnson, albeit a proeminent figure in the ID world, is not part of the Discovery Institute.

Secondly, there is no scientific reason to reject a priori explinations that go against naturalism.

Thirdly, even if Phil wants to make the relaity of God DISCUSSED in the classrom, it doesn't mean that he wants it MANDATED. Teachers should be FREE to teach Biology based on evidence and arguements, NOT strangled by philosophical prinsons.

If the *scientific* evidence points towards God, should we reject it?

Fred Hoyle said:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkey-ed with physics.”

BUT he dind't base his findinds on religious texts, or church authority. Should the evidence he gathered that made him say those words be allowed in class rooms? Well, according to the liberals who control the rooms, NO. Why? Because it is not scientiic? Because it has no suport? Because it is not testable?

NO, not because of that, but only because of the implications!

re: #45 buzzsawmonkey

Anybody who recognizes that G-d too can learn, and that G-d has the prerogative to change His mind.

Wouldn't be much of a G-d then, would it?

re: #45 buzzsawmonkey

a "god" that can learn is not a god worth serving.

re: #31 zombie

... I don't the "freedom of speech" of any crackpot coming in an indoctrinating my children...

should be

... I don't want the "freedom of speech" of any crackpot coming in and indoctrinating my children...

PIMF

re: #48 zombie

Natural selection is not a creative force, but a selective force. Selection does not generate anything new, no new infomration.

re: #12 Mats

There is no scientific evidence for ID. The ID proponents even admitted under oath, on the stand, that their definition of "scientific" wasn't the same as the one everybody else uses.

If you're a non-Christian, you can never take what a Christian says at face value. They speak Christianese, a language (or at least a jargon) that sounds like English, but comes loaded with completely different meanings.

That's why a Christian can say "God loves you and offers you free will, and will torture you if you don't choose love him back" with a straight face. In the context of Christianese, "love" and "free will" mean something completely different than they do to the rest of us. The same is true of "science", which in Christianese has nothing to do with principles of falsifiability.

re: #56 Mats

Selection does not generate anything new, no new infomration.

You guys really need new talking points.

The problem is that some people don't accept THEIR limitations. That *assume* that they have all the answers in the universe, and call those who are skeptical are "crackpots" for even daring to question the Accepted Scientific Fact of Evolution (TM).

Surely, if evolution is within the scientific domain, then it welcomes scientific criticism.

However, if evolution is in the mythology domain, then I understand why believers don't want it questioned.

re: #56 Mats

Natural selection is not a creative force, but a selective force. Selection does not generate anything new, no new infomration.

Autoscroll ON.

re: #59 Killgore Trout

Why, if the old ones are working so well?

Good analogy on the "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Physics" and "Theory of Gravity"...etc and the sticker.

Good.

re: #60 Mats

"it welcomes scientific criticism"
Yes.

re: #19 Mats

I certainly am against free speech in science classes, the same way I'm against the kind of freedom of speech in mathematics classes that teaches that 2+2=5.

If you want to teach your kids any damnfool thing you want, send them to a Madrassa.

I am surprised that some people in here are all in favor of "freedom of speach" except when it comes to evolution.

re: #66 ernunnos

So you are against the presentation of scientific evidence in classroooms?

re: #67 Mats

Offer a scientific hypothesis, and then you're engaging in scientific speech.
Simply complaining about censorship doesn't count.

re: #64 Oh no...Sand People!

There is no relation between those theories, since evolution is an interpretation of present evidence as a way to know the distant past, while the other two are not. There other two are within what we call operational science, while evolution is within the domain of what we call "historical science".

re: #63 Mats

Why, if the old ones are working so well?

Yeah, they're working splendidly! They never fail to annoy, like a creaking shutter on a windy night.

I highly recommend that you keep repeating the same tired old debunked talking points over and over and over. It is a masterful argumentative technique which attracts many admirers.

re: #63 Mats

Seriously, you should watch the video Charles posted instead of just repeating easily debunked talking points. If you wonder why ID is not taken seriously by science you can easily learn why. If you are just going to recycle easily debunked talking points you are just going to make yourself appear foolish and uninformed.

re: #60 Mats

I agree with Killgore. I think you should watch the video before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

re: #69 jaunte

Why can't we complain about censorship? Like I said, the Discovery Institute is not mandating the teaching of ID. It, and the majority of americans, just want freedom to criticize ANY theory (evolution, global warming, etc).

re: #72 Killgore TroutJinx!

Weird. Now he's got us repeating each other!

re: #73 Sharmuta

I have seen Miller speaking, and I have seen his mistakes. I am not going to waste 2 hours of my life watching yet another mythological darwinian presentation! Goodness

re: #74 Mats

Understanding science is hard.

re: #74 Mats

freedom to criticize ANY theory (evolution, global warming, etc).

You disappoint. I thought you were going to bring up the ol' "evolution/global warming" false analogy much earlier in the thread! Comment #74? You're not trying hard enough. Next thread, bring that one up before comment #35 at the latest.

Zombie,
1. Is evolution a scientific theory?
2. Is it ok to present evidences against scientific theories?
3. If not, why not?
4. Is it ok to censor the evidence present in peer reviewed journals showing problems with the theory?

re: #58 buzzsawmonkey

Your idea that G-d should be more limited than man is odd indeed. If man can learn, why can G-d not learn? If man has the prerogative to change his mind, why can G-d not change His mind?

I think that if you have the power of G-d, you'd have gotten past silly human emotions. Perhaps G-d is tired and want us to look after our own arses. :D

re: #74 Mats

It, and the majority of americans, just want freedom to criticize ANY theory (evolution, global warming, etc).

Scientists are not elected officials and are not subject to popular demands.

re: #2 jaunte

See you in 2 hours or so...

Best. Comment. Ever.

I think I shall watch the video as well, before I open my big mouth one more time.

:hinthint:

re: #18 zombie

And the merry-go-round starts all over again.

This is why it is actually not worth trying to convince many people. The arguments are ignored, the original claim is repeated, the rebuttal is ignored, the original claim is repeated yet again, the refutation is ignored, the origial claim is repeated...ad infinitum nauseam.

editorially modified.

re: #78 buzzsawmonkey

Dude, for the 2452th time. they don't want to mandate the teaching of ID in classrooms. They want the freedom to criticize a theory that claims to be scientitic.

re: #70 Mats

There is no relation between those theories, since evolution is an interpretation of present evidence as a way to know the distant past, while the other two are not. There other two are within what we call operational science, while evolution is within the domain of what we call "historical science".

Are they all theories? My point is that his analogy could be applied to other realms. 'HateCrimes'...why does one crime get special preference etc.?

Either way...they are 'theories' still at the core. Some are more easily testable and more easily accepted than others, but they are still up for change if someone discovers something new about them.

re: #82 Killgore Trout

Really? So if they start doing experiments on humans, the general population should just remain silent?

re: #76 Mats

I am not going to waste 2 hours of my life watching yet another mythological darwinian presentation! Goodness

Fascinating point of view. So you're intentionally not going to watch the video which is the subject of the thread. Willful ignorance on display.

Didn't Miller just falsify some assumptions of ID? Think about it.

As an agnostic, my beef with the theory of evolution is that its fundamental assumption is not falsifiable. One can insert another chunk of time if something does not pan out, or another assumed precursor if the chain of the presumed transitional forms turn out to be contemporary.

In other words... Those that present any current theory as "fact" apparently skipped the class when epistemology was taught. Any scientific theory is a working (meaning tentative) model of reality. It is not the reality itself, but only an approximation of reality that is based on our current understanding of it.

People that label the theory of evolution as "fact" (that includes other theories that are presented as "fact") do not understand what science is and in the long run, do a disservice to science. They are "fundies" on the other side.

The basic rule of the true science is that nothing is settled.

It is a slippery slope to remove the notion of God as one possible explanation of the existence of the universe. At the same time, it is a slippery slope to say the only explanation of the existence of the universe is the actions of a divine power.

The application of the scientific method will not allow for a scientist to go to prove the existence of God and intelligent design to explain the existence of the universe. At the same time, it does not allow for a scientist to make the contrary assumption. Neither can be assumed.

If we look at history and human nature I believe everyone would agree (and to paraphrase Kant) man ought to live by a moral imperative. I believe the deepest fear of ID proponents is that if ID is not taught, that moral imperative is removed. I do not believe it.

As a man of both God and science, I do not believe that.

re: #83 Slumbering Behemoth
It's done really well. No boring powerpoint here!

re: #89 Killgore Trout

I am not going to watch something that has been regurgitated ad nauseum by MSM, public schools, TVs, movies over and over again.

My point still remains: the majority of Americans want the freedom to criticize any theory that claims to be science (global warming, evolution, stem-cell research, or whatever).

The section on redefining science is very interesting.

re: #93 Mats

I am not going to watch something that has been regurgitated ad nauseum by MSM, public schools, TVs, movies over and over again.

My point still remains: the majority of Americans want the freedom to criticize any theory that claims to be science (global warming, evolution, stem-cell research, or whatever).

You do, and you are.

I am trying to see your problem.

re: #90 Weresheep

People that label the theory of evolution as "fact" (that includes other theories that are presented as "fact") do not understand what science is and in the long run, do a disservice to science. They are "fundies" on the other side.

The basic rule of the true science is that nothing is settled.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Ken Miller on evolution and design:
"I believe in a Designer, but I don't believe in a deceptive one."

Why, oh why, does this thread have to occur when I'm in the middle of designing dinner?

re: #93 Mats

I am not going to watch something that has been regurgitated ad nauseum by MSM, public schools, TVs, movies over and over again.

You have no idea what's in the video, do you? You don't know and you aren't willing to find out. You're really showing us what ID supporters are all about, eh?

re: #94 Killgore Trout

The section on redefining science is very interesting.

If only the 'Historians' could defend themselves as well at the 'redefining'.

re: #87 buzzsawmonkey

In other words, He set evolution in motion so that He wouldn't have to monitor us every few millennia.

A lazy G-d, Buzzsawmonkey? Not my kind of G-d.

re: #102 buzzsawmonkey

O ye of little faith.

re: #100 Killgore Trout

You have no idea what's in the video, do you? You don't know and you aren't willing to find out. You're really showing us what ID supporters are all about, eh?

Now, now. To be fair, he's just showing us what Mats is all about.

re: #97 buzzsawmonkey

That is not the criticism that most americans intend to convey to the theory. They want the criticisms present in peer reviewed journals be made available to students.

People go to school to learn, not to be indoctrinated.

re: #89 Killgore Trout

Jesus Kilgore give the guy a break... it isn't anything new, it's from January 2006.

Miller's Evolution page doesn't appear to be updated since 2005 and you think ID proponents need new talking points?

I think it's fair to say it's mutual.

I am a people like lizard...?

re: #100 Killgore Trout

I have seen Miller "in action". His modus operandi is always the same: pretends to be a good christian, then goes on suporting the atheistic version of origins.

One of his Biology books still had the bogus Heackel drawings, known to be frauds for over a century. I don't know if he has removed it since.

CAN WE HAVE A THREAD WITH THE NEW THREAD SMELL?

PLEASE

Evolution is not possible.

Based on physical evidence:

Monkeys keep giving birth to... more monkeys, not people.

Amebas, keep evolving in to... more amebas, not people.

Tadpoles keep turning in to... more frogs, not people.

Fish eggs keep turning in to... more fish, not people.

re: #111 six-gun-neo-con

Evolution is not possible.

Based on physical evidence:

Monkeys keep giving birth to... more monkeys, not people.

Amebas, keep evolving in to... more amebas, not people.

Tadpoles keep turning in to... more frogs, not people.

Fish eggs keep turning in to... more fish, not people.

Ssssssh! you can't say in public schools, or the ACLU will sue your derriere!

re: #99 godfrey

Why, oh why, does this thread have to occur when I'm in the middle of designing dinner?

Life is.. what happens to you while you're designing something else.

re: #106 Mats

I agree with Mats. No one has to present natural selection and evolution as if it were definitively settled in every respect. That said, I totally agree (and as a theist of the RC variety) that evolution is more than a "theory."

The question, Mats, is when it's appropriate to raise the issue. Shouldn't students first be exposed to the theory's integrity? Then the teacher can bring up unsettled areas of the theory if time and interest warrants.

Reasonable?

OT.

A spacecraft created by Intelligently Designed and/or Evolved creatures from Earth is scheduled to land on Mars in just over 2 hours. Isn't science cool?

Now, back to my pot, where my potatoes runneth over.

re: #83 Slumbering Behemoth

:hinthint:

Shoot, that wasn't meant to be a slight at you, Juante.

:backtothefilm:

re: #98 jaunte

I'd say that is rather telling if one considers one's self a theist.

This discussion is, like I said at the beggining, a non-issue. No one wants to mandate a religious dogma into the schools. However, people should not be harrassed by the ACLU only for presenting scientific problems in the theory.

Sure, there are people who might want to take the opportunity to inject religion, but that is not to be blamed on the people who only want freedom to present science in the classooms

Within the first few minutes the good doctor lost me when he equated anti-evolution as anti-science. Certainly not the case for pro ID'ers.

By the way, being of any religious denomination does not speak of one's personal relationship with god.

i think evolution and i.d. are compatible. the problem arises when we ask how it all started.
i.d. people have stopped looking. they have their answer. divine creation.
people who believe in evolution are still seeking scientific facts and saying they don't know yet.
it's abt. facts not faith. that's science.

re: #115 Opilio

OT.

A spacecraft created by Intelligently Designed and/or Evolved creatures from Earth is scheduled to land on Mars in just over 2 hours. Isn't science cool?

Worth a new thread? I think so. Complete with links to NASA. :D

re: #116 godfrey

Now, back to my pot, where my potatoes runneth over.

Shit, I thought you were getting stoned! : )

re: #114 godfrey

I agree with Mats. No one has to present natural selection and evolution as if it were definitively settled in every respect. That said, I totally agree (and as a theist of the RC variety) that evolution is more than a "theory."

The question, Mats, is when it's appropriate to raise the issue. Shouldn't students first be exposed to the theory's integrity? Then the teacher can bring up unsettled areas of the theory if time and interest warrants.

Reasonable?

Well, I think that the teacher could bring the issues that are agreeded by most evolutionists. Then, after people understand what does the theory claim, teachers could, if they wanted, present the scientific problems present in scientific papers (mostly written by darwinists themselves).

I honestly don't see what is the problem in having people discussing a theory that claims to be scientitic.

re: #123 Bob in Breckenridge

If this thread becomes blindly acrimonious, I might warm the scotch and watch the Mars landing through a kaleidoscope.

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

The arrogance of "Intelligent Design" is breathtaking, in that it says that everything must have been designed by an Intelligence because it seems that way to us.

This assumption suggests that the human mind, in discerning "intelligent design," is co-equal to the mind and intent of the Deity. This, it seems to me, veers close to blasphemy in its overwhelming hubris. It also denies the Deity the right to make mistakes, or to change Its mind--to realize that a design of plant or animal is not, in fact, working out as intended.

Einstein once said that there had to of been a higher being to set in motion all the events we know today, but that this being wasn't any God Jews or Christians conceived of.

Just some food for thought. I think I'll follow yochanan out of this thread.

re: #120 jelo

Within the first few minutes the good doctor lost me when he equated anti-evolution as anti-science. Certainly not the case for pro ID'ers.

Keep watching he expands on that idea.

re: #125 godfrey

SAKI is drunk warm/hot scotch? no way.
i like mine over ice, fellowed by a chamey ale.

re: #125 godfrey

Everytime Mr. J. has an ID thread, the posts are so predictable, since they're always the same.

re: #125 godfrey

If this thread becomes blindly acrimonious, I might warm the scotch and watch the Mars landing through a kaleidoscope.

What if it becomes silently parsimoniuous?

re: #130 buzzsawmonkey

one of my boys has FUR

I'm sure nobody cares (judging by the comments/witch-burning every one is tending to) but here's Behe's rebuttal to Miller:

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

I do have one question, though: all of you that think ID is a complete sham and just a ploy by creationists to get its foot in the door, have any of you, ever (including you, Charles) actually read any of the pro-ID books? Have you ever actually looked at the evidence that neo-Darwinism isn't exactly rooted firmly in the tenets of the scientific method? Is it really that bad a thing that people be allowed the freedom of inquiry to at least challenege the orthodoxy on this matter?

After all, once upon a time it was considered crazy to think:

*The earth was round.
*That the earth wasn't the center of the universe.
*That there was a world beyond the orderly, Einsteinian/Newtonian universe (Einstein went off the deep end and never could deal with the idea of quantum mechanics which is now science fact--was he some sort of nut?)
*That the universe started with a big bang* (another thing Einstein had a great deal of trouble getting his massive intellect around).

But don't let me interrupt your Inquisition. After all, we must not question prevailing orthodoxy--especially at LGF of all places! The horror!

*There is serious debate on this issue to this day, but at least Lematre wasn't hounded from the public square when, as a Catholic priest (and physicist), he first proposed the theory that the universe had a definite beginning (nowadays he'd be called a crank creationist and flogged relentlessly in threads like this).

re: #111 six-gun-neo-con

Evolution is not possible.

Based on physical evidence:

Monkeys keep giving birth to... more monkeys, not people.

Amebas, keep evolving in to... more amebas, not people.

Tadpoles keep turning in to... more frogs, not people.

Fish eggs keep turning in to... more fish, not people.

Evolution (and devolution, oh, the heresy!) is possible. Just not in the way you presented it. We see evolution's results every day in the form of micro-evolution. The evidence for macro-evolution is scanty and we don't understand the mechanism yet. May turn out it is more complex.

Watch molecular biology in the upcoming years. There is an indication that the DNA/RNA coding is non-linear. Just a strong suspicion... that the encoding of other parameters beside protein chains is expressed in several layers, on top of each other.

for a specific type protein in our bodies... it takes a protein to make a protein from the amino acid building blocks... but uh... where'd the first protein come from.. ?

I would say one of my boys was the missing link, complete with fur and i think he might eat his banana's with the skin still on it.

Potatoes are now off the stove and in the oven, subjecting the molecules of their surface area to Transmogrifying Beams of Heat. They shall shortly evolve shortly into crispy tater wedges.

re: #124 Mats

Well, this teaching situation could be easily prejudiced by both sides. The anti-theist might let evolutionary theory have the last word, and express strong personal opinions; the theist might let the questioning have the last word and suggest by whatever means that evolutionary theory is bunk.

Whatever. What's the best way of teaching evolutionary theory and the scientific method? That, perhaps, we can agree on.

My view is that religious content should be tangential. If you include it, where do you stop? Every religion has a creation myth. Are you going to give fair hearing to Buddhists, Hindus, Aztecs, et al? My guess is "no."

Plus, I'd argue that teaching the scientific method also means teaching the attitude of the scientific method, which by default is a kind of skepticism, even if you're a committed theist.

Albert Einstein-
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

DesertSage-
"We should be teaching everything and anything which can further our knowledge about the origins of life.
There are lots of well respected scientists who study magical, mystical, paranormal and super natural activities every day. There shouldn't be any dividing line between the types of sciences."

Killgore Trout-
"Wah wah....it's not science...wah wah...get off of my playground...wah wah...I'm going to take my ball and go home...wah wah!

re: #139 godfrey

My view is that religious content should be tangential. If you include it, where do you stop? Every religion has a creation myth. Are you going to give fair hearing to Buddhists, Hindus, Aztecs, et al? My guess is "no."

Plus, I'd argue that teaching the scientific method also means teaching the attitude of the scientific method, which by default is a kind of skepticism, even if you're a committed theist.

I think that's exactly what the ID proponents are not considering.

re: #129 yochanan

*squinting at bottle*

Cognac.

A travel present, my good man.

how about a thread about Memorial day and our hero's

?

re: #135 ECM

have any of you, ever (including you, Charles) actually read any of the pro-ID books? Have you ever actually looked at the evidence that neo-Darwinism isn't exactly rooted firmly in the tenets of the scientific method? Is it really that bad a thing that people be allowed the freedom of inquiry to at least challenege the orthodoxy on this matter?

Yes. If you watch the video you'll understand that ID has been debunked. Debunked hypotheses are not taught as science (eg. flat earth, non-Copernican solar system, etc.). People are free to question all they want but if they want to be taken seriously they're going to need good evidence. Until then they don't get equal time with proven scientific theories.

The debate is actually about who gets to define science and how, if at all, that definition is enforced.

Intelligent design is not a theory. It's a simple hypothesis that highlights crucial weaknesses in Darwinian evolution.

Most of the arguments against ID are based on logical fallacies.

He's religious and he says ID is not science.
The overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution.
ID is just Creationism in disguise.
Natural Selection isn't Survival of the Fittest.

I believe it was LGFer PSaturn who recently posted a link to an article in the Washington Post, of all places, from 2004 that said an investigation showed that Richard Sternberg was verbally attacked for publishing an article about ID; Sternberg even added that he isn't sure about ID but he is sure that scientists should be free to explore any hypothesis.

There are alot of research dollars at stake. That's why the Evolution lobby is so angry and defensive.

2 hours? Mrs Garrison explains evolution in just 1 minute, 18 seconds:

Mrs. Garrison Teaches Evolution

"You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel, congratulations."

re: #137 unixrab

where'd the first protein come from.. ?

The Origin of Life made easy

re: #12 Mats

Charles,
This is a non-issue.
The Discovery Institute is not mandating that ID be taught in schools. The Discovery Institute, and the creationist organizations, say that the teachers should be free to present the scientific (not religious) evidence that go against the prevailing darwinian dogma.

Surelly, if evolution is a scientific theory, then it doesn't fear scientific criticism, right?.....Right...? ......Right?!

Scientists are always criticising Darwinism, revising it, expanding upon it.

Intelligent Design just isn't science. It's philosophy. My first brush with it was in Philo 101.

re: #146 Abu Boo Boo

Abu, that's fine, but can you clue me in: what are the actual research proposals of the pro-ID people?

re: #132 buzzsawmonkey

Backing out, eh? You were the one who suggested that proposition.

No way! I'm here. Americans have been tossing this issue around for decades. This ain't the first time. Bring it! :D

re: #125 godfrey

Is there a Mars landing going on this weekend, or are you just funnin'?

re: #125 godfrey

If this thread becomes blindly acrimonious, I might warm the scotch and watch the Mars landing through a kaleidoscope.

Cool. That must be some big-ass high-powered kaleidoscope.

Noam!

Great to see you. No, no funnin' -- check it out:

Phoenix is tonight

1984 ...1987.

re: #148 Killgore Trout

The Origin of Life made easy

Excellent vid KT. I'll have to check out the rest of this guy's stuff.

re: #152 Noam Sayin'

Is there a Mars landing going on this weekend, or are you just funnin'?

Around 7:15 PM EST. Live on Fox.

re: #152 Noam Sayin'

Is there a Mars landing going on this weekend, or are you just funnin'?

In about an hour and forty minutes. See my #115.

re: #131 Bob in Breckenridge

Everytime Mr. J. has an ID thread, the posts are so predictable, since they're always the same.

Not at all. This one has a kaleidoscope and Mars landing.

re: #156 bloodnok

I love those videos. They're pretty accurate, easy to understand and have a good sense of humor.

re: #158 Opilio

In about an hour and forty minutes. See my #115.

It's all a lie! There was never a moon landing!...

///

re: #154 godfrey

Awesome! I nearly called up a movie on PPV.

I remember the first Mars landing - July 4, what was it, 1994? 96? Me and a buddy spent the whole day watching the NASA channel and drinking beer.

And soluting good old, American injenuity (yeah, I misspelled - we were drunk).

re: #160 Killgore Trout

I love those videos. They're pretty accurate, easy to understand and have a good sense of humor.

You only love them because you agree with them. Things you don't agree with, you think are stupid.

Closed minded you are.

re: #150 godfrey

Abu, that's fine, but can you clue me in: what are the actual research proposals of the pro-ID people?

I don't speak for such researchers; I'm just speaking for their right to do and publish creative research that you or I may never think of.

There are a ton of opportunities to do research into the improbability or impossibility of life arising spontaneously from raw chemicals or new species being created from genetic mutations.

There are also a ton of opportunities for doing research that would disprove ID.

Why are evolutionists so afraid?

The section at 57:00 about the early drafts of the textbook is hilarious.

re: #165 Killgore Trout

The section at 57:00 about the early drafts of the textbook is hilarious.

I enjoyed the Pat Robertson clip.

re: #162 Noam Sayin'

Awesome! I nearly called up a movie on PPV.

I remember the first Mars landing - July 4, what was it, 1994? 96? Me and a buddy spent the whole day watching the NASA channel and drinking beer.

And soluting good old, American injenuity (yeah, I misspelled - we were drunk).

The first successful Mars landing occurred on July 20, 1976, when Viking 1 set down at Chryse Planitia.

I think you're remembering the Mars Pathfinder which landed on (or more accurately bounced onto) on Mars on July 4, 1997.

re: #164 Abu Boo Boo

"the improbability or impossibility of life arising spontaneously from raw chemicals or new species being created from genetic mutations"
You are pre-defining your results with that statement.

re: #161 Oh no...Sand People!

It's all a lie! There was never a moon landing!...

///

Actually the biggest hoax was the Soviets claiming they had no moon landing program....

Lunar landing hoax

Don't forget:

Evolutionists believed in the zany idea that mice could be spontaneously generated from wheat, and that lice were spontaneously generated from meat.

It was the religious/conservative nutjob Louis Pasteur who proved them wrong.

re: #85 Mats

Dude, for the 2452th time. they don't want to mandate the teaching of ID in classrooms. They want the freedom to criticize a theory that claims to be scientitic.

That is because ID is unteachable.

It can be summed up in one sentence:
God intervened in the natural order of the universe.

Everything else is just pointing out stuff that science can't explain yet. Or lying about things that science can explain, and saying it can't.

Charles, it really is very telling when you say, "understand why scientists are opposed to the teaching of intelligent design."

There are MANY scientists who believe in ID, but don't speak up 'cause they'd lose their jobs. I know several personally.

That really is a quite unfair statement. As one poster stated earlier, for some reason, there seems to be a battle to re-define one group out of the discussion.

re: #167 Opilio

Yeah, I was throwing a rough guess out there, figuring someone would clarify for me.

/Of course, I was counting on almost no one having watched the '76 landing. ;P

re: #170 Abu Boo Boo

Next you'll be tellin' us Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk!

lol

re: #166 Oh no...Sand People!

Ha! I just got to that part.

re: #168 jaunte

"the improbability or impossibility of life arising spontaneously from raw chemicals or new species being created from genetic mutations"
You are pre-defining your results with that statement.

Nonsense. The minimum number of proteins needed for life, and the minimum machinery needed to produce them, are legitimate areas of inquiry. In fact, I mentioned it because there have been studies on this topic. But more could be done.

re: #170 Abu Boo Boo

Don't forget:

Evolutionists believed in the zany idea that mice could be spontaneously generated from wheat, and that lice were spontaneously generated from meat.

It was the religious/conservative nutjob Louis Pasteur who proved them wrong.

I like the test-tube half full idea that we will figure things out.

re: #164 Abu Boo Boo

There are also a ton of opportunities for doing research that would disprove ID.

Why are evolutionists so afraid?

You can't disprove ID. God could have made everything 1 second ago, and just made it look old. That's the whole reason many of us are against ID.

re: #169 LoFlyer

Actually the biggest hoax was the Soviets claiming they had no moon landing program....

Lunar landing hoax

BWAAAHAAHAA.

re: #164 Abu Boo Boo

Watch the video. about 1:04 He talks about that very topic.

re: #172 infinity8ball

Charles, it really is very telling when you say, "understand why scientists are opposed to the teaching of intelligent design."

There are MANY scientists who believe in ID, but don't speak up 'cause they'd lose their jobs. I know several personally.

That really is a quite unfair statement. As one poster stated earlier, for some reason, there seems to be a battle to re-define one group out of the discussion.

It's "telling?" Telling that I'm not a fan of "intelligent design," you mean?

When did you start to suspect?

re: #173 Noam Sayin'

Yeah, I was throwing a rough guess out there, figuring someone would clarify for me.

/Of course, I was counting on almost no one having watched the '76 landing. ;P

This is a pretty sharp crowd here. No matter the subject, someone usually a double PHD in it.

TO: Charles Johnson
RE: Two-Hours?

I'd love to watch and fisk it; obviously from my perspective. However, I'd need to do it in a manner that allowed me to see it in its entirety, when I had the time to see it.

Is there any way I could get it in a format that would allow me to do such?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who oppose the theory of Intelligent Design, oppose the theory that God actually exists.]

Well, I'm in need of protein, and my potatoes had eyes before I intelligently cut them out. Moreover, I have designs on a half-bottle. See you all on Mars!

Great stuff.

LGF Cliff Notes:

Islamic Science smackdown @1:15

Moonbat smackdown @1:30

re: #179 Yelnats

You can't disprove ID. God could have made everything 1 second ago, and just made it look old. That's the whole reason many of us are against ID.

Are you trying to be silly?

If a scientist were to design and perform an experiment that created a new species and that could be repeated and verified by others all over the world, you could be sure that experiment would be the subject of hundreds of scientific papers and dozens of books within months. The scientist would be a shoo-in for the Nobel prize.

If a scientist could produce a living organism from raw chemicals that, too, would disprove ID.

This is one of the main reasons I defend ID. It can clearly be disproved. So it's not just a "religious" argument.

TO: godfrey
RE: My Goodness, Man....

"Well, I'm in need of protein, and my potatoes had eyes before I intelligently cut them out. Moreover, I have designs on a half-bottle. See you all on Mars!" -- godfrey

....what ARE you drinking? Care to share?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
["O God! I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." -- Hamlet]

oh geez, "critical analysis" of the content of science.

re: #171 Yelnats
It can be summed up in one sentence:
God intervened in the natural order of the universe.

Well, theists can point out that since they believe that god created the universe, there is really no rule that would exclude the demiurge from intervening, as the God is included in their concept of natural order.

Some ID proponents may be theists and may point out that your definition of natural order is reductionist.

But other ID proponents may be agnostics that base their leanings on evidence that is rather hard to explain from the evolution POV, at least in its current neo-darwinian form.

Here ya go Chuck, just bookmark Dawkins.net December 12, 2006

TO: Abu Boo Boo
RE: Not Quite

"If a scientist could produce a living organism from raw chemicals that, too, would disprove ID." -- Abu Boo Boo

It would STILL be 'intelligent design'...i.e., that of the scientist.

Whether or not it was 'benevolent', as God does things....for those who appreciate Him....is another matter.

Ever read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life imitates Tom Clancy. -- CBPelto]

Alright. Perhaps I made some flubs, Buzz. But in my world, G-d has always been portrayed as omnipotent. Are you suggesting G-d is not omnipotent? Your description of G-d sounds more like a human than a G-d.

Another don't forget:

The vast majority of scientists used to believe in the "luminiferous ether." In fact, JC Maxwell based his Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field on it.

It was eventually shown that the ether doesn't exist.

Yet this false idea was a catalyst to great discoveries.

It's too bad evolutionists are too busy shouting down ID to do real science and disprove it. I guess it's easier to mock and smear.

By the way, I think ID is a legitimate hypothesis and I am most definitely not a Creationist. Anyone who says I must be is being intellectually dishonest (to put it politely).

re: #182 Charles

It's "telling?" Telling that I'm not a fan of "intelligent design," you mean?

When did you start to suspect?

I've always known that you weren't a fan of ID, I don't think that's been a secret around here.
I'm no fan of ID either.

But I have a feeling that you're not an atheist either. By posting all of these ID vs Evolution threads, you give Killgore the impression that you're a kindred spirit when it comes to denying that there may be a God. In Killgore's case, giving him cover to make snide remarks to anyone who does believe that there may be a God.

I don't believe that's your intention is it?

85⁰ and sunny here.

/tornado on the ground 20 miles to the north

TO The Albatross
RE: Links

"Here ya go Chuck, just bookmark...." -- The Albatross

Thanks. But it is STILL YouTube. It's hardly something I can drop into, wherever, whenever, I want for academic stu

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Is there a stated ID hypothesis?

re: #192 Chuck Pelto

TO: Abu Boo Boo
RE: Not Quite

"If a scientist could produce a living organism from raw chemicals that, too, would disprove ID." -- Abu Boo Boo

It would STILL be 'intelligent design'...i.e., that of the scientist.

This is a straw man.

A Creationist might use that evasion, but I certainly wouldn't.

I'll repeat: if any scientist can create a new species in a laboratory using a repeatable and verifiable experiment -- or produce life from raw chemicals in a similarly repeatable/verifiable manner, then ID is disproved.

Why are evolutionists so allergic to this challenge?

re: #194 Abu Boo Boo

It's too bad evolutionists are too busy shouting down ID to do real science and disprove it.

It has been scientifically disproven generations ago. Just because people continue to believe in creationism and ID doesn't mean that it is based in reality.

re: #200 Killgore Trout

It has been scientifically disproven generations ago. Just because people continue to believe in creationism and ID doesn't mean that it is based in reality.

What a great scientific argument!

I have some beef ribs evolving in the smoker right now, it only takes about 8-10 hours to make them evolve into tender tasty meat lollipops, way faster then Darwin ever imagined.

re: #12 Mats

Charles,
This is a non-issue.
The Discovery Institute is not mandating that ID be taught in schools. The Discovery Institute, and the creationist organizations, say that the teachers should be free to present the scientific (not religious) evidence that go against the prevailing darwinian dogma.

Surelly, if evolution is a scientific theory, then it doesn't fear scientific criticism, right?.....Right...? ......Right?!

Hey, if they can come up with scientific evidence in support of intelligent design I'm all for it being presented.

So, how's that "scientific proof of a designer" going for them? I hate to say that's pretty much all I'll accept because I'm really tired of the "it's so complex only God could have done it" garbage being paraded as scientific thought.

re: #201 buzzsawmonkey

So your argument in favor of ID is that human scientists have not yet been able to replicate, under laboratory conditions, in the last century or so, what it took a billion years to accomplish in nature? In effect, that mere humans, in 1/100,000,000 th of the time it took the Creator of the Universe to create life, have not managed to replicate His feat?

What breathtaking arrogance.

How do you know it took a billion years to produce life, oh great non-arrogant one?

Is there a stated ID hypothesis?

re: #195 DesertSage

I have already asked you politely to stop misrepresenting my opinions and statements. Please stop. Please don't post to me or about me. You're approaching stalker status. Please stop. I don't want to reward you with the attention from me that you seem to want so badly. Please ignore me and I will do the same. Thanks in advance.

re: #201 buzzsawmonkey

So your argument in favor of ID is that human scientists have not yet been able to replicate, under laboratory conditions, in the last century or so, what it took a billion years to accomplish in nature? In effect, that mere humans, in 1/100,000,000 th of the time it took the Creator of the Universe to create life, have not managed to replicate His feat?

What breathtaking arrogance.

There is another fallacy in your argument. Evolution says that >ten million different species evolved. If that's the case, surely new species can be created in a much shorter period of time.

re: #208 buzzsawmonkey

Because the first microcellular graffiti is only five billion years old.

Ronny Howard is great in that, by the way.

re: #208 buzzsawmonkey

Because the first microcellular graffiti is only five billion years old.

That doesn't say how long it took to evolve from raw chemicals. That just says when it first appeared.

Try to think more scientifically.

re: #202 Abu Boo Boo

Yes, it's the way science works. Spontaneous generation and flat earth are no longer taught on equal footing with proven theories.

re: #187 Abu Boo Boo

If a scientist could produce a living organism from raw chemicals that, too, would disprove ID.

This is one of the main reasons I defend ID. It can clearly be disproved. So it's not just a "religious" argument.

God could have specially intervened on the experiment. Anyway, it still wouldn't prove that God didn't create life the first time around.

If I am am misunderstanding what ID states, can you tell me what it means?

He also addresses Islam's view of Darwin, evolution and science at 1:18.

re: #211 Bloodnok

Ronny Howard is great in that, by the way.

Good Zeppelin album, too. :D

re: #194 Abu Boo Boo

Another don't forget:

The vast majority of scientists used to believe in the "luminiferous ether." In fact, JC Maxwell based his Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field on it.

It was eventually shown that the ether doesn't exist.

Yet this false idea was a catalyst to great discoveries.

No and yes. Maxwell's equation were recalibrated and reduced. As such, they work, but not entirely. What was called ether can be seen as another substratum that is described in QED. The original Maxwell's equations do have as a subset the QED implied, beside other aspects that we may not grasped yet fully.

Not the Darkwing Duck (err, Dark Matter), though, that is an epicycle if I can point out one. Black Hole is another epicycle, as I am concerned.

By the way, I think ID is a legitimate hypothesis and I am most definitely not a Creationist. Anyone who says I must be is being intellectually dishonest (to put it politely).

Agreed. On the same page.

re: #217 Weresheep

"I think ID is a legitimate hypothesis"

Do you know what the stated hypothesis is?

re: #209 Killgore Trout

Stop crying you little sissy.
You never miss an opportunity to make snide remarks about peoples religious beliefs, and I will continue to point it out every time you do.

I am only interested in the truth.

I presented two quite reasonable opportunities for disproving ID. I vow that if either is accomplished I will publicly state that ID is disproved.

Now if evolutionists could just move beyond arrogance, dogma, and slander...

re: #220 Abu Boo Boo

What is the stated hypothesis of ID?

re: #221 jaunte

What is the stated hypothesis of ID?

"In the beginning..."?

I just don't understand why the pro-ID/Creationist people can't just shut up for 90 minutes and watch the video.

It answers all of your "questions" - with science. If you're all about the science, then shut up for a moment and listen to the science. After that, if you want to start talking about irreducible complexity beyond what was shown in the flagellum, and want to talk about the lack of the "lack of transitional fossils" - with more evidence to the contrary of what we already have - be my guest. Until then tho, kindly do us a favor and put up or shut up.

And btw, I watched this video several months ago and he really is an awesome speaker.

re: #139 godfrey

Potatoes are now off the stove and in the oven, subjecting the molecules of their surface area to Transmogrifying Beams of Heat. They shall shortly evolve shortly into crispy tater wedges.

Well, this teaching situation could be easily prejudiced by both sides. The anti-theist might let evolutionary theory have the last word, and express strong personal opinions; the theist might let the questioning have the last word and suggest by whatever means that evolutionary theory is bunk.

Whatever. What's the best way of teaching evolutionary theory and the scientific method? That, perhaps, we can agree on.

My view is that religious content should be tangential. If you include it, where do you stop? Every religion has a creation myth. Are you going to give fair hearing to Buddhists, Hindus, Aztecs, et al? My guess is "no."

Plus, I'd argue that teaching the scientific method also means teaching the attitude of the scientific method, which by default is a kind of skepticism, even if you're a committed theist.

I like your post, but I would make a correction.
Teaching the scientific method does not require, nor should it entail any teaching about whether one should be a philosophical or theological sceptic. That is completely outside the realm of the natural sciences.
Philosophies like scepticism, positivism (or the low-brow form of positivism called Scientism), empiricism, etc. etc. are well worth discussing, but not in a biology or physics class. The same goes for Rationalism, idealism, dualism, etc.........or Intelligent Design.
I don't think religious content should be "tangential." I think it should be left out of science class altogether, just as it should be left out of typing and French classes.

Teaching students to think logically and critically, encouraging them to stretch their imaginations and intellects, and stimulating their curiosity are worthy goals to apply across the curriculum. They are not dependent on the specific methodology of the natural sciences.

re: #219 DesertSage

You never miss an opportunity to make snide remarks about peoples religious beliefs

/doesn't matter what the thread topic is either

re: #124 Mats

I honestly don't see what is the problem in having people discussing a theory that claims to be scientitic.

The terminology of science

Oh joy. I have a stalker.

re: #227 Killgore Trout

Oh joy. I have a stalker.

/don't flatter yourself

Oh boy....here comes the tears.

I particularly enjoyed the section on human chromosome #2.

re: #214 Yelnats

God could have specially intervened on the experiment. Anyway, it still wouldn't prove that God didn't create life the first time around.

If I am am misunderstanding what ID states, can you tell me what it means?

I don't accept your "God could have intervened" statement.

It's ironic, but as an ID defender I am more of a consistent believer in scientific determinism than most evolutionists.

A theory is a model or framework for connecting the factual dots. However, the facts don't make the model true. Only the theory's ability to predict the outcome of non-passive experiments can do that.

I define ID as the hypothesis that life could not have arisen or evolved as described by Darwinian evolution--that there is evidence of forethought in life and living organisms.

Please note that I've never said that I believe ID. I consider it a legitimate hypothesis for scientific inquiry. I strongly reject the angry and defensive attitude that ID should just be dismissed.

There is too much dogma and enforced orthodoxy in our education and science establishments.

re: #199 Abu Boo Boo

This is a straw man.

A Creationist might use that evasion, but I certainly wouldn't.

I'll repeat: if any scientist can create a new species in a laboratory using a repeatable and verifiable experiment -- or produce life from raw chemicals in a similarly repeatable/verifiable manner, then ID is disproved.

Why are evolutionists so allergic to this challenge?

Actually that would do MORE to prove ID then to disprove it.

Evolution = chance. What are the chances of something happening in a set pattern? Now the complicated part, what are the chances of that change happening in both a male and a female in the same place at the same time to ensure the continuation of that change? In most cases we call signifigant changes mutations, most of them are bad rather then good.
Our own government does more to disprove evolution then any panel of scientists could. We had a very good government and social systerm, then things got changed. most of those canges have been bad, and most of the bad ones have been permanent. WE ARE DESCENDING INTO CHAOS.
Evolution or Degeneration, Which?

re: #210 Abu Boo Boo

There is another fallacy in your argument. Evolution says that >ten million different species evolved. If that's the case, surely new species can be created in a much shorter period of time.

If evolution started 1 billion years ago, and each species split into 2 different species every 20 million years, there could be over a quadrillion different species.

1 billion and 20 million are just numbers made up to simplify my point.

re: #232 Abu Boo Boo

"I strongly reject the angry and defensive attitude that ID should just be dismissed."

I'd just like it to be defined, once.

This cult of belief is amazing. To take the leap, you've got to believe the following:

1. something comes from nothing
2. disorder produces order
3. non-living matter becomes living matter
4. from self-replicating, comes copulation
5. molecules in motion able reason, invent, argue, contemplate, etc.

Since singularity and a beginning present too much of the obvious for the blind, the Landscape is invented. The Landscape, no proof, no evidence, no matter. It all fills the void for the brain dead.

Saxe

re: #228 buzzsawmonkey

re: #212 Abu Boo Boo

Your notion that species must be created according to your own pulled-out-of-the-air schedule in order to "prove" something is flawed in itself...

I never specified any schedule. You did--and I questioned how you could claim to know such a thing.

He talks about Nylonase. It seems to me that we have 'junk' DNA that is lying dormant. Then in order to...wait for it...wait for it...'ADAPT' to new environments / scenarios / ....the way our 'algorithm' is programmed allows the 'else if' statement kick in. IMHO.

Thanks Charles. Just finished the video.

re: #230 DesertSage

I'm just trying to be an adult about it. We could go rounds and trade insults and ad hominem attacks daily on every thread. But it's disruptive to the blog. It's what happened with AI and the GCP folks. They stalked her relentlessly (she was a nutter) and both sides ended up getting banned. You've become obsessed with me and it's getting creepy. I don't think you can control it. I don't want to get banned and I don't want to be the cause of you getting banned. I've never seen you behave like this with anyone else and it seems out of character for you. You seem intent on it and there's nothing really I can do to make you stop aside from asking. You've said that you insist on continuing. Knock yourself out.

Buzz,

Here's the definition of ID: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Regards,
Saxe

Buzz,

Could you list your top five scientific reasons/evidences for your belief in Darwinism? Perhaps you could convert us.

Thanks,
Saxe

re: #236 buzzsawmonkey

All snark aside, I keep asking what the hypothesis of ID is, and no one here has answered, except to say "In the beginning.."
If ID is to be examined by scientists, stating the hypothesis would be a good start. It doesn't do much good for ID proponents to complain that they aren't taken seriously, if they don't a state a proposition.

re: #242 saxe17

Ah, there's a start. Which features of the universe, and which features of living things are you speaking of?

Seems to me that evolution and ID both lack hard scientific evidence for proof. Maybe we shouldn't try to teach "Where did man come from?" in science class. The scientific method requires experimentation and evidence and logic and we don't have that. Too many gaps ...

re: #241 Killgore Trout

I'm just trying to be an adult about it. We could go rounds and trade insults and ad hominem attacks daily on every thread. But it's disruptive to the blog.

From yesterday's tech thread, unprovoked, you graced us with:

The Dr. Seuss Bible, and

Silly Fundies

/obsessive and creepy?

I liked the video. Gave me some more perspective.

Later lizards.

re: #237 saxe17

This cult of belief is amazing. To take the leap, you've got to believe the following:

1. something comes from nothing
2. disorder produces order
3. non-living matter becomes living matter
4. from self-replicating, comes copulation
5. molecules in motion able reason, invent, argue, contemplate, etc.

Since singularity and a beginning present too much of the obvious for the blind, the Landscape is invented. The Landscape, no proof, no evidence, no matter. It all fills the void for the brain dead.

Saxe

This cult of belief is amazing. To take the leap, you've got to believe the following:

1. something comes from nothing (Where did God come from? He was always there? Define "always" - explain it in a scientific way.)

2. disorder produces order (Didn't "God" create order out of nothing and disorder? BTW, how do you know? Were you actually there? Please don't quote the bible to me - the writers weren't there either at the time.)

3. non-living matter becomes living matter (Didn't "God" do that too? You know, the whole making Adam and Eve bit from non-living matter?)

4. from self-replicating, comes copulation (Where else would it come from? Non-interaction/replication? Rocks don't replicate or copulate. If that's your model...)

5. molecules in motion able reason, invent, argue, contemplate, etc. (Yes, after millions and millions of years - a number which you, or I, or anyone else, cannot truly fathom.)

And yes, that's the beauty of evolution - it explains so simply how all of this arises naturally. That's why it is so amazing, why it was such an incredible discovery, and why it is so beautifully simple and elegant.

re: #234 Yelnats

If evolution started 1 billion years ago, and each species split into 2 different species every 20 million years, there could be over a quadrillion different species.

1 billion and 20 million are just numbers made up to simplify my point.

Point taken, but with >10,000,000 species on earth, and organisms such as fruit flies that we can breed over and over, it should be possible to prove the evolution of new species.

To just say it takes too long seems to me to be about as religious an argument as can be. The scientific method is not to just sit back and wait for nature to reveal her secrets. It's to devise clever experiments that expose them.

Only part way through it, but this is an excellent video. Thanks Charles, I regret that I have but one up-ding to give.

Ken Miller is brilliant, witty, and remarkably thorough in his presentation of arguments against teaching the super-natural as science in public schools.

Pity, that those who could stand to gain the most by watching this are unlikely to give it an honest viewing, or even watch it at all.

re: #246 Killian Bundy

Yes, I have my opinions and I state them. Many people dinged down that spinoff link. It was absurd.

Did you watch the Dr Suess clip? It was irreverent but was not anti-Christian. It ends with JC forgiving those who crucified him. "Forgive them o Lord, they know not what they do. For they walk through this life in uncomfortable shoes"

Some people here would say that if there were "considerable empirical evidence" for ID and it had been "accepted by scientists & peer-reviewed journals" it should be taught in the schools.
I would prefer that it stand the test of time myself.
(Yeah, yeah, I know we're supposed to be up-to-date and all that.)

Truth is, things like the Global Warming scam worry me.
It's bad enough that colleges grab on to these things so fast,
but when you're talking about the compulsory education level, I get nervous.

re: #252 Slumbering Behemoth

Ken Miller is brilliant, witty, and remarkably thorough in his presentation of arguments against teaching the super-natural as science in public schools.

If he's so smart, how come he believes in failed, government-run indoctrination centers (a.k.a. "public schools")?

ID is not a theory based on the systematic explaination of facts, it is a religious doctrine. Miller clearly exposed "their" political methodology of skipping what all science requires...evidence. Kinda like the same as democrats in the U.S. congress trying to inventing the willing suspension of disbelief for the change and hope we American's depend require to survive in the diplomacy ah polictical correctness ah opinion poll uhm exit poll ah evil republican uh neocon world of the 21st century.

It's amazing that there are people here arguing that evolution transcends experimental science.

Remind me, who are the religious nutjobs in this debate?

It’s almost two hours long, but well worth watching if you’d like to get deeper into the issue, and understand why scientists are opposed to the teaching of intelligent design.

Ahh ... lizard day at the movies.  We oughtta do this every Sunday ...

}:)     [Hey!  Down in front!]

re: #241 Killgore Trout

You've become obsessed with me

Obsessed with you? Like Killian said, don't flatter yourself.
You're nothing but a little twit who posts anonymously on a blog. I could care less about you personally. What I don't like is seeing day after day your insistent snide remarks about people of faith, mainly Christians. It's gotten to the point where it's hard to read the comments anymore...and I've had enough...and I'm calling you on it.

Never have I made snide remarks about people of faith OR people of no faith. I just let people believe what they want. But you feel the need to disparage people who believe in a higher power. You make snide little remarks about Christians all the time. It just gets old (and I'm not even a Christian).

I could care less about talking to you, but if I see something you post that's offensive to a group of people who have been a stalwart to this country, I'll say something. It has nothing to do with you personally. It has to do with what you write.

Summer,

1.A first cause doesn’t demand a cause. An effect does, a cause doesn’t. Perhaps God is necessary and therefore is the first cause? Just a thought.
2. Please, when have we observed disorder produce order? Please tell us. It's your theory to prove, not mine.
3. Again, please tell us.
4. You see, Darwin was right, so we get “where else would it come from”. Stop the hand-waving and tell us.
5. Time is NOT a cause. Again, please tell us when science has ever shown this to be possible with natural causes.

Come on Summer, where’s you game?

Saxe

re: #253 Killgore Trout

It's not just yesterday, you mock religion every chance you get, out of the blue, OT. We get that you're a militant atheist. Why do you feel the need to keep religiously insulting those believe in God? No one continually trashes atheists at LGF, that I know of.

/glass houses

re: #244 jaunte

Out of curiosity... what would for you constitute a proof for an intelligent design?

For instance, if there is a non-linear coding... say first linear sequence codes for protein, the same sequence or a part of it but with a key that is stored in a different chromosome codes for timing of expression of something else and a third layer, that uses the parts or the whole of the first two sequences, would code for an unrelated relationship, say a blueprint for another 2 proteins enfoldment that is mutually compatible.

Would that do? Or would you reject apriori any possibility that ID can be involved?

re: #259 DesertSage

It's gotten to the point where it's hard to read the comments anymore...and I've had enough...and I'm calling you on it.

So you're going to run me off or decide which content I can post on Charles' blog? This isn't your blog and attempting to run people off because you don't like reading their comments isn't going to go well for you but you're welcome to try.

Buzz,

You state "The flaw in the proposition you have stated above is that it reasons backwards from a pre-formed conclusion. That makes it worthless as any form of science, and in my opinion is also an insult to religious belief, since it exalts the conclusions of human understanding far above anything a legitimate scientist would claim."

And yours doesn't? We evolved, therefore here's all my anectdotal fables and evidence (of course, there is none). From which flavor of Darwin evolution have you arisen? If macro, you I'm sorry. If micro, I'm with you.

By the way, how do you evolved apes think outside the box? Your chemicals are programmed and you have no free will. You can't even do the things you wish you didn't not want to do. But I digress.

Saxe

re: #256 Beddgelert

ID is not a theory based on the systematic explaination of facts, it is a religious doctrine. Miller clearly exposed "their" political methodology of skipping what all science requires...evidence. Kinda like the same as democrats in the U.S. congress trying to inventing the willing suspension of disbelief for the change and hope we American's depend require to survive in the diplomacy ah polictical correctness ah opinion poll uhm exit poll ah evil republican uh neocon world of the 21st century.

This is a straw man.

A theory by definition is a model or framework for connecting the factual dots.

ID is not a theory. It doesn't attempt to explain the diversity of life. It's merely a hypothesis that highlights crucial weaknesses in Darwinian evolution.

A scientific hypothesis doesn't have to be based on evidence. The purpose of a hypothesis is to suggest experiments and/or observations that produce evidence. Demanding the evidence before allowing a hypothesis leads nowhere.

Buzz,

This argument may be in vain. Your pre-programmed box of chemicals you call a brain wouldn't even be able to consider an argument that your chemicals don't identify as true. Therefore, how can one open your eyes. Perhaps brain surgery? :)

Saxe

re: #249 Summer

This cult of belief is amazing. To take the leap, you've got to believe the following:

1. something comes from nothing (Where did God come from? He was always there? Define "always" - explain it in a scientific way.)

2. disorder produces order (Didn't "God" create order out of nothing and disorder? BTW, how do you know? Were you actually there? Please don't quote the bible to me - the writers weren't there either at the time.)

3. non-living matter becomes living matter (Didn't "God" do that too? You know, the whole making Adam and Eve bit from non-living matter?)

4. from self-replicating, comes copulation (Where else would it come from? Non-interaction/replication? Rocks don't replicate or copulate. If that's your model...)

5. molecules in motion able reason, invent, argue, contemplate, etc. (Yes, after millions and millions of years - a number which you, or I, or anyone else, cannot truly fathom.)

And yes, that's the beauty of evolution - it explains so simply how all of this arises naturally. That's why it is so amazing, why it was such an incredible discovery, and why it is so beautifully simple and elegant.

So, you basically claim Evolution equals Religion, not Science.

ID guys should hire you instead of Ben Stein.

re: #261 Killian Bundy

I wasn't aware that certain religions or groups were immune from criticism. If a religious leader does or says something stupid I'm going to comment on it. Same goes for atheists. You do realize that even my avatar mocks Hitchens, right?

re: #263 Killgore Trout

So you're going to run me off or decide which content I can post on Charles' blog? This isn't your blog and attempting to run people off because you don't like reading their comments isn't going to go well for you but you're welcome to try.

Post whatever you want.

/we're just saying your obvious, in your face, anti-religion agenda gets tiresome after a while