What a diatribe of non scientific obfuscation. Leave science to the Scientists who are prepared to prove their theories. You have the bible to push your 'intelligent design' creationist theory. Be satisfied that it has not been banned as unscientific, non proven propaganda.

I agree completely that we do a disservice to our children by only teaching them the theory of evolution. Evolution is just a theory and somehow it fits in with the scientific approach which is based also on physical evidence. However we know that the physical is only one dimension of our being. For a long time the psychological was dismissed as something lacking substance but evidence has grown that the mind is more then the brain. Now we have evidence to support a spiritual dimension. Our children need to be exposed to these various theories and evidence for and against them. This is true education and true science - the seeking for truth. We have to acknowledge that we are complex beings and science as we know it does not have all the answers. The placebo effect in drug trials alone proves the point that the mind is able to cure and heal as well or sometimes even better then drugs. Evidence of distant healing also proves that we are able to communicate and heal through prayer unexplainable by science. We need to broaden our thinking and be prepared to accomodate other explanations then just the physical. In this is true education and therefore I support ID being taught in schools.

When participating in any debate, and particularly at the start, it is important to be clear on what one is talking about.

The title of Darwin’s book is: “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection”. Darwin accepted that biological forms had evolved into different forms over eons of time. His theory was how those changes had taken place, how one species separated from another.

Darwin never attempted to explain how living things developed from non-living matter. That is the province of physicists, chemists and astronomers. They all have ideas as to how the stars evolved and how the elements evolved.

To keep referring to “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” obscures the concept of evolution as a universal process of development of all things.

What can I do with ID? It appears to make no predictions that I can use, or test.

A criticism of the design of the mammalian eye (the retina is the wrong way round, and not attached to the back of the eyeball) is immediately met by a special plead that the intelligence behind its design is beyond our current understanding.

In other words, ID does not even claim that the intelligence used in the design will be recognisable for what it is. This begs the question of whether the proponents of the idea even know what they mean by intelligence.

Science is about constructing theoretical models of the world to aid our understanding of its behaviour. ID is not a model of the world. It is just a totally self contained assertion immune both to disproof and interpretation. It certainly is just creationism dressed up to give the supeficial impression of having a scientific pedigree.

If ID has any role at all in education, it is as an example of the kind of spurious and woolly thinking that abounds in our society.

Sylvia.

We are at an embrionic stage of understanding of these issues, we are only a few hundred years out of survival mode as a species, we are at the same point in our understanding of this as saying 'the world is flat' hundreds of years ago.

We do not know yet as we have scraps of conflicting evidence. Therefore until we know, let theories remain theories. Present them all together, hand in hand at the one time, but evidence will become clear as the world embraces innovation.

Creation has too much logic unfortunately, even for a realist, especially taking the 'god' aspect out of it.

Good post Sylvia, as a student teacher I am looking forward to contrasting ID with the scientific method, and might throw in Norse creation stories and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism for good measure. They have similar merit to Intelligent Design.

Darwinism and evolution are an integral part of our collective thinking. Although only a theory, natural selection is widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists and it would be a disaster if it were not taught at schools.

Darwin is to biology as Shakespeare is to English literature. Not everybody follows his theory but it has had a profound influence on the way society sees itself.

Anybody not teaching Darwin is guilty of censorship on an extraordinary scale.

Can everyone stop saying "only a theory"?

In science, a theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by repeated experiments and observations. They are NOT the same as the common use of the word theory, as in a hunch or guess. This is much closer to the definition of hypothesis, which is an attempt to explain observations of natural phenomena. Interestingly, ID advocate Prof. Behe admitted in court this week that ID is actually consistent with the accepted definition of a hypothesis, and not the scientific definition of a theory.

Certain groups seem to distort the meaning of the word theory to infer that evolution is not supported by a vast body of scientific research. This is not the case.

And the article talks about God, I sort of lost focus about half way through.... But to be a true scientific theory all the individual parts that make up the theory must in themselves repeatably testable. For evolution at least it has the DNA, replication, genes, sequencing etc. there may be gaps (I am not Biologist) but most mechanisms behind it are there.

So ID must test one of the mechanisms and a good one to start is the designer. Is it God and how to prove? And which god? Or is it aliens doing genetic engineering , and how to prove? This MUST be discussed for ID to be seriously considered. And since the drivers behind ID are fundamental Christians (remember the Wedge letter?) then they must prove the designer is the God or something else. Hindu god/s or aliens maybe? So go to it guys discuss amongst the other religions and include Scientologists I look forward to the repeatable tests for these ......Good Luck.

My money is on the aliens.

The first post (by maracas) in response to this article said it all. I just want to be counted as someone who would be totally opposed to the introduction of this sort of stuff into schools. Fanatics always seem to want to get at our kids - leave them alone, they have got enough to contend with!

Is the conjectured designer in the likeness of man? Might his/her/its intelligence ever be intelligible to us mortals? Is the designer mortal? Why might this be God/Allah/Yahweh? Could there be multiple designers? If so, does each have the same kind of intelligence? Beliefs about these questions are religious or atheistic and belong in the religion part of school curricula (if there's a consensus for inclusion).
The schools I know encourage students to speculate about all kinds of issues and to consider evidence from multiple sources.
As a daily observer of teaching practice in public and private schools, Brian's second last paragrah reads to me like a conspiracy "theory"(!). I know of no school curriculum that uses evolution to advocate atheism. I do know of schools that now use ID to support religious belief. Evolution is in science curricula because it's more useful in developing our understanding of fashionable science than astrology, or intelligent design or ESP, or improving road safety by increasing speed limits, or all the other ideas that might possibly be proved true, some day, somehow. Like most things in education, curricula err on the conservative side of things much more than the radical.

It's not worth debating these points.

In maths I expect maths to be taught.
In English class, I expect English to be taught.
In science class, only science should be taught.
(Be it evolution, physics, biology or chemistry)

Science teachers have little time to convey a large area of study. I would expect them to concentrate on the established position and the "hot issues" within each field.

Those who want to discuss the possibility, ramifications and so forth of a deity can do so in classes on religion and philosophy.

In either case - the possibility of a creator is an old one and a simple one. Kids will surely come up with without any help, and will (hopefully) ask the tough questions anyway.

Understanding that computers can not yet generate a collection of truly random numbers, (without guidance from a programmer such as one that tells the PC to analyse noise from a vacuum tube)is a relevant example of the problem with the argument that complexities are more complicated than simplicities.

Mr Pollard's argument contains so much emotive language and other academic fallicies, that the article does not deliver enough credibility to warrant the introduction of religious education into the Australian public school system. Perhaps, the Board of Education might like to consider introducing philosophy into classroom activities as a more neutral alternative.
Regards, Malibu

If one studies the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology at school and university; one can gain a degree of BSc. One is then fitted to gain employment in some field trying to improve the world by developing new medicines or new machines.

If one studies Intelligent Design and gains a BId, one is then fitted – for what?

Jeshua says

"Evolution is just a theory and somehow it fits in with the scientific approach which is based also on physical evidence"

This is true. All scientific positions are simply theories... from Newtons theory of gravity, to those describing electromagnetism.

Scientists are ready to discard or modify theories and are doing that all the time. The refinement and improvement of theories is a key motivation and core philosophy.

Quite simply. ID is not the currently accepted theory in scientific circles. So... it should not be taught in a junior science class.

It can be raised in other forums of course.

ID is a sham - read the Wedge Strategy - just google it up and up it pops; a manifesto penned by the proponents of ID with the specific gaol to ... "replace materiaistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by god" and to have ID .." as the dominant perspective in science".

ID is not science it's a trojan horse bearing articles of faith - nothing more.

The movement dressed up as the Discovery Institute is partly bank rolled by H F Ahmanson linked to a Christian movement ( Christian Reconstructionism)keen to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy - they stress the re establishment of Old Testament Law.

They are dominionists with design to create here on earth a society defined and controlled by Christians. Check out their web site - type in Chalcedon and that will call it up - and be afraid. These guys are terrorists of the mind.

ID and its proponents need to be called for what they are -deceivers; their notions have no place in the scheme of learning. TO have it seriously entertained is as frightening and as threatening as any other form of fundamentalism

Theye should be capured and made listen to talk back radio until they recant

Pete,

You certainly have your views dont you!

If you can tell me that you can prove either theory great, until you do, dont take shots.

Creation is as valid as darwinism, unless you feel that we as humans are nothing more than animals.

There is too much grey in this for it to be black and white. I bet according to you when you are dead you are dead, right? Prove the theory of darwinism....with all the technology at our fingertips we cannot, yet it should be fairly simple to do so.

We have quanitfiable, measurable means science wise, so why cannot darwinists prove it?

Darwin is nothing more than bloke with an explanation for things based on premise. Go down the local pub if you want to believe theories, there are plenty out there.

Lets all wait until we know, the number one rule in life is not to make assumptions

Those who believe, that is really believe in evolution have far, far more faith than any believer in creation.
Any part of our bodies and how it/they work is stunning and is designed.
Take sex, once according to some we simply divided. This apparently worked well so why the change? Then it was the laying of eggs, if this worked etc. Now we have sex as we know it among humans. Can you image first a male.A fully male whatever would have to be formed by mindless directionless evolution. Then this male would have to meet a fully formed functional female. Of course everything would have to work to the utmost degree. It did and a child was born - at what odds? Then it was found that breasts had not evolved so the child died and all subsequent children of course. Then the parents fell of the perch and we had to wait another 100,000,000 years for another complete fully developed working male and female to be formed. Then hope that somehow this mindless directionless stupid evolution remembered to form breasts. It did - whacko so humans prosperred. That so-called intelligent people believe this pig's swill and garbage is unbelievable. I bet these same "brains" were sucked in re the 'Piltdown Man' [I think I got the name right] many years ago.
Much easier, much more intelligent and takes far less faith to believe we were all created. numbat

I don't personally think this whole Real Science Vs ID is a serious dichotomy.

Why not just introduce a science and philosophy/ethics courses into our schools. If this is about belief in GOD, then lets provide them with the critical thinking skills to do this.

ID is not science and Science is not a religion.

"If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool

Moses went walking with the staff of wood
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Newton got beaned by the apple good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Egypt was troubled by the horrible asp
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"
http://www.twin-music.com/azlyrics/r_file/rem_lyr.html#moon

DOGMA

I find it amazing that no-one dealt with the concept that Brian put forward. That is if we restrict the set of possible explanations to exclude design, we are no longer looking for truth, but merely attempting to enforce a naturalistic worldview.

Sneekeepete, you seem a bit out of date. reconstructionism is not equal to dominionism. Ahmanson is no longer a reconstructionist and guilt by association is a fallacy as old as time. I find it very interesting that you completely ignore that Secular Humanist's have been attempting to change our society into their own image for decades. The ultimate end of which can only be totalitarian. It's probably just an oversight that you don't mention it and this has nothing to do with how well the secular humanist manifesto and goals line up with your own.

Syvlia, if making successful predictions is all that you need to be science, then creation theory is science too. Predictions such as plate techtonics, magnetic field strength of other planets and that the universe had a beginning are all predictions of creation science.

I have more comments here http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/10/motivations-of-defenders-of-science.html

My Dogma ate my homework.

Yes the sneekster has some views and mighty fine views they are too.

I have no objection to creationism - I just dont believe it as described; it is an article of faith. The concept of evolution is a testable hypothesis.

You cant test ID as it is a belief in the hand of god in all manner of creation - ; its proponents dont need to seek answers or the truth as ID is predicated on the assumption god made everything - the search for truth and meaning stops right there. People can believe it but they can not prove it - they can even teach it but not as a science becasue it aint.

And as for shots - I only took shots at CR as Christian Reconstructionism is a scary idea - a dangerous idea; people need to know who the fellow travellers of the ID movement are before they open their minds and doors to this kind of stuff.

"What a diatribe of non scientific obfuscation. Leave science to the Scientists who are prepared to prove their theories. You have the bible to push your 'intelligent design' creationist theory. Be satisfied that it has not been banned as unscientific, non proven propaganda.

Posted by maracas, Friday, 21 October 2005 11:16:46 AM"

pfft Fundamentalist Darwinians!

I'm always amused at the irrational nonsense that those who champion 'rational science' spout when their religion comes under attack.
Sure there are one or two scientists who are capable of holding an adult conversation on the topic but they are few and far between. But lets not buy into the whole 'science Vs religion' distraction, this is a conflict of ideaolgies and nothing else.

It is a pity that the usual suspects in these jottings seem not to understand the difference between philolsophy and science and why science needs philosophy if the facts are to be interpreted correctly. As Brian Pollard points out, ID is a product of inductive reasoning following an identification of the scientific facts as at any time they can best be identified. Darwinism is also just such a product. What is needed is an open minded discussion of the merits and demerits of these two accounts of the facts and not the kneejerk "Darwin is science and ID is religion so there!" which has typified too many of the offerings in this debate. If ID is based upon solid scientific fact then what needs to be discussed is what ID makes of those facts - ie is ID reasonable and logical?

As it happens, I am a Darwinian.. I've lived here 49 years...
Fundamentalist NO.
I've had my share of overzealous dogmatists though who considered they should disregard my instructions that my children were NOT to attend religious instruction in a Darwin Primary School in 1976 but instead were to participate in enrichment reading in the library when their class were being brainwashed with dogma.
My view was that it was my duty to attend to their overall development and creationist teachings would seriously impair their capacity to think and reason.
I place ID pushers in the same category as drug pushers...They have no place in schools.
As one earlier posting noted, google the Wedge document and understand who the pushers are and what is their mission.

I am amazed by the number of "scientists" who appear to believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is a proven fact.

Even back in the sixties when I studied zoology at Sydney University, many scientists were willing to acknowledge that Darwin's theory has some gaping holes.

Darwin could explain why different variations of the same species can adapt better or worse to new conditions (ie "natural selection"), but he could not explain exactly how one species transforms into another. A big problem is the fact that something like 99% of mutations are harmful rather than helpful.

The current anti-ID hysteria is over the top. The solution is simple - schools should teach students about the theory of evolution, including the many things this theory cannot explain. Then all scientists would be happy, and pigs would fly (courtesy new mutations, occurring in exactly the right time sequence, entirely by chance).

Numbat- Simple cellular division v Sex?
Why change? Did not change, some organism’s still divide. Sex came after eons of change. This designer did put all these clues for us to follow in Earths development.
So obviously humans must be the pinnacle of the designers design then the previous attempts were wrong? Bad? Because we do have fossils, that the designer obviously left behind that show his previous designs. But they died out. Or did this designer wipe them out to start again? But this designer cannot be God because God is infallible? No mistakes allowed? Hmmm something to think about?

Realist – With technology today you assume we can prove everything today. Well you do not understand science since it never is that easy. But leave it to others who understand it a bit better.

Director123 I also amused at the irrational nonsense that those who champion 'ID' spout when their religion comes under attack. Especially after the Wedge letter? Explain that please?

But anyway to all the above I am willing to watch for the repeatable experiments that allows a theory to be tested and await the test on the presence of a designer? Was that a Christian God , Hindu, Or the old Norse ones? Also you must start funding SETI since aliens doing genetic engineering on this planet (Explains the gaps in evolution and complex designs in biology) is highly plausible. And enough technology and resources planet building would be possible.

So go search the cosmos. You must do this test on the designer unless you want to fall into the same trap you accuse the scientific community of blind faith in evolution.

My money STILL is on the aliens.

Do frogs turn into princes? In an instant that is a fairy story. Over millions of years that is evolution.

Evolution is the materialist’s way of explaining the world. But look at some of the holes in their story:
• What caused the big bang?
• How did the first living replicating cell assemble itself?
• How are new design instructions written to the DNA?
• Why is there not a finely graduated organic chain of transitional forms?
• How come every major body plan appeared suddenly in the “Cambrian Explosion”?

There are other ways of explaining the scientific evidence based on different worldviews.
I’m in favour of competition.
Evolutionists should not have a monopoly to promote their worldview.
They should have to defend their philosophy against other contenders.
It will be good for science, good for students and good for evolutions.

Firstly, the word “theory” does not always have the connotation of “hypothesis.” Another use of the word is to describe a “body of knowledge,” thus we can speak of quantum theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory, kinetic theory of gases, cell theory in biology etc. Evolution is one of the great unifying principles in biology, how else can you explain the universality of the genetic code?

ID by contrast is a sterile idea. Ok you ask how did the eye evolve? Or this or that complex biological mechanism? How did organic molecules start to replicate? There may be currently some gaps in knowledge in these and other matters. To-day’s biological thinking may have more than a hint at an answer. A mechanism for the evolution of the eye has been described by Professor Dawkins [Climbing Mount Improbable; chap5].

ID is a sterile theory: According to ID the designer designed the eye. How the designer works or planned his design is of course beyond human understanding. Who designed the designer is an irreligious question. I know of no empirical evidence that there is a great designer somewhere in the sky orchestrating the affairs of man on earth.

The following reported historical conversation says it all.
Napoleon 1: “You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.”
Pierre-Simon Laplace: “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Lots of interesting points being argued, some rational some not; the one and only thing for certain is the inevitability of disagreement.

To make my position clear, I have a notion -- call it a tentative hypothesis - in which I suspect there is a 'central organising force' to the universe; one which we mere humans may never understand except as a mathematical equation some time in the distant future.
My tentative hypothesis cannot be tested by any currently known means; so it cannot be an hypothesis and certainly not a theory, so it has no SCIENTIFIC basis.

Should any religious or other non-scientific social group propose to pass on or teach my notion to others I would have no objection -- so long as it is presented as a notion and NOT as science.

The proposal, by the author of the originating article for this thread, that Intelligent Evolution should be taught within a science curriciculum is very unintelligent and must be rejected by all who understand that science is the search for truth.

Interesting reasoning there maracas. So are you saying you only exposed them to one theory in order to avoid brainwashing? Shouldn't exposing them to multiple theories thereby enable them to make an informed decision (evolution, ID, or whatever) and therefore avoid this problem?

No matter how its proponents try to dress it up, "Intelligent Design" is little more than a clever re-badging of Christian Creationism, "designed" to appear more palatable to a secular society. Those who refer to the "Wedge" are quite correct: this ID nonsense is the thin end of the wedge by which religious fundamentalists wish to impose their belief system on the rest of us, via the impressionable minds of school students.

As a parent and former scientist, I am alarmed that our Federal Education minister seems receptive to proposals to have this drivel taught alongside evolution by natural selection in school science courses.

Why not re-badge the idiotic compulsory religion subjects to which our kids are subjected as introductory philosophy, which might at least provide students with some grounding in the diversity of the foundations of Western thought, which extend far beyond the influence of Christianity - we could start with paganism, move onto the Greeks and Romans, thence to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

A subject such as this could take kids up to the intellectual watershed of the Enlightenment. This would be very useful for those students who wished to study Arts and/or Humanities at university, but it would also help to alleviate some of the intolerant and ignorant dished out to, say, Muslims in our society. Of course, the syllabus would be very crowded, but there might be room in such a course for a half hour in which to dispose of "Intelligent Design".

It's amazing there are posts here suggesting I.D. is a theory (it isn't); that Darwin was religious (he wasn't, though he was aware of the religious sensibilities of the time); and that I.D. is the only alternative theory alongside creationism that should be taught (my money's on the turtle).

We've had this debate before, peoples. At school it was taught as 'The Enlightenment'

maracas:You say - "you have had your share of zealous dogmatists" Pray tell what would you call your ravings if not zealous dogma?
Evolution has not, can not EVER,EVER be proven.
By the way I'm glad my dad was a fair minded bloke he did not keep me from religion or evolution - but dad trusted and loved his children I guess and wanted us to use our reasoning and brains instead of being dictated too and led by the nose. numbat

The Intelligent Designer responsible for the wonders of DNA, of the eyes of insects and those of mammals etc. was also responsible for the design of the Preying Mantis.
The Preying Mantis can only survive by taking its meals at the expense of other living creatures. There is nothing special about that, but why oh why, has the designer dictated that the victim will be cradled in the mantis' arms to be slowly devoured while still alive.
If ever there was a pervert, it was that designer.

Rockhound, what has the big bang got to do with a discussion of evolution? Or are you just lumping it in with other things you don’t understand?

You say that the theory of evolution could use some competition. Well for 150 yrs now Darwinian natural selection as the process by which the diversity of life has developed (not the origin of Life itself), has faced both competition and opposition. Every time a scientist or a student contemplates evolution at a critical level the theory is tested, challenged and changed. How many thousands of times have thousands of the best minds 150yrs challenged the theory of evolution?

Still going strong? You bet.

In fact the more a theory is tested (if it doesn’t fall over immediately) the stronger the theory becomes.

Ever wondered why there is no massive push to have id taught is university science classes? Could be a massive conspiracy of atheist materialists too afraid to face change, but im betting it’s got something to do with there being not much of a demand for pseudo biologists.
I guess school boards are much easier to convince.

rockhound also asks how new DNA is written (ill ignore the choice of verb), basically, like all the processes of evolution as series of simple steps repeated a few hundred thousand times yields complexity. Every one of us is an entirely unique organism, our genetic code a 50/50 combination of our parents DNA in a configuration that has and will never be repeated. So new genetic code is created in a continuous process that with millions of repetitions results in diversity.

on the question of the intermediate stages, well firstly that assumes a state of completion (there are no intermediate because its all intermendiate), secondly all the species alive today (a tiny fraction of those that have lived) are the sucessfull ones, the ones who out fought, out competed, and literally out ate their competition, everything else is dead.

Here's my obligatory response to that arrangement of trite and baseless statements. But first I would like to propose one simple guideline, if you lack a basic understanding of the evolution or any other scientific issue or (and I know this is asking too much) *anything else*, then don't launch into a spiel rejecting that thing which you know nothing about.

Some fairly basic points:
-Scientific theories don't get proven conclusively. It's not maths.
-ID isn't a scientific theory.
-ID tells us nothing.
-ID has no evidence supporting it.
-Evolution is incredibly well supported.
-ID hasn't provided anything unexplainable by evolution. (Including "irreducible complexity")
-There has been no "relatively recent discovery of a certain kind of complexity".
-Evolution isn't about how life began. (Hence abiogenesis, the big-bang, universe in general etc. is irrelevant.*)
-Evolution is compatible with religion.
-Evolution is unguided, accidental and random in the same way that every other natural process is.
-Components of biological features don't evolve seperately.

*To reduce how many more times I'm going to hear these:
-There is no "before" the big-bang, the theory currently suggests that it's the *first instant*.
-There is evidence that things spontaneously come into existence.
-The probability of this universal configuration existing is 1. It is otherwise indeterminable.
-Abiogenesis doesn't involve the development of modern-day cells.

Amid all the non-sequitors and appeals to authority the author has laid out arguments that only shows his inability and/or unwillingness to cure his own ignorance. Not possible to explain how the eye developed? C'mon! It isn't difficult to muster the miniscule amount of intellectual effort to consider how that could have happened (hint: see my list above), or to look for the answer. Anyone who can't fathom how heaps of changes to simple things make them complex really isn't suited to scientific inquiry.

Similarly, quit bringing up Pascal's wager. All I ask is a tiny bit of critical evaluation for whatever notions you find "neat". Yes, that means I don't want to hear about how men think about sex every six seconds either. And debunked proofs of God aren't proofs.

Science confronts the reality that gives us creature comforts ,time to think and invent some more; and time to indulge ourselves in religious thoughts.

Religion represents our aspirational self but has no logic or discipline to unravel the complexities of our universe.

Intelligent design is based on percieved anomilies in science which we seemingly cannot explain with our present knowledge.

Religion is based on our arrogance of wanting to transcend this mortal existence.Religious people often want the science to fit their ideals rather than facing the reality of survival.

Which is our more trusted and true servant?

Rob88 claims "Anyone not teaching Dawin is guilty of censorship on an extraordinary scale". My response is "Anyone refusing to allow ID to be taught alongside Evolution so that students can make up their own minds is guilty of censorship on a grand scale". People like Rob88 scream against censorship, but once in power, are the worst censors of all.

Stan 1 states "Fanatics always seem to want to get at our kids". I agree. You see it in the left-wing Secular Humanist ideas rammed into kids by athiests who love the theory of Evolution because it suits their Secular Humanist views. There is no such thing as" an inquiring mind" allowed. You toe the line or else no pass.

White Wombat says "All scientific positions are merely theories from Newton's theory of gravity to those descriing elecromagnetism". I am sure Sir Isaac Newton would be very disappointed to hear that his LAW of Gravity has been
downgraded. Drop a brick on your paw Mr. Wombat and see whether it's only a theory or an accepted Law.

It's an eye-opener to see how the Evolutionists are RUNNING SCARED at the prospect of having competition for the minds of students.

Most of the emotive horror and fear displayed in posts here gives evidence that a belief system is being challenged which will effect how the world is viewed.

Because of the features of observed pattens of design we can understand reality and predict normal outcomes. A functioning eye will always see, a functioning brain will always think etc. The reality is we are familiar with workable design. Good science looks at natural design to learn how to make better products. We are inclined to ignore the obvious - the design features we see in our universe give us clues to best scientific practise using natural orgainic products. Medical physics must evaluate the design and function of the organ to recreate a replacement, things vastly lesser than the original design fail to meet the need.

Science as we know it just proves what is already there. One needs to believe in evolution as much as in creation. Evolutionists have nothing to fear except the truth. The scientific method must be applauded for it seeks to find the truth. Therefore when science classes entertain the possibility of creation it is prepared to seek the truth. This is not an either or situation as science is just a method to an end - verifying what is true. ID/Creation challenges us to think about our origins. Creation or evolution - you choose. This choice must be given to our children through education.

Brian Pollard’s editorial is breathtaking in the scope of its errors. His comprehension of Darwin’s Origin of the Species is incomplete at best. Firstly, it makes no claims as to the origin of life. It is simply describing how so many different life forms have come about. Today, the Theory of Evolution has little to say about the origin of life, but claims that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor. Where that common ancestor came from is cause for speculation, but no convincing theories of yet.

Secondly, his argument as to a causal source of everything in the universe, this is a sloppy philosophical argument, and his understanding of it is crude at best. He is right, that everything in the universe has a cause. From there, he stumbles, and suggests that all causes are supernatural or intelligent in origin. Would he claim that the falling rain outside my window is caused by God crying? I choose to think that rain falling is caused by the humidity in clouds reaching saturation point, and the water condensing and falling to the earth.

Science is the province of material explanations for the way the world works. The day that we as scientists claim that a problem (such as the origin of species) is too difficult for us to tackle, then we should stop spending money trying to cure cancer. After all, if God is the cause for us existing, why can we not claim that God is the cause of tumours? No point trying to cure Alzheimer’s, because God wanted it to happen. But, all of these things have material causes that can be discovered, much like the origin of species. And it is a scientists role to discover these causes.

God’s spark started the world. He set into place a universe with rules, and those rules resulted in us having the brains to decipher them. 3000 years ago, men wrote Genesis with their best understanding of the rules that God set up. Isn’t it time that we updated our understanding of how the universe works?

"all the species alive today (a tiny fraction of those that have lived) are the sucessfull ones, the ones who out fought, out competed, and literally out ate their competition, everything else is dead. "

You forgot out-reproduced. That's the most important one (and as an aside, the most fun one).

Big Al, I am totally with you, dude, except that you forgot to mention an equally valid theory that should in all fairness be given equal time with ID and Darwinism. I'm talking of course about the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory, wherin the FSM, in his noodly splendor, created the universe 5 minutes ago, complete with false memories in our brains, and fake evidence to make scientists think that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and species evolved naturally.

Oh, and there's Miraculous Mathematics that should get equal time with Algebra, Geometry, Calculus and all that dogmatic stuff. The best thing about MM is that whenever you get to a really "irreducibly complex" part of a proof, you just say "and then a miracle happens", and voila -- the proof is done. QED. I came up with a simple MM proof of the Riemann Hypothesis! It's easy, you can too! The masses will love it! We could get some rich dude to fund us an MM "research institute"...

Good article Brian, You summed up the basic problems as I see it.

A theory is defined as 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena'.

Lets define macroevolution as 'Billions of genetic mutations which have occurred over time to give a species a natural selective advantage over the other'. Simplistic definition, but viable for this discussion.

So the silly thing is that we have NEVER demonstrated a net gain of information from a mutation that has led to positive benefits.

Sure I can quote you some "losses" of information which happen to in certain environments confer a selective advantage. Heterozygous Sickle Cell Anaemia in certain places of Africa lowers the risk of contracting the deadly disease malaria, and the group with sickle cell are acutally conferred a selective advantage. However it is important to recognise that there has still been a net loss of information through the mutation which has led to a deformaty of the red blood cells (e.g. If I amputate my limbs, I have less chance of bleeding to death).

So if we cannot really repeatedly test these mutations, how can we accept it as a theory? Unless someone can demostrate to me in a laboratory, (which they have tried many times; by exposing rats to high levels of radiation to cause mutations, just led to lots of dead rats) to me it is not a theory. It is just another religion, where a person believes this due to faith rather than reproducable facts.

The irony is that it is often not the scientific community who are the biggest champions of this religion. It has become the school teachers, the politicians, whose theoretical knowledge is often simplistic and outdated (In school I was taught about evolution of the horse, which had been disproven 20 years before). Lets not pretend evolution attains any superiority over other 'origin of life' theories. They are all really just interpretations of the left-overs.

Brian Pollard's argument is an argument from ignorance: Just because we don't have a full or complete explanation for something, he assumes a supernatural creator. And then has the arrogance to call the supernatural explanation the "truth".

Yeah, well, the truth is out there but to promote ID as a valid thesis is a dead-end for the education of our children.

The following is from the ABC science website

"Science requires that any theory meet four criteria:
• Hypothesis - the theory should be founded on clearly identified (and preferably distinctive) assumptions.
• Testability - the hypothesis should be able to be tested for validity, either directly or indirectly by experiment or by observation of regularities in past events.
• Reproducibility - others can reproduce the results claimed.
• Explanatory power - the theory should be able to explain extant data and observations and should be able to predict outcomes in at least some novel situations
Intelligent design does not meet any of these criteria. The Australian Academy of Science said in a recently released statement that intelligent design "is not a scientific idea. That is, it is not open to empirical test."
The statement goes on to say that in contrast, "The theory [of evolution] has attracted enormous empirical testing and remains one of the most powerful of scientific ideas."

ID is simply a tool for the seriously religious to attempt to usurp a logical, rational and systematic search for meaning. An attempt to put in place a single fundamentalist Christian version of the world with no room for freedom of thought or expression.

We need to protect our children from such narrow thinking.

I'm Christian.
I believe the Big Bang Theory.
I believe that the Big Bang was caused by God. As well, I believe the theory of evolution- being guided by God.
Is there an atheist here who can propose a law which prevents the occurence of a Second Big Bang?
Why was there no Big Bang since this one?
Why didn't another one happen yesterday in your back yard?
Basically, what caused the Big Bang (If you think the Big Bang happened, like I do, as science supports).

I was taught in school that evolution was the natural process by which we got to this point and on it I was examined. My children and grandchildren were also and are taught and examined on the subject at their schools. However neither I nor one of them believe it has all the answers as it does not demonstrate all the facts. Did knowing two possibilities damage them? No! They became better informed of two possibilities as explanations of how we got to here. All this emotive censorship protectionism that their childs mind will be ruined if taught ID is absolute nonsence, it broadens their mind to think of other possibilities. That is education!

I worked for 12 years for Alexander Boden who was Australia's leading industraial chemist in the 1960 - 1985. He was the authorised writer of school science text books also international post-graduate lecturer in his specialties and joining with Kevan and Khan wrote on all science subjects for school text. He was a devout Christian and gave respect for God in his texts. Though his texts taught natural evolution and his faith was in God, the teaching of evolution did not disturb his mind or evolution his faith in God. Great men do not have closed minds or censor others right to examine all possibilities. Educate and broaden your mind!

There are far too many scientists that are tunnel visioned. Those that advocate ID suggest that "God" is the only answer. If there is a "God", he is not from this planet, so therefore he is an extra-terrestial. - Now is there only one ET out there or are there millions? - We don't know.

One of the "Gods" I am aware of is the one in the "Hebrew Bible"(the Torah). This states(see Genisis) that he is the "God" for the decendents of Adam. Therefore ONLY the "God" of the Jewish race. IF he created Adam and Eve "in his own image", he would have to be humanoid and needed a "chariot of fire" to get around. And if he created Adam and Eve, we would call it "cloning" today, especially as Eve was "cloned" from Adam's rib.

It is possible that "God" created heaven ON Earth in 6 days and the Jewish race was the LAST race on Earth, because, according to the Old Testament, this happened just over six thousand years ago.

There may have been many races created over the last million years and we might have evolved out of the sea, BUT we don't know.

And if there is a "God", why do we have to worship him/her ?

It's about time mankind did some thinking outside of the square.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side: Aristotle 384 BC—323 BC

Aristotle, as one of the worlds great thinkers understood the usefulness of religion to control the masses. Fear of the Gods was used by the high priests in ancient Inca and Mayan civilizations who concocted rites of human and animal sacrifice to ‘appease the Gods’

Contemporary leaders , Bush and Howard claim support from God, They are regular church goers and are modern examples of Aristotle’s assertions . The reciting of the Lords Prayer by our parliaments at the commencement of sittings is an example of our leaders seeking to receive the blessing of God in their deliberations……absolute hypocricy .

ID seeks to perpetuate the belief in Creation and Christian religion as a counter to non creationist philosophy that is allied to Science and Scientific teachings. They are seeking to turn back history to the time Charles Darwin introduced ‘Origin of Species through Natural Selection” Darwin was attacked and Vilified then and his theory is still being challenged by creationists today despite the fact that Charles Darwin did not claim knowledge about the origin of life..That is an ongoing quest which will not be settled with I D. Creationists want to introduce their ideology into school curriculum in an endeavour to revive flagging religious congregations.

About 7 years ago, I was on my son’s school council. We received a request from a catholic parent to introduce RI. We canvassed the school community and there was no other interest. On the other hand there was stiff opposition. We realized parents who wanted their children to have RI enrolled them in their appropriate denominational school.
So the choice is clear…..Parents who wish their children to be exposed to pseudo science in ID can do so by sending their children to denominational schools thus leaving State Schools I D free.

I always thought that the primary objective of scientific enterprise was to try to problems naturally, not just say, OK, this is intelligently designed, so let's give up because there is a higher being at work here somewhere.(ie, God or Aliens)

One of silly assumptions of ID propoenents is that science advocates atheism. Most big bang theorists are in awe of creationism and thus the meaning of life, the universe and everything in it.

Here's a piece of good humor from that seminal piece of work created by Douglas Adams.(Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

""Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.""
--THGT

Wow! What a silly article and most of these posts are so typical of the limitations we have as a species, to separate our explanations from our beliefs.

For me the great twist in the article itself is: "that the universal experience of mankind is that everything that exists has a cause." Surely, this is the classic philosophical proof that Intelligent Design is invalid. And the irony from science is that current theories in quantum physics dispense with the notion of causation as it is commonly understood.

The intelligent design “debate” is entirely political in character. The arguments and slogans are political in character. The title says “scientists afraid of finding the truth?” No, this debate is about what our children should be taught.

If we want our children to be taught science, then its science we should teach them. If this was about philosophy class there’d be no debate.

Intelligent Design is in opposition to science, a reaction to it. It says things like “it is not possible to explain how [sight] could have developed step-by-step by chance”. An atheist may ask how does God see? But this too misses the point of science. Science takes us (or should take us) to wherever the evidence leads us.

I don’t believe any scientist would object to teachers explaining to students the flaws and difficulties of the evolutionary theory, or for that matter, any other theory. The flaws are the great engine of scientific endeavour.

A final point, those on my side of the argument need not worry about the dangers of intelligent design in the classroom. Evolution will take care of it in one way or another.

You who object to Intelligent Design being taught in schools, because you say it is not science, yet are willing to believe scientific concepts like infinity that underpin science but transcend your comprehension, are you going to remain so singleminded in your objections that you deny others hearing anything more than what conforms to your understanding?

Brian, Fellow posters,

I was just reading an article by an American Muslim student on "Islam and the big bang theory":

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch13.html
(2nd half of the article).

We may be all wrong, no god, no big bang, Just transitional growth and understanding for us all, hopefully.

The only thing in existence is change, the only thing that doesn't change, is religious intelligent design. Any thing that doesn't change and adapt within the known universe are illusions, they fall behind and disappears, as all illusions do. Just like ours and former societies, their illusions and will soon disappear. Religions and societies only wish to change within, they neglect what is outside them, until it changes beyond their illusions and leaves them to decay and collapse.

Science will soon discover well within our time, that the big bang is illusion, as god the creator has been shown to be.

This universe may well be a part of many more or less intelligent universes that may interact with us. They may also discover that black holes are really just exits from this dimension to another and that stars are actually the devices that transform things from another dimension into energies of this dimension. Those massive things in the universes that spew forth matter and create stars, could also be importing and transforming energies from other dimensions to matter in this dimension. Why not, prove me wrong scientifically, or via intelligent design.

I think the debate is really about where our intelligence comes from, not the physically changing universe. We will only answer that question, when we either move our intelligence to another dimension, or to nothing. Our scientific approach is the only way forward, as all scientists would accept that they cannot explain the mind, because it is outside our 3rd dimensional senses.

Religion seeks to control the mind, an illusion, because minds can only be controlled, when they don't want to be responsible enough, to be free.

If the suggestion is to teach 'science' as science, including the Darwinian theory of natural selection, I don't have a problem (as a Christian) with this.

IF.... on the other hand, the Darwinian view is EXTENDED and added to and made to suggest that it explains the origin of life, then I have HUGE problems with this.
a) Its speculative and UNscientific.
b) It is just as bad/evil/twisted etc as 'the extremists who want to get at our kids' as one poster said.
c) It involves 'faith'.

I would be MOST happy for 'origins' to be covered in Philosophy/Social studies arena's where ID can be presented as one theory amongst others.

For sylvia,
'The retina is the wrong way around' I'd say .. when you can come up with an eye even a millionth as good as the one we have, then I feel you might be qualified to make value judgements on the eye as it stands.

For those who think 'ID is just the back door for Creationism' I tend to agree. But I don't have a problem with that. The concept of 'Creation' is so massive on a social level, and so important to our sense of being, purpose and reason for existence, that I'm happy with anything moving in that direction.

Without "Creation" we have the barren dark, empty, meaningless, futile, valueless wasteland of secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism and such teachings as those of Jean Paul Sartre.

ID ? Bring it on.

The Alchemist,
Have to agree with you on this point. Quote "I think the debate is really about where our intelligence comes from, not the physically changing universe. We will only answer that question, when we either move our intelligence to another dimension...".

We might think the basic building blocks of natural physical chemistry is constantly changing, but I have a view that it operates in cycles returning to a former state. Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon may combine to form a transient body but at some stage they break down to be independent of that form. They will always be able to be identified in the chemistry composition of that form.

I note most of the opposition is debating 'there is no God', which is an intreaging basis of opposition to intelligent design. Perhaps its because they do not want a defined moral guidance for their mind and behaviour. They prefer not to see design features that demonstrate intelligence, otherwise there might just be a God.

Observe the spider how much brain does she have? Who taught her to weave her web, yet she does it with precision and pattern. When did her mother give her lessons? Who taught the ant to work in community and function for the betterment of their society. How big is their brain?

It appears that only man acts outside the blessing of the whole community, or is not able to recognise intelligent design or observe intelligent order in his world.

A poster said -

"if we restrict the set of possible explanations to exclude design, we are no longer looking for truth"

The search for an explanation is not ultimately done in primary or even secondary schools. Realistically, if a topic is to be taught at these levels, be it religion, science, mathematics, music or law - we must convey the topic as understood by the majority in the field.

Students need to think sure, to debate sure, but I don't expect them to be given complete free reign to come up with an opinion on their own.

If for example I was teaching music for example and a student wanted to explore an alternative form/type - I would say sure do it, consider it, try it. But don't come to my classroom unless you want to learn what I have to offer.

I would not be saying that my personal view is 100% correct, but this is music theory and technique as currently understood. Learn it if you like. Go somewhere else if you like. If you wish to challenge it then I would advise you to learn it first. Understand also that this is the theory/technique that will be used as a basis for entry to other institutions.

Whitewombat, Isn't the sudent asking for your help to understand the other form of music? Is it because you don't understand the other form of music to explain it or is it a matter of you not considering the other music form worthy of theory?

Whitewombat's world sounds restrictive and limited - just like ID.

boaz, generally agree about your point on the teaching of origins, evolution by natural selection makes no attempt to explain the origin of life itself, either scientifically or philosophically, this discussion of origins probably comes from most of evolutions opponents only reading the title.

I do however have to take issue with your assertion that without 'creation', by which I assume you mean an act or a purpose of 'god', we have “a barren dark, empty, meaningless, futile, valueless wasteland of secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism". I guess its a personal perspective, but I believe the complete opposite, the universe without the fatalistic need for a guiding hand (or a smiting fist, depending on where your up to in the books), full of potential and ever expanding horizons, and contrary to your opinion, full of values, morals and ethics, which are made all the more rich by their being our own, the product of ourselves as sentient individuals making use of our primary evolutionary advantage over every other animal on this planet (apart from thumbs), the ability to communicate and in return to emphasise, to see the value of human community both in a physical and altruistic sense.

my concerns with the teaching of id in schools is firstly that it is targeted at children at a critical time of their education and personal philosophical development, a 'soft target' compared to the more difficult task of actually having to engage in serious scientific discussion at a tertiary level.

secondly, and most importantly that the mindset of id and creationism that the answer to a complex problem is reducible to the actions of an unspecified entity, thereby effectively closing a line of enquiry into the nature and form of existence, runs contrary to every aspect of human character. We are at this stage of intellectual development because when faced with complexity, obstacles and the boundary of our own understanding we have pushed through, physically and intellectually.

The mindset of ID is the onset of stagnation, and contrary to the article, is no path to truth of any kind, including spiritual.

I.D. is the antithesis of the search for truth and knowledge, a fantastic and childish notion about things we may never understand. Where scientific enquiry gives one answer but raises two questions, our ignorance is immense.

Why this imperative for easy answers? I.D. rules a line beneath what is known and knowable, and says, "That's it. Beyond lies God"

This is interesting....

Its Not Easy..... responses like yours were not unexpected based on certain 'inflammatory' aspects to mine :) which of course is one reason why I make such.

I observe 3 themes emerging, one from yours and another from various (which you also observe)

1/ Some are trying to turn the issue into 'There is no God'
2/ others are saying, Children are soft targets.
3/ Others are suggesting that ID/Creation will stifle scientific enquiry.

To those arguing 1, please check out some more appropriate thread.

To those arguing 2, We also regard children as soft targets for the PHILOSOPHICAL speculation about origins which seems to be 'part of the package' with General Evolution.

To those suggesting 3, I have to disagree, because there are huge numbers of Christian scientists making such enquiries, and in them we see the wonder of the Almighty, not the denial of His existence. Its not too much to say it 'takes our breath away' at times.

For some such scientists, it all becomes tooooo much.. (no, they don't have nervous breakdowns) and they departs from full time science to bring glory to God as Pastors, church planters etc, which if I may speak from experience has to be the all time most wonderful persuit and incredible adventure in life bar none. (Texts not included, see Bible for details" :)

David Boaz, that there are scientists so overawed by the physical world that they seek meaning through the spiritual does not advance your argument. This debate boils down to whether or not ID should be taught alongside evolution - mysticism or empiricism? Supernatural or explainable? Physical evidence or guesswork? Reproducible experiment or dogma? Things even children could distinguish in the (science) classroom.

Science is a work in progress - we know why it rains, and perhaps one day we'll know more of why the observable world is as it is. In other words the gaps are getting smaller, as they have been since the 17th Century.

If I.D. is to be taught so should all other possibilities. Aboriginal dreamtime stories are equally valid, and much more intuitive. As previous writers have pointed out there are myriad possibilities alongside I.D. and to introduce just one suggests more than an altruistic desire for one's well-rounded education.

Well, that didn’t take long, did it? It was only a few weeks ago that we were subject to ID through its controversial backing by George Bush & co. It’s found it’s way into the Oz Catholic school system already – If it comes close to being introduced into the Oz public school system I’ll be surprised.
As per my comment in the last thread on this subject, ID has no place in the science classroom. It falls in the category of theoretical philosophy and should be promoted as such. I agree that the questions raised by the advocates of ID should be asked – these are the questions that drive humanity, the quest for the unknown. But ID is just that, a ‘question’, it is not a scientific hypothesis in any sense.
I would like to see it introduced into a new core school subject that covers the big questions. Who are we, What are we & where are we heading? without religious or scientific prejudice. It would be a step forward from the primitive public school curriculum that exists now.
For the record, my personal philosophy on this topic is that of the Humanist Movement. Try this-

http://www.kwhm.org/links/hmlinks.cgi

Bennie,
Scientists who are Christans are realists and want to understand how things work and are formed. Christian husbands and wives who have children know how children are formed and how sex works to fulfil that procreation; but they thank God everyday for their child and for the pleasures of that experience. It means they appreciate the wonder of life, it doesnt mean they are living in fantacy land.

Learn the lesson from the spider! Who designed her web? Yes, she did. Who designed her web? Was it a series of millions of trial and errors by previous spiders? The fact is the first one must have got it right otherwise there would be no spiders. The first one got the composition of her web just right so she could eat and procreate and pass on her gene. Amazing the first one got it right! Chance or design? Did she experement with several threads before deciding on the present thread? From what I know of spiders they do not experiment in thread improvement because they do not have that capacity of reasoning. The thread they have has the greatest tensile strength of any known organic fibre. Learn from the spider they got it right the first time they were a spider. I ask was it accidental or was there design?

BOAZ uses the age-old trick of inventing your opponent’s arguments. The actual argument is that creationism is not science and that science classes are not debating, religion or philosophy classes.

Below is a summary of the mostly derisory arguments presented above for teaching creationism in high school science classes:

-- the existence of a spiritual dimension (jeshua)
-- science does not have all the answers (jeshua)
-- otherwise humans are nothing more than animals (realist)
-- Darwinism is a theory (realist)
-- sex shows that Darwinism is false (numbat)
-- plate tectonics and planetary magnetic fields were predictions of creation science (Grey)
-- defence of ‘rational science’ is irrational nonsense (Director123)
-- creationism is the product of inductive reasoning (John I Fleming)
-- Darwinism has some gaping holes (Kapok)
-- frogs turning into princes is a fairy story (rockhound)
-- evolution has not, can not EVER,EVER be proven (numbat)
-- so that Darwinism faces competition (Big Al 30)
-- choice “Creation or evolution - you choose” (jeshua)
-- Darwinism hasn’t been tested in a laboratory, and thus is not a theory (justin68)
-- scientific theoretical knowledge is often simplistic and outdated (justin68)
-- because Darwinism is a religion of the scientific community (justin68)
-- concept of infinity is incomprehensible but underpins science (Crusader)
-- because people (Sylvia) shouldn’t question the “design” of the eye (BOAZ_David)
-- to counter the valueless teachings of Jean Paul Sartre (BOAZ_David)
-- creationism is opposed to atheism (Philo)
-- spiders and ants have small brains but impressive instincts (Philo)
-- spider webs are either by design or by accident (Philo)

These fail because they don't show that either creationism is a science, or that evolution is not a scientific theory. If these people want to know about science (what it is and isn’t) a good start is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science.

Let us look at Darwinism in an important current context. The extent to which the public understand the potential risk of a bird-flu pandemic stems from the biological science taught in schools, in particular, evolution and mutation.

Imagine our preparedness if evolution was considered ill founded dogma.

Like any good scientist, Darwin offered a way for other scientists to falsify his theory. As Brian quite correctly states, Darwin agreed his theory would fail if "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".

My question to proponents of Intelligent Design is, in what way may your theory be falsified?

David Latimer, very good little summary of the posts.
I cannot but think ID proponents are trying to cheat the system.

Simplistically, the 2 theories are essentially the same, but the driver mechanism is different (random chance v intelligent designer). Therefore in any teaching the driving mechanism HAS TO BE discussed since it is defining difference. Any inquisitive mind seeing ID for the first time will ask. Who or what is the driving mechanism?

And the candidates are
– Random mutations.
– Aliens
– Gods…

Theories are put forward all the time but the only ones that should get to the class room are ones that match up to observations and tested as best to our knowledge/capabilties at the time.

So current knowledge is Random mutations do occur and testable. Aliens? not repeatably testable to the best of our knowledge/capabilities. God? not repeatably testable to the best of our knowledge/capabilities.

So we teach evolution. Similar to any other theory until a revised or totally different theory comes along that matches the observations better and can be tested then it is the accepted theory.

So ID proponents should be testing the random mutations and let the results lead to a theory rather than saying “ there is an intelligence” and then saying to the science establishment, YOU prove us wrong. That is just plain faith, not science. I think it shows an inherent weakness because they realise if they start doing the investigations they just may never get around to trying to prove if it is, aliens, or a god of certain persuasion or many gods or what ever.

So the article should be headed - Intelligent Design: Scientists afraid of doing the hard work.

P.S to BOAZ…if you are looking for a meaning to our existence, if you have a kid, just watch them smile when you walk in to the room or see their minds absorb another bit of knowledge each day. Nothing else needed

David Latimer
"These fail because they don't show that either creationism is a science, or that evolution is not a scientific theory."
I dont quite agree with you there, I'll explain below.

sjk
I am glad the issue of falsification has been brought up. This is because I don't believe that Darwinism can be falsified anymore than ID.

Addressing Darwins statement: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".

The point is that it CANNOT be demonstrated, because this is a qualititive statement. Anyone can write a narrative about how a complex organ formed from a cell. I can write a story about how an organ formed from a potato and make it sound quite scientific. How could you falsify it? In reality, its no different to saying "If you can prove in anyway that God didn't formed the organs, than my theory will break down". It sounds nice, but you can't prove or disprove the statement.

The key is you need some repeatable experiment to validate what you're saying to be true science. But we all know this hasn't occurred in ANY theory on the origin of life. This draws on what I said earlier, not only cannot we show an organ evolve in a lab, we cannot even show 1 mutation that results in a gain of information!

So we hear about fossils, dating methods etc. All proponents of each theory take the 'left overs' of lifes beginning, and try to make it fit their theory.

I agree with people in that you cannot prove/disprove God. But evolution is absolutely 100% no different. In fact if you take Big Fish's arguement that mutations are the testible variable, evolution fails miserably because they're happening and none of them seem to be cheating 2nd law of thermodynamics. I don't mind if you have faith that the occasional mutation results in a gain of information, but don't masquarade it as science unless you can prove it.

Yet I do think that to not consider any of these theories scientific because they don't meet these criteria would be silly in the perspective of scientific discovery.

Thats why I think there should be special criteria for theories involving the origin of life that would allow both evolution, ID, among others to be taught in unis and schools.

Can intelligent information exist without an observable physical medium like DNA strands to record it? If the observable physical medium 'evolved' through random processes to manifest intelligent information could those 'random' processes be considered intelligent? These are the kinds of questions you need to consider before dismissing theories like ID as non-scientific or non-sense

Justin86 - you just proved my point....

quoting you "that mutations are the testible variable, evolution fails miserably because they're happening and none of them seem to be cheating 2nd law of thermodynamics"

Mutations happen - tick
cheating 2nd law of thermodynamics - do not need to...

To summarize an important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously

If god did exist, then logically it would either be within our dimensional universe or outside it, in another dimension that would allow that god to oversee its creation.

If god is within this universe and we are made in its image, then god must be the basic elements (spirit) that make up the building blocks of this dimensional universe and they don't change, just unite in varying combinations to change and evolve the universe. The freewill that religion espouses to justify their evil actions within the world, would actually be, freewill for the universe to operate in a state of changing ordered chaos, thus allowing for the wide differentiation of intelligence, entities and energies that abound within it.

If god were outside the universe, then it would be reasonable to assume that god would be a very large thing, so immense that it would dwarf our universe by many many times, to enable god to create and oversee this dimensional universe.

If this latter explanation were true, then according to the size of our planet and the as yet unseen size of our universe, god would see us, the so called intelligent inhabitants of this planet, as either the size of a billionth of a nano, or with his all seeing eyes, ants upon a revolving ant hill. Would god as his followers on earth do, see us as just ants without intelligence, or as beings with a different intelligence to other beings in existence. After all, according to our size, we are really very small in the scheme of things. If god is not within our universe, and created it, then he would be in the past and irrelevant to the future, just like ID, meaningless for what is to come.

Sadly the ID freaks, fail to see beyond their blinkered, narrow minds and see what confronts them in reality, out there into eternity.

Philo. Spiders placed in different environments, evolve their webs until they have one that suits the situation, all life reasons within its dimensional understanding, obseration will show you that.

I think it is good to see Creationism EVOLVING! Darwin would be proud.

What really gets my goat is the deciet used by religious organisations in order to peddle their ideas. ID is clearly a wolf dressed in sheeps clothing. They should know better.

justin86, there are a number of grounds on which evolution may be falsified. For example, in addition to the previous statement, Darwin also wrote:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Do you know of any such species?

I agree with you that ID cannot be falsified (and is therefore not a scientific theory) and Big Fish has explained to you your misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (a common mistake to be sure).

Darwinism is testable and can be falsified. That is hasn't been falsified does not mean it can't be falsified, simply that it has been tested and, up to now, has passed.

Of course, if you can demonstrate how ID can be falsified, then I am sure the scientific community will be willing to test your theory.

DavidLatimer
In terms of inventing arguments are you playing the role of the pot or the kettle today?

The fact that you equate ID with creationism shows your lack of objecitvity.

You also need to understand that taking comments out of context is intellectually dishonest. For instance, my 'argument for teaching creation' is schools was made in the context of Sylvia's remarks. This context shows a clear logically valid argument. Let me spell it out so you can understand it.
ID is not useful (or science) because it makes no predictions.
Predictions are therefore necessary for something to be science/useful
Creation Science has made predictions that have been borne out.
Creation science meets Sylvia's definition of useful/science.
Syvlia's definition is therefore wrong or creation science is useful/science.

My argument was a counter-argument to show that Syvlia's complaints are a self-serving effort that would be discarded when it wasn't convenient for her own bias.

My arguments examples also show that complaints about ID or creation science being science stoppers is historically and evidentially false. Yet the biased evolutionary evangelists still keep using it. What is even more ironic is their repeated references to 'random mutations' as a cause. Randomness is not a cause. To say it is, is irrational nonsense.

ID is indeed the product of inductive reasoning. This is clear from the arguments of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. To argue otherwise is just evidence of the irrational bias of the evolutionary fanatics.

You also equivocate on the term evolution/darwinism. You bird flu example may rely on knowledge of mutations and change of genetic structure (Which nobody here doubts) but this is not the same as particles to people evolution (which is a unique historical claim based on assumption after assumption).

Particles to people evolution is not falsifiable as the host of ad hoc explanations that are used show quite clearly (e.g. Look into the Pax6 Gene http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/05/evolution-is-evolution-science.html)

I would like to thank Swilkie for showing clearly how the Humanist Movement (which is religious) is involved in pushing their worldview in this issue.

The alchemist: For someone who has never seen God. For someone who has never spoken to God. For someone who, evidently, has never studied about God you sure "know" a lot about God eh!
You seem to have a typical evolutionists picture? of God.
As for you creationists who have God "guiding?" evolution, seems that you are a little ashamed of your belief in God so are having two bob each way.
It does say in the Bible, "He who says there is no God is a fool" As God describes Himself as the Creator you two bob each wayers are on thin ice indeed.
alchemist look at nature, look at the heavens, and explain what life is really is. numbat

Brian this would have to be one of the silliest explanation of evolution I've ever read. Unfortunately it's not uncommon, this debate is out of all proportion that it deserves no scientist working in the field entertains ID and nor should anyone being taught the subject. ID is a religious world view held by a small number of religious people mainly American right wing extremist. It contains bad science and bad theology and it's main backers are members of the American extreme religious right who having lost the creationist battle have reinvented themselves and are trying again. Let the science decide what the origin of life is not public opinion or religious dogma.

Let the ID devotees convince the scientific world before arguing their case with the rest of us the fact that they want to do it the other way points to their real agenda. After all we don't teach kids string theory!

alchemist,
your suggestion that "god" would be either in our dimension or in another is paradoxical.
It explicitly says that "god" would be contained. This suggests that "god" is bound by laws of the dimension He inhabits. This suggests higher powers than God. This negates any possibility of Divinity.

"I AM Who AM" (Exodus: one of the early chapters)
God is not "within a universe", but the universe is within God.

Know this:
When it is said that we are made in the image and likeness of God, it means we have an Intellect and a Will (cognition and connation).

numbat,
Saying that evolution is guided by God is not "bobbing each way". It is not in any way contrary to the suggestion that the universe was created.

Which brings me back again, anyone brave enough to suggest a law preventing the occurence of a second Big Bang in your back yard this afternoon?

Kenny,
Behe is a scientist working in the field who thinks ID is correct based on the evidence. There are many others (although still a significant minority). Is your case so weak that you need to make false statements to support it?

"ID is a religious world view held by a small number of religious people mainly American right wing extremist."

Actually kenny, over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct. I wouldn't call that a 'small number'. Why the constant need to overstate your case?

As for ID being religious, you have yet to prove that contention. Simply stating it does not make you case. You need to actually make an argument, not just make bald assertions.

No one hear has any reason to accept your opinion as authoritative or correct, and you have not given any reason for them to do so. The same applies equally to deuc's post of 'basic facts'. Make an argument for your position. That is what discussion is really about. It is in that way that we can actually come to a conclusion about who is wrong and who is right. Surely you think this issue is important enough to discuss to find out the truth?

Is is enlightening to read the avalanch of Posts both for and against Intelligent Design. But permssion to ask a couple of questions.

Has intelligent design been stolen off Aristotle, whose conception of the Great Architect of the Universe, also used by Freemasonry as a deistic interpretation of some sort of Great Mind behind all creation. But not so much as a humanistic-style God writ large in the sky?

Also because intelligent design is so similar to the Great Architect conception which was also taken up early in the Age of Enlightenment by many great thinkers such as Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Voltaire and the French Philosophes, whom incidently did excite the philosophies that helped to found America, but not so much today's American leadership.

Still and all, we could guess that the most important question is, if intelligent design is so much like the deist-style theory that began to evolve early in the 17th century, because at the time it was also part of a scientific doctrine, are these creationists abusing their beliefs pertaining to both old and New Testaments, for example the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden - also concerning the young Jesus and his connection with the Holy Royal Line of King David of the Old Testament beliefs?

Might get a few science fiction fans on the job?

Regards,

George C, WA - Bushbred

grey, can you enlighten us on some of the predictions of 'creation science'? and im not refering to any kind of predictions of events justified after the act, in the style of nostradamus, but rather testable scientific predictions (given ...... then ...... will result) which are repeatable.

The notion that natural selection is not a scientific theory because it isn’t testable is incorrect. The theory is testable and explains the evidence. The theory is directly or indirectly applicable in all biological fields of research.

The straightforward example of this evidence and testing is the concept of resistance to pesticides. Natural selection provides a direct explanation. Creationism does not.

The clearest example of ongoing testing is the various genome projects. These continue to show that DNA is modified along established branches of the evolutionary tree and doesn’t jump across branches. Prior to our understanding of DNA, similar work was done looking at the migration of species across island chains, however genome evidence provides much stronger and measurable support for a common ancestor.

If valid scientifically, creationism should have predicted that some DNA sequences would be revisited in different species across different branches of the evolutionary tree. For example consider a scorpion and a lizard, both living in a dry environment. Intelligent design may be evident in the same DNA sequence assisting the animal to retain water, but not present in ancestors living in other environments. The design parallel would be genetically modified plants. A metaphoric design parallel would be a new car part found in both motorbikes and trucks. Creationists are yet to establish any evidence of this sort.

I looked over the original research on Pax6 (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555) as Grey’s post refers only to a blog. The research is evidence of the genuine work done in testing and understanding the evolutionary process. The blog comes to an unwarranted conclusion as illustrated here: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555/FIG4.

I don’t agree the truth will be found through the unscientific debate in these posts. Nor do I agree that I have been dishonest in my summary of past posts. They are referenced so that they can be readily verified. Grey’s post says “Predictions such as plate techtonics, magnetic field strength of other planets and that the universe had a beginning are all predictions of creation science” and I summarised this as “plate tectonics and planetary magnetic fields were predictions of creation science (Grey)”

Great debate. I love it when Christians and non-Christians alike - be they Muslims or agnostics - gently suggest that we should teach another theory on top of Darwin's anti-aboriginal theory of life. Good for them. Plus, isn't it funny how militant atheists manifest when people suggest that there are a few flaws in their own theories?

Yes, we all know how Bible-believing types are a threat to humanity. If only those silly Christians - say, Sir Issac Newtown, for example -didn't believe in God. How dare he shape modern history and beleive in Christ? And how dare Sir Ernst Chain, F.R.S., Nobel prize winner for penicillin, reject evolution. I mean he should be censored too.

And another thing: This isn't RED RUSSIA. Schools should teach alternative theories. Get over it.

Grey, my apologies if you have already provided this, but this is a long thread to wade through, and the arguments on both sides still haven't moved an inch towards - or away from - each other...

What is your source for this statement?

>>Actually kenny, over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct.<<

I'm guessing USA Today, but I could be wrong.

benji, be a bit carefull mate.

you might be interested to know that RED RUSSIA also rejected evolution by natural selection in favour of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko's version of lamarkianism, as approved by stalin. in their attempt to implement Lysenko's principals they effectivly destroyed their agriculture, biology and medical industrys, leading to fammine and major health problems

Although I'm sure many who claim that the desire to teach only science in science classes is an act of censorship would quickly be revealed as hypocrites if we suggested alternative moral systems and lifestyles be taught in schools, I will talk about one of the few good statements in the article:

"Those who are serious about finding truth can't afford to dismiss any reasonable proposal to find it and they should not embrace any unreasonable proposal."
It *isn't* reasonable to tell kids (who aren't even involved in scientific research) about an unfounded pseudo-hypothesis, thereby implying it is a sensible alternative. Especially not if that involves the standard misrepresentation from ID advocates.

Jose: "Which brings me back again, anyone brave enough to suggest a law preventing the occurrence of a second Big Bang in your back yard this afternoon?"
There's not nearly enough matter/energy in my backyard? Time/space is already spreading?

Grey: "Behe is a scientist working in the field who thinks ID is correct based on the evidence."
It doesn't matter what he thinks, (although even he concedes that ID's use of "theory" would also include astrology) it matters what he can show and he has provided no evidence or arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

"No one hear has any reason to accept your opinion as authoritative or correct, and you have not given any reason for them to do so. The same applies equally to deuc's post of 'basic facts'."
You're right that I haven't given any reasons (in this thread) for accepting those basic points, because anyone with a basic understanding will already know them, and those without can find out fairly easily. If you disagree with a particular point, why don't *you* make an argument for your position. I'm not going to sit here and justify simple concepts unless their validity is sensibly questioned.

These two threads set out much of my reasoning, including what is wrong with ID's irreducible complexity arguments, which you either missed or chose to ignore:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=164
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=167

And I too would like to see what so-called creation science has predicted.

My final post on this topic-
If one cannot see why ID should not be taught in the science classroom, one should improve ones scientific education.
If one is well educated in the scientific disciplines, & wishes to see ID discussed in the science classroom, I ask why?
ID falls into the category of pre-determinism. It is comfortable to believe that our lives are a predetermined plan, that we have an ‘overseer’. It negates social responsibility, that we as individuals are responsible for the past, present & future of the whole. It is a dangerous thing in this regard.

To sum up .....

1/ TEACH EVOLUTION by natural selection as a 'life process' in a science class, NOT as an explanation for the origin of life.
Spell out the limitatons. Do NOT speculate about how it relates to origins in said science class.

2/ TEACH ORIGINS as 'various theories' including ID and 'spontaneous life', but not in a science class. (cultural myths are fine with me)

3/ SPELL OUT the moral implications of EACH view, in a philosopy/social studies/civics class.

There.. all happy now ?

But in a Christian school, we will teach that God created, and teach science only as far as it has gone, not in an adversarial way.

Their seems to be a plethora of articles concerning "mental health".

I figure this is just another one.

Who cares - faith is what matters not proving Darwin wrong and not demanding a load of psuedo hogwash conveniently packaged as "intelligent design" yet lacking in any substance is the answer to anything - except it is simple enough for George Dubya to get his head around - which tells us little or nothing.

I am still faithful to the theory - their was Wolfie Mozart, thus God must exist.

David Latimer,
You mention the bird flu virus can mutate and adapt to become a human flu virus.

1. What new gene not already in existence has been added? I believed it is picking up genetic material found in the common human flu.

2. Isn't it merely a cross breed? That the flu virus already exists in birds but it is already capable of infecting humans, but the threat is if it cross breeds with the common flu virus found already in humans then it becomes a danger to humanity.

3. When will it mutate into other than a virus? This is the dynamic of evolution. Cross breeding of similar species or viruses does not create a new species. This is the claim of evolution!

Quote, "Let us look at Darwinism in an important current context. The extent to which the public understand the potential risk of a bird-flu pandemic stems from the biological science taught in schools, in particular, evolution and mutation.

SWILKIE
don't go yet mate. You seem to suggest we hold a 'hyper predestination' view.

You are confusing 'fatalism' with knowing Christ. We do believe God has a plan for our lives, and for the world.
But that does not in anyway suggest we have less a role in shaping it.

Christ used a number of parables to show this. He showed that "of Him to who'm much is given, much is expected"
The unfaithful servants who just put away the talents they were given, were berated severely. Those who used their talents in creative and beneficial ways were congratulated and rewarded in those parables.

Believing that 'All authorities are from God' does not mean we will vote for a lousy government.

My position on ID is spelt out in the last post above.

>Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 23 October 2005 2:23:59 PM:
>
>"Whitewombat, Isn't the sudent asking for your help to understand >the other form of music? Is it because you don't understand the >other form of music to explain it or is it a matter of you not >considering the other music form worthy of theory?"

Well that may stretch the analogy too far. Lets just say that if a teacher is teaching topic X (eg evolution), a debate on the merits of Y is unwarranted.

Looking at it from the other end, as a professional - time is short, there are many people in the world eager for knowlege. Speaking for myself (and I am impatient), I am not willing to spend much time teaching/mentoring those who are not interested or who want to debate endlessly. Unless of course they are paying exceptional rates.

Response to BOAZ: I am very happy with your summary. Teach science and the scientific method in science class. In English class learn to debate. In religion and/or philosophy class learn about creationism and/or metaphysics. Note in public schools, 30-40 minutes of religious instruction is provided at the primary and junior secondary level by volunteers from local churches/mosques/temples ect..

Response to Philo: I carefully wrote that sentence to make the point that science education is important and relevant in our daily lives. Science has a lot to learn about viruses, but I understand they are subject to evolution and mutation (antigenic drift), but not classified into species. I only recently learnt about antigenic shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigenic_shift) as it's called. You may be interested to know, there are competing scientific theories on the origins of viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#origins). No doubt science teachers have been asked many hard questions about bird flu in recent weeks.

Since we are summarising: I support both religious teaching (and for athiests, humanism) so each of us have morals, values, ethics, community and spirituality. The scientific method is there so we can learn and discover independently of our religous/cultural perspective i.e. so we can agree on some things; in the case of biological change and diversity, slowly work towards agreement.

The offence of "intellegent design" for science supporters like me is that it tries to take advantage of the fragile integrity of science, so to bypass US constitutional restrictions on church and state.

Once again I'm in almost total agreement with Col, only - while I fully concur with his point about Mozart - I can remember a time when Eric Clapton *was* God :)

Yes Col,what intelligent designer invented George Dubwuya?He has trouble completing a sentence.His administration has a panic attack every time he adlibs, since not even he knows what's coming next.

Has it occurred to anyone that our intelligence may only work in this universe.If this designer be from another universe,it would all seem unintelligible to us.We are dealing in the realm of wishful,hypothetical thinking since the universe is a lonely place and our human kind's technology has out stripped our ability to cope.

Let's keep science and ID separate,since we will need the cold hard analysis of science to solve all the problems we have created for ourselves.

Sorry, Brian, but your opening paragraph is a significant distortion of what Darwin proposed. You say his "theory (was) that life forms can and do adapt to meet new circumstances, within limits." What Darwin actually wrote is that life forms vary because of their inherent genetic variability. Some of the variations that occur are better adapted to their environment and these organisms are obviously better suited to surviving and prospering. Other variants are less well adapted to their evironment as a result of their genetic variability and these organisms die out. The term 'survival of the fittest' means that there is no plan or intelligent design in the way that offspring are different from their parents. Random variability resulting from the way that organisms swap genetic material during reproduction and produce unforeseen variations simply results in some individuals that are able to adapt and some that can't.
If people like Brian Pollard want to see ID taught in our schools, it can be taught in religious classes as a possible article of faith for school children to consider. But ID is not science and it is a corruption of scientific principles for people like Brian to pretend that it is science.

Note – When I refer to creation science I'm not referring to ID and vice versa.

DavidLatimer

Creation Science includes natural selection and mutation, so it copes quite well and has a direct explanation. Perhaps you should try to understand what you are attempting to criticize.

Looking at comparative genomics and saying ‘See, this proves we evolved from lower apes’ or other such nonsense is begging the question. You are assuming that similarity implies close evolutionary relationship.

Re Pax6, you have no given any refutation of any of the points or conclusion, you have merely stated that you disagree. Make an argument, otherwise you statements are useless. The article that itself agrees with me that octopus/human eye evolution WAS considered a case of convergent evolution because of distant ‘evolutionary relationship’. The genetic data made them change their existing ad hoc explanation to a different ad hoc explanation. Let me make this clear as a science educator. THAT IS NOT HOW YOU DO SCIENCE! Ad Hoc explanations are pseudo-scientific crap.

You may have posted my exact words, but you took them out of their context and put them into your own different context. I have pointed this out and you ignore it. I can only surmise that your lack of objectivity is due to inherent bias.

You continue to work under the misapprehension that science is metaphysically (I.e. religiously) neutral. This is obviously not the case as scientific assumptions and theories have metaphysical implications. For instance, just look at how Einstein and Hubble were dismayed at the metaphysical implications of some of their findings. You seem to want your idea that morality and religion do not really have anything to do with objective reality taught. That is not neutral either.

A question for everyone. If evolutionary theory has not already shown conclusively that it’s mechanism’s can account for irreducibly complex features then why is it commonly accepted as the explanation for said features?

Re: Creation science’s predictions. Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions that have been successfully made? Will it change your opinion of creation science one iota?

Sorry numbat, “For someone who, evidently, has never studied about God “, very wrong. I am not an evolutionist, materialist, nor a humanist, my philosophy accepts all reasonable things that can be qualified or quantified. From a materialistic view, I believe that science is much closer to fact than ID and has produced the means to do what we are doing now, utilising technology. Explain technology as a non evolving reality.

Who designed the designer. If you have a beginning, then what started the beginning. You need to explain what the material elements of the universe were formed from and where the designer and those materials came from. You should be able to do that if as the religious say, they talk to god and he talks to them. As chosen ones, he will tell you the substance, beginings and quanifiable evidence of his plan, so that you can convince us all, won't he.

When ID can solve that, then you may be able to say, it is a reasonable concept. All concepts like our time and space, are really just illusions when you look at the time frame of the universe. They help us to gauge our reality. In what way you could say, that ID helps us see a quantifiable reality.

If the designer were intelligent, then would it not have removed aspects of violence and cruelty from the “own image” design, or is what humans are, a truthful image of the designer.

How does ID explain the designers apparent plan that is destroying the ecology of this planet.

How does ID explain why the designer determined that humans were the most intelligent, considering somes approach to life and living on this planet. Would not an intelligent loving designer have chose one of the more placid, living in harmony with nature species

BOAZ David

“But in a Christian school, we will teach that God created, and teach science only as far as it has gone, not in an adversarial way.”

See BD the problem is in that little sentence. Some people want ID taught in schools in parallel to science and equal to science. People cannot have it both ways. In Christian schools the argument becomes will be we must teach god as creator but then we must also teach other religions creationism and science founded evolution equally. So you will see God pitted against aliens etc as the creator.

1)"Explain technology as a non evolving reality."
Technology is an extension of human knowledge. Human knowledge develops over time (discoveries etc) and thus technology improves.

2)"Who designed the designer."
If the designer was designed, who designed the designer of the designer? And the designer of the designer of the designer and so on?
The whole point is, there is one uncreated designer. An unmoved mover.

3)"You need to explain what the material elements of the universe were formed from and where the designer and those materials came from."
The designer, as above, did not "come from" anywhere. "I AM Who AM" (Exodus). The material elements of the universe where created (out of nothing). They began existing by virtue of an act of the Omnipotent Will which created them.

4)"If the designer were intelligent, then would it not have removed aspects of violence and cruelty from the “own image” design."
Human beings created in the "Image and Likeness of God" means that we have an Intellect (cognition) and a Will (connation).
The aspects of voilence and cruelty are due to the disordered nature of human beings. This disordered nature is resultant from the loss of original priviledges. This loss is accounted for in Genesis (the same book you got the "Own Image" concept from).

Just to clarify for those who misinterpret:
When I said "the disordered nature of human beings" this does not mean we were made with a disordered nature. We were made with an ordered nature and then this was lost through a free act of disobedience. The order of God being above Man was given the flick and the result: The man rebels against God and Man's nature becomes likewise disordered.

sjk: You ask for inter-dependancy,
Try a plant in WA which can ONLY be pollenated by one, just ONE! certain insect (wasp?). This flower appears to this insect as a female, so he does what any male would do he tries to mate with it - the flower - and it doing so pollenates the flower.
Then moss and lichen must be together to survive.
A certain bird will enter the open mouth of a meat eating crocodile to clean its, the crocs, teeth. Yes the crocodile waits for this bird with a wide open mouth.
Then there is a fish that cleans parasites from a number of different fish which would normally make a meal of this cleaner.They take parasites from the mouth, skin and the gills,that's inside the gills.the fish with the parasites go to where these cleaners are and wait their turn.
evolution - what utter dribbling tripe believed by twits. numbat

ID is religious creationism dressed up as science.

Most of the so called scientists that Mr. Pollard sites are connected in one way or another to the Discovery Institute, an American Conservative Christian Think Tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

This institute has developed a strategy to discredit Evolution with the aim of replacing it with religious creationism in US public schools. Like Mr Pollard’s article, the strategy is to create in the public’s mind the impression of controversy around the theory of evolution when no such controversy exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

The idea that complex structures need a Designer is not new. William Paley in the 19thC used the argument of a watch and watchmaker to infer the existence of God, then along came Darwin and showed another way that complex structures could come to be.

The only difference between ID and Paley's ideas are that ID supporters pretend it is not about God but an Intelligent Designer. Also instead of worrying as much about complex macro structures like eyes, the modern ID advocate points to complex biochemical structures like DNA as evidence of a creator. But in essence it is the same argument and just as flawed.

Just because you can't imagine how something evolved over millions of years doesn't mean it can't, it just means your imagination is up to the task. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml

There is no scientific academy in the world that gives any credence to the claims of ID. Despite ID been around for many years there are almost no peer reviewed papers on ID. Have a search through PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
And see how many you can turn up.

There is no way that ID can be viewed as scientific therefore it should not be taught in science classes in our schools. Scripture classes yes, science classes no.

For those wishing to read up a bit more ID, here's a page with links to articles by one of the main ID advocates Michael Behe, it also has links to scientific reviews of Behe's work and ID in general
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Pericles – Yeah, the USA/CNN/Gallup poll was the one I was thinking of…

Deuc – On behe - Why do people continue to take comments out of their context, which was in light of Kenny’s comment that no scientist working in the field entertains ID. I have shown this comment to be obviously false. You may not like Behe’s inductive arguments, but that is irrelevant to the point being made.

You continue to make authoritative statements about what is a ‘basic point’ without backing it up. You are the one putting forward the claims, so you are required to back them up. If you want to withdraw all your claims as being unsupported that is fine, but until then, the burden of proof is on you. This is especially true since the claims you are making bear directly to the discussion in question on teaching ID as a competing explanation to common descent evolution.

“These two threads set out much of my reasoning, including … which you either missed or chose to ignore:”
Laugh. You’re right. I should have trolled through every previous article’s comments to find your reasoning. I’m sure you do the same for every comment you respond to here. Please. Don’t make such obviously ludicrous demands in an attempt to cast me in a bad light.

Swilkie – Predeterminism is more the domain of materialism (It is a logical necessity if matter/energy is all that exists). Only in theism/pantheism is there any hope of things not being determined.

Alchemist – If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is probably a duck. The pretense you put forward is dismantled by looking at your epistomology. Your disdain for religion is well known, especially Christianity. Your bitterness is saddening and I pray you can let go of the pain that drives it.

Since Grey has invoked my name in vain, I will add another comment to this very circular thread.

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is probably a duck"

You're talking about ID and "creation science", Grey... aren't you?

"Science educator" indeed... would that be home science, creation science, or science fiction?

"Don't make such obviously ludicrous demands in an attempt to cast me in a bad light."

Get over yourself Grey, my post about irreducible complexity in one of those threads was a direct response to your comment three posts above it, a thread in which you subsequently posted twice more. You either missed it or chose to ignore it, that's yet another "basic fact". If you must, blame me that facts aren't to your liking, but don't project on to me your silly intentions.

I will not waste my time going over every little thing in detail without good reason, which includes explaining to those unwilling to learn. Here are some more basic points I will assert without justifying: the Earth is roughly spherical and there are many many vehicles called "cars" on its surface. The burden is not on me to demonstrate things that have already been demonstrated many times before, and for which there is consensus.

If you disagree with any of my points, quit dodging and say why. What you're doing now is no better than a saying "nah-uh".

GREY states "Looking at comparative genomics and saying 'See, this proves we evolved from lower apes' or other such nonsense, is begging the question. "You are assuming that similarity implies close evolutionary relationship".
I agree with Grey. Do the Evolutionist posters claim that humans evolved from apes? If so, why do we still have apes? Surely they should have all become human beings?

Big Al 30
most evolutionists don't think we evolved from apes. We think that apes and us have a common ancestor.

Just to correct the record:
- I should have said “30-40 minutes per week” in my post of 24/10/05 11:50pm
- I am misquoted in Grey’s post of 25/10/05 10:52am

“If so, why do we still have apes?” Evolution provides an explanation for biological diversity. It says that over Earth’s history the number of species has greatly increased. For a new species of ape to appear, some sort of separation or migration would have happened eg from Africa into Asia. I am not familiar with specific theories on apes.

Grey is claiming that researchers at the Japanese ‘National Institute of Genetics’ do not know how to do science. The claim is based upon Grey’s experience as a science educator and that the researchers modified their “adhoc explanation” to cope with the results of the research which genetically compares the octopus and human eye. Read the opening abstract here: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555

It is obviously accepted that creationism is not falsifiable (you cannot prove it wrong.) This research is sited by Grey, via a blog, to claim that evolution is equally not falsifiable. The key is the diagram: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555/FIG4. The topology of the evolutionary tree must conform to previous research, which is sited in the explanation. The numbers must show that the number of conserved genes decreases as we follow down the tree. Large discrepancies between this research and other research (ie an inability to create a consistent evolutionary tree) would falsify the theory of evolution.

My view is that the ‘National Institute of Genetics’ do know how to do science and that this research is amazing and helps us understand our biological history in a reliable way.

Hello BOAZ. This thread is a little bit a waste of time for my liking; as mentioned above, nether the two shall meet!
I agree my comment about ID could be taken a little terminally. I did not direct it at people with maturity & religious faith.
The danger lies in placing narrow, predeterministic views in the minds of our school children. The science classroom is a place for the well-supported theories (science acknowledges that there is no fact) of the physical world, & the tools associated with them. It would be a highly distracting, out of context inclusion.
My prediction is that if ID were to be taught wholesale in junior public school, more 'marginal learners' will switch off & tend away from science & lessen their respect for the education system. We will have a poorer education system when we need improvements.
Why should more 'all encompassing' ideas be presented under the banner of science? Surely their place is (as suggested above) Religion & metaphysics class (for want of a better name).
Try these links-

http://www.humanisten.ch/hi/front/index.php?lang=en

http://www.materiales-mh.org/idiomas_in.htm

http://www.humanistparty.org.uk/links.htm

I quote what Arjay said, "Let's keep science and ID separate,since we will need the cold hard analysis of science to solve all the problems we have created for ourselves." I would think most of the physical problems we have on this planet have been caused by experiments with science produced products. We thought they were the answer to another problem only to create side effects so we now needed new science to correct what we had created.

Australia's former leading industrial Chemist Alexander Boden developed DDT [I worked for him for 12 years], which was to be the answer to all crop pesticides. He spent the end of his life endeavouring to correct the mistakes he had made with environmental damage.

I find now that most of the human problems are mental and spiritual and science tries to deaden these pains by chemicals, when what is needed more is good relationships, and close friendships. Hardly science, more like religion

Thanks Taffy, but the whole idea of a common ancestor producing two distinct species sounds a bit shaky. Is this where the "Missing Link" comes in?

I thought George Dubwuya was the missing link.
It just proves to me that people will believe what they want to believe no matter what the scientific facts.

I saw a documentary the other day on on crop field geometric patterns.The believers flew into a violent rage attacking the human creators of this phenomena because they wanted to believe that aliens are visiting our planet.Their source of power and credibility was being stolen by these damn crop artists.

I hope that there is some form of greater consciousness however I don't see the traditional religions as a trustworthy source of facts or ethical teachings.The covering up of paedophilia has destroyed any crediblity they had.

Intelligent Design is just a back door attempt to link religion to the tried and tested rigors of science.

For such a perfect and powerful being,god has produced a lot of shoddy religions.In the last 40 yrs we have seen the concept of god go from hell fire and brimstone to the loving and caring one of today.Well which is it?Is god suffering from a personality disorder?

In truth, god can be whoever we want him/her to be.Our real dilemma is that belief in god in the past has kept a lid on our excesses and maintained morality in the masses while the elite kicked up their heels.We can't have the masses falling off the tracks since no work will be done and the birth rate will plummet.There is also an economic and survival imperative here too.That is the real dilemma for us all today.Can we have morals and ethics without the concept of god to keep us all in line?This is why we are seeing the rise of the religious right.People are no longer scared of god and our societies are in moral decline.ID is just an attempt to give religion credibility once again by having it taught with science.

Grey, I can see you are not taking this seriously.

Me: "What is your source for this statement: 'Actually kenny, over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct.' I'm guessing USA Today, but I could be wrong."

You: "Pericles – Yeah, the USA/CNN/Gallup poll was the one I was thinking of…"

So, it would appear that you simply dreamed up the statistic. Am I right? Can you give us one reason to take you in the least bit seriously, when you simply invent stuff to suit yourself?

Swilkie,
If you were to teach the amazing features of natural Creation like the things David Attenburg [spell?] without the evolutionary line, I know my 5 year old grandson would be captivated. He attends Kindergarten in a religious Private school, last term in science he studied the planetary system and concepts of space exploration, this term he is studying energy in its various forms. Science fascinates him, yet he knows nothing of evolution. He is taught to worship God for an amazing intelligent Creation.

I note you say, quote, "My prediction is that if ID were to be taught wholesale in junior public school, more 'marginal learners' will switch off & tend away from science & lessen their respect for the education system. We will have a poorer education system when we need improvements."

No wonder parents and teachers are choosing Private Religious schools in droves.

Swilkie
Quote "My prediction is that if ID were to be taught wholesale in junior public school, more 'marginal learners' will switch off & tend away from science & lessen their respect for the education system. We will have a poorer education system when we need improvements."
Actually mate you are dead right. When creationism was first taught in Queensland schools the brightest kids saw through it. They handed in papers arguing against creationism. The teachers response? The students were given more, & more & still more homework to convince them to come to the teachers pre-ordained conclusions. NOTE: the students had already shown that they completely understood the concept of creationism, they just rejected it.
One teacher even told one of these students that he [the student] had to choose between his intellect & his faith. The kid came home turned to his mother & told her "If choosing God means getting rid of my ability to think then I'm no longer interested in God!!"
Conclusion: All children suffer when creationism is taught, either that or they learn to play the game, keep their thoughts hidden & give the teacher the politically correct line. Better known as hypocracy. What a lovely way to teach children morality.

Philo: Congratulations on having a bright and inquiring grandson. You must be very proud of him and I'm sure that everyone here wishes him the brightest future.

Based upon my NSW educational experience this debate concerns high school science education, so "junior public school" probably means junior high school, years 7 to 10. I don't believe that I was taught anything about evolution in primary school. I remember a talking with a kid in year 6 about "eggs from space"; a imaginative discusion but not aware of the concept of evolution at all. Maybe we learnt about dinosours. Maybe these days it's different?

Maybe we are arguing about 2 belief's that are being challenged. One a materialist belief and the other a belief in God. This is where the real discussion should be on rather then whether ID should be taught as part of science. Science without values can be destructive. So maybe the way forward is to see how God and Science can live together in harmony then be opposed to each other. I can't see any problem here as I am a scientist and I believe in God. Spirituality is reported to be of interest to 80% of the College population and Spirituality is being introduced into curriculums especially in medical schools - 50% of US schools. This maybe the way forward rather then the split that is seen in this discussion. Just a thought.

An odd thing about this debate is that science is characterised as being a search for truth. In reality, science makes no such pretence, because the only way that a scientific theory could be established as "true" is by comparing it with something else (presumably something not scientific) which is known to be.

Science is a search for precise and predictive descriptions, or models, of the way the world works. Its theories are proposed models. They get tested repeatedly. Some work, and are retained, and other fail, and are junked. Those that work provide a short-cut to finding ways of making things that behave as we want them to. We need only look at our modern world to see that this approach has proved to be of immense value. But scientific theories are not the "truth", and nor does science claim that they are.

This makes a nonsense of ID's proponents' attempts to insert ID into the science class room on the grounds that it represents a possible truth about the world. The only discipline that claims to offer such a truth is religion, and religious instruction classes are therefore where ID belongs.

Sylvia.

Mr Behe, his contemporaries and the authors of the Wedge Document would be well pleased to see the heat that this thread has generated.

One of their objectives is to displace the notion of evolution and materialism with a " god made the world and the angels and the saints " kind of cethechism that was beaten into me by the nuns and brothers so very long a go.

It would seem the five year plan of the Discovery Institute is well on track if not ahead of schedule.

But this debate goes much further than merely putting ID up against the concept of evolution it unerpins a world veiw that the old testament, its laws , its customs and practices is the way to go.

The ID propsition is little more than sand thrown in our faces to distract us from the main game, it's a vangaurd at best - dont be fooled by justification of ID - faith is good but it is neither truth, nor science nor based on fac

Grey, I dislike all ideologies that seek to impose their fallacies on others via whatever means they can, including violence. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want, it is when it effects others that the right becomes a wrong and thats religion, a wrong. The history and current approach of religions around the world is evidence enough, to dismiss it is as the rantings of those in the grip of a negative psychological mutation.

Then we get the excuse that humans have free choice to destroy whom or whatever they wish for their own self gratification, without penalty, because their god will forgive them of their sins in the end. So god hasn't a term called responsibility, and I doubt that god has a conscience, as it allows so many demonic acts to be carried out by its followers and in its name.

I am not a scientist, but can you explain how viruses evolve to suit their required breading requirements. But ID would call it mutation, pretty smart mutation, we can't cope with it. Some one said that technology is not evolution, but that it improves, isn't improvement an evolution in itself.

All that religion can come up with is excuses. Blame it on others, we are not to blame, its everyone else. Typical of the inept. Don't pray for me Grey, there are enough of you praying as it is and look at the world as a result of that, very positive response from your god. If ID and religion were true, then they would be expressing it as their god supposedly wants, rather than as they do now, but its not your fault is it, its others.

When they are confronted by the complete hypocrisy of their beliefs, or the historical evidence that shows what they really are, the religious disappear. That is most notable with the muslims at the moment, they say something, are questioned, and they disappear completely, the christians just try to avoid it or go to another thread to repeat themselves with the same result, more failures to explain.

Pericles – I have no idea what you are talking about. If you bothered to check the gallup poll of October 13, you would see the question asking “Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings” to which respondents answered 53% for creation, 31% for God guided evolution. Both of these are consistent with ID. Perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing out unsupported accusations if you want other people to take you seriously.

DavidLatimer – “I am misquoted in Grey’s post of 25/10/05 10:52am” Still continuing with assertions but not arguments I see.

Re: Pax6. I am claiming that the original Ad Hoc explanation of convergent evolution in the eye of human’s and octopi was changed on the basis of findings about the pax6 gene to another Ad Hoc explanation. The article clearly documents these changes, although they authors are oblivious to the ad hoc nature, proceeding on the assumption of common descent evolution being true (Begging the question). The Ad Hoc nature of these explanations quite clearly shows them to be pseudo-scientific. As Karl Popper in his autobiography said, common descent evolution is not falsifiable, but a metaphysical framework for other theories.

If you want to talk about Fig4, please simply point out which organism is the common ancestor from which octopi and humans got the pax6 gene and the evidence of it. I.e. What other evidence is there that a common ancestor had the pax6 gene other than that is required to explain current findings that were not expected? Notice also how the common ancestors between the different creatures are arbitrary in this diagram. As all of them have less genes than the octopi related to camera development (and having less is an artefact of their method) it is possible to construct a tree with almost any values.

Your appealing to authority about whether they know how to do science is just another logical fallacy.

“It is obviously accepted that creationism is not falsifiable”. More unsupported assertions. Obviously, according to the survey mentioned above, your assertion is false.

When a scientist says that they believe a scientific theory this is not the same sort of belief that a religious person holds in their creator.

Believing in a scientific theory means that the theory holds up to a number of criteria, that there is evidence for the theory. The Theory of Evolution does this so scientists believe it to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

Many People, including scientists, have a belief in God, but this is not the same type of belief as a scientist has in a theory. Most believers don’t go around trying to prove the Theory of God, and try to back it up with physical evidence. They have faith that their belief is true. They don’t need or require proof of their creator like a scientist requires proof to believe that a theory holds to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Because we are talking about two types of belief it is possible for scientists to be religious and religious people accept scientific theory. Two separate systems of belief which say little about each other cause no conflict.

The problem comes where religious people try to use science to support their belief systems or atheists who try to use science to disprove people’s belief in God. To put it mildly both groups are using the wrong tool for the job.

ID is the latest attempt by some fundamental Christians to justify their religious belief via science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

As I touched on earlier another misunderstanding in this forum has been the use of the term theory. The scientific use of the term, as in the Theory of Evolution, differs markedly from its common usage. I quote:
“There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Characteristics

So the Theory of Evolution is not just speculation or conjecture, “just a theory” as one poster wrote, but a large body of knowledge backed by evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

Big al- Thanks for the support, but understand broad evolutionary theory can explain a single population splitting into two such as apes splitting into humans and apes. However, don’t listen to people who say that our common ancestor (if evolution was true) was not an ape. It would have been classified as a lower ape.

Deuc –You misunderstand. I have no interest in going over old posts every time you make unsupported assertions. I doubt any other readers here do either. Even if you had one post addressing the idea of irreducible complexity, that does not address the other claims you made. In fact, looking over your post, your understanding of IC is badly skewed and as it has not been shown that IC systems can arise by evolution (this is just assumed by people like you) then the logical induction to make is that of intelligent design.

Your ideas of what constitute ‘basic facts’ is nonsense. Notice how simple observation supports both your examples. No hypothesis is required to support them. So you make a category mistake by claiming this is analogous to your ‘facts’. The poll above indicates 53% of americans disagree outright with your ‘basic facts’. Your facts are merely attempts to bluster and bully without providing a real argument. Keep repeating them. The public is noticing just how shaky the claims are because people (like you) do not make arguments to support their claims. You’re doing ID and creation science a favour every time you don’t make an argument.

Lets look at one of your basic facts to speed the process of noticing how empty your claims are
“There is evidence that things spontaneously come into existence.”
David Hume said “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”. Your basic fact is a logical absurdity, worse than magic, and would mean our universe is chaotic and irrational, and science would be impossible.

Alchemist: It sounds suspiciously like you want to impose on me your ideology about everyone having a right to believe what they want? You mentioned hypocrisy?

Big Al 30
A common ancestor producing two species is actually a simple concept and not shaky at all.

Consider any species let us call it ML (missing link). It is a relatively successful species and spreads out to cover a large area. Then through environmental change (eg, Ice age) or geological change (eg, continental drift) populations of this species get separated preventing the sharing of genes between populations.

Because of the differing environments faced by these populations, different gene mutations will result in differing successful descendents of ML in each population. Darwin saw examples of this in the Galapagos, where finches on different islands had different shaped/sized beaks which resulted from natural selection driven by the differing environment on the different islands.

The Theory of Evolution predicts that given enough time the differing populations will evolve into different species. So one species can evolve into several differing species given the right conditions and enough time.

Of course my use of a large area in the above example doesn’t have to be that large; two valleys separated by a mountain range will suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution#Natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium

For an overview of Human Evolution see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens

jeshua,
said that God and Science can live together in harmony. The best example of this that I know of is the person who first proposed the Big Bang Theory (he didn’t call it this, one of his greatest critics did), the Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaire. He was also an astronomer and an amazing mathematician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

My opinion is that both can co-exist, just not in the same class room (or this forum by the look of things).

Grey,
Currently a number, lets say 45% (Gallup poll,) of Americans believe in Creationism. Before Darwin it would have been closer to 100%. So the number of people that appear to believe in Creationism has declined. If you go back a couple of thousand years ago close to 100% of the world’s population believed that the world was flat, now how many do?
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

Ignorance is bliss, scientific understanding takes hard work. Unfortunately people are lazy.

Jaffy, I agree that scientific theory is based on facts. However I disagree that belief in God is not based on facts. The whole Bible is evidence of God's dealing with people. The church is evidence of God's dealing with people. The belief of millions is evidence of personal experience of God's dealing with people. This is personal experiential evidence replicated millions of times and there is no stronger evidence then that. It is not laboratory evidence but experiential evidence. There are other sources of evidence in anthropology, archaeology and other sciences that prove what the Bible has recorded. So the belief is not just a fantasy or a delusion but based on facts. In that sense belief in God can be considered as a science. Science as a discipline just proves what God has created and this is where ID comes in.

grey, thank you, your grouping of the 51% creationism + 33% god/evolution finnaly confirmed what some of us have been saying, that id is nothing but creationism trying on a poorly fitting science coat in an attempt to find some validity.

actually you should be a bit carefull, that 51 percent believe that humans were created in exactly the form we are today according to the biblical version (coinsiding with the 48% who believe the earth is less than 10,000yrs old). this in fact runs in contradiction to the form of id that its advocates are suggesting should be taught in schools, which runs closer the the 'guided evolution', where the designer does the big stuf, like specisisation, and which is delibeatly not specific on the nature or identity of the designer.

so explain how the 51% literal creationists view is consistent with the 33% guided evolution, when one is a cristian creation story and the other is at least pretending to be nondenominational.

actually your hypocracy is begining to get a bit offensive. case in point, you berate another contributer about backing up statements:

"You continue to make authoritative statements about what is a ‘basic point’ without backing it up. You are the one putting forward the claims, so you are required to back them up. If you want to withdraw all your claims as being unsupported that is fine, but until then, the burden of proof is on you. "

while at the same time refusing to quailify your claims about the predictions and achievements of creation science (whatever that is), saying instead that you would 'fail to convince us'. well at least your honest, for none of your arguments have been in the least convincing, or even as i have allready suggested, consistent.

back on topic. boaz, i would agree with your position and am happy for id to be disscussed as a philosophy. my only concern with your position that christian schools teach what they like is that those children could be at a disadvantage in tertiary science education.

"Deuc -You misunderstand. I have no interest in going over old posts every time you make unsupported assertions."
Who's asking you to? I'm not using them to justify my points here, (as I've said I won't bother doing that without good reason) but they are resources that are available to those who wish to know.

You say my understanding of IC is skewed, so tell me why. I stated how evolution can produce (my understanding of) IC, no assumption there. And that would be a deduction, not induction, and it doesn't follow anyway. It is fallacious to say that a (claimed) failure to show one thing implies the contrary unless the thing to be shown would necessarily exist. Furthermore, it would be a false dichotomy to claim it must be evolution or ID. A different process not involving intelligence, or perhaps not involving design, could potentially cause it.

Well hypotheses are supportees, not supporters, but very few of my *points* need or are capable of a hypothesis either, eg. "evolution isn't about how life began". Point is that they are easily known, obvious or elementary, and things that I consider to be prerequisite knowledge for the discussion; and hence not worth examining unless sensibly challenged.

The poll: first, who cares what 53% of whomever thinks? Unless they're biological scientists I wouldn't necessarily expect them to have a basic understanding of evolution, and I certainly wouldn't expect the general population of America to know it. Secondly, that 53% are apparently young-earth creationists, so it's not like many of them will know much about evolution. Finally, there's not a thing on my list that is in direct conflict with "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." (The closest is #5 and silly as you may consider it, there are those that accept evolution is well supported and don't think it happened.)

"Lets look at one of your basic facts to speed the process of noticing how empty your claims are"
'bout time.

Wow OMG, David Hume said something, it must be true. Seriously though, it's also silly/fallacious to use a philosopher's response (I could stop here) to those who were mistakenly taking his epistemological examination of causation as an attack on the very idea of causation (IIRC). Point of interest: Hume made many criticisms against the design argument, who created the creator etc. Effect with no cause doesn't rule out science, cause with no effect would. Although even then it would have to happen in a manner that was deleterious before it would mean complete preclusion.

Temporary elementary particles form naturally in pairs all the time, only to annihilate each other shortly afterwards (except maybe for black holes & Hawking radiation). This process has observable repercussions, such as the Casimir effect. I won't claim it is as solid scientific fact, but there *is* evidence. It'd be better for the topic if you dealt with the top half of the list. Next!

And to others: we are apes, just like we still are mammals and vertebrates.

Jeshua

Umm, Is the bible fact?

No matter what religion you are today, there is a common underlying source of ideas and these ideas are what have come down through history. Therefore all religions have certain things in common and have all borrowed their current ideas and doctrines from older religions.

Ancient lore general worshipped the sun. If the sun, which is the source of all life failed to come up the next morning people would not have lived long and ancient people knew this. The Sun invigorates you with it's energy and causes crops to grow. The Sun gives up it's life force to provide warmth and food etc. So it could be said that the Sun of God gives it's life up for US and it is the TRUE SAVIOR for it has risen-"Risen Savior". Ancient people would track the Sun on the "Sun dial", and as it still does today, the Sun travels South until the Winter Solstice when it cold and harsh, representing death and the Sun would stop "ON THE SUN DIAL FOR THREE DAYS” and on December 25th, the Sun would be said "To be BORN AGAIN" on the CROSS OF THE ZODIAC" after having died for three days. This is when the Sun begins it's annual journey back to the Northern Hemisphere.

The Ancient calender also started at a different time. It began in Virgo and ended in leo, (Sphynx has the head of a Virgin and the Body of a Lion). When the Sun of God was re-born, it was in the Constellation of Virgo, so it was said "Born of a Virgin". The Sun is the "Eye of God" or "Eye of Horus". Ra was the Sun God in Egypt. His full name was Amen Ra. That is why we say "A-men" after our prayers. The Egyptians knew this and all of the Egyptian beliefs and customs are built into our society secretly by the Freemasons.

ITS NOT EASY BEING....

your positive comments are appreciated. I wish to underline a few things though.

While I accept Science to be taught in Science class-rooms, I emphasize that it should not speculate on origins unless it also includes 'other' speculations. Its fair to use the observation/experimentation/conclusion method, but this cannot be applied (unless I'm mistaken) to show the actual verification of new species emerging. Observation thus far, shows only adaptation within species.(some1 correct me if wrong here)

The point made by Taffy on this is actually quite speculative. It projects from the known to the assumed/unkown.

So, I would accept "Science" being taught as Science and not speculation on origins. (unless ID is also mentioned)

I accept 'ID' to be taught in a more social studies/philosophy/civics class, (but in that context, may as well go the whole hog and teach Creation). where I again emphasize that the moral implications of belief/non-belief should be clearly spelt out, citing various influential philosophers such as Neitchze,Sartre, Locke, Hume, even Marx etc along the way.
I would add on more, (The late and very great) Francis Schaeffer, probably not well known by many, but very good in my opinion.

...and I thought I'd summed up :)

ooops, sorry boaz, must have missread your earlier post. i assumed that 'But in a Christian school, we will teach that God created, and teach science only as far as it has gone, not in an adversarial way' meant that you were proposing ID be taught as science at christian schools. my bad, got a bit carried away.

Surely we’ve heard enough of Grey’s complaint that nobody else is properly arguing. Let’s put an end to it:

Sylvia says: “What can I do with ID? It appears to make no predictions that I can use, or test” (16/10). Grey replies: “if making successful predictions is ALL THAT YOU NEED to be science, then creation theory is science too. Predictions such as plate techtonics, magnetic field strength of other planets and that the universe had a beginning are all predictions of creation science”.

Several posters then explain the importance of prediction in science: Philo (21/10), Justin86 (22/10) and Scout (22/10). Grey’s follow up (24/10) ironically says the point about prediction is “a self-serving effort that would be discarded when it wasn't convenient”.

But this was not discarded. “[What are] some of the predictions of 'creation science'? asked Itsnoteasybeing (24/10) and so did Deuc. I explain how predictions help validate theories as science (24/10). Grey’s response is ‘Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions that have been successfully made?’ (25/10)

Yes, Grey. It would matter.

As Sylvia says “Science is a search for precise and predictive descriptions” (26/10). Taffy also refers to “prediction” (26/10) and Itsnotseasybeing wonders why Grey is “refusing to qualify [his] claims about the predictions”(26/10)

So what’s Grey referring to? It’s probably this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp. In summary, God turned water into planets (Genesis 1:1-11) and this generated planetary magnetic fields. Tracking the decline of these fields suggests a universe <10,000 years old and certain predictions for the magnetic fields of other planet are said to be confirmed by later Voyager missions. Evolution proved impossible?

But theories should also be tested: A universe where light is created on the first day, would make only those stars within 10,000 light years visible. Creationists have theories around this too. Hence if we accept creationism in the classroom, we’d also need to teach creationist astronomy and/or creationist physics. Same for geology.

Conclusion: Grey is declining to argue and being a hypocrite about it. Now we know why. ID would be exposed as the virus to rip apart school science.

Well said David Boaz,you're a man of uncommon sense.

If there is a God we will never have absolute proof in this existence,since to know for sure would not entail faith or courage; and thus life in a spiritual context would have no purpose.The best that believers can hope for is for unexplained anomilies in life that do point to a higher consciousness.Einstein alluded to this but not even he could say for sure.

Science explains the relationships and laws that govern interactions in our world; but cannot explain the essence of time,space or matter.

I'll just remain the skeptic and see how the puzzle fits together.

Arjay “Let's keep science and ID separate,since we will need the cold hard analysis of science to solve all the problems we have created for ourselves. “

Seems reasonable to me.

I tend to be more a sceptic, less a cynic about many things as I grow older.

When someone can “prove” ID then it will be a science… until then it should linger with the other “humanities”, eg. along law, theology,, accounting, philosophy (although Jose would disagree – but he is entitled to a subjective opinion – supposedly regardless of scientific fact).

I would observe, with regard to the realm of “science”, "Basket weaving" has a better claim than "ID" – at least the weaver can demonstrate the history, impact and prove the existence of his “art”.

Taffy, You’re taking my comments out of context. Never in any of my comments about how many believe creation science, or ID have I suggested that this makes the beliefs true. It has always been in the context of uniformed people claiming things like ‘ID is a religious world view held by a small number of religious people mainly American right wing extremist.’ or that ‘evolution being incredibly well supported’ is a basic fact.

Also, your selection of only 2 data points to conclude decline in belief is sloppy.

Itsnoteasybeing – ID is not creation science. ID may be compatible with creation science, in so far as they both believe that natural causes apart from design are not sufficient to account for the observations, but this does make them equivalent. Using the logic as you do to make the equivalence claim I could claim that because (apparently according to Deuc) evolution is compatible with religion, then evolution is nothing but religion trying on a poorly fitting science coat in an attempt to find some validity.

Re: predictions. You continue to misrepresent my words. I don’t expect to convince you because your mind is already made up and so even if creation science has made successful predictions, you will ignore them and go on as if it hasn’t. As it was only a side point, and you hardly seem objective, it is a waste of my time and 350 words to go into depth on the subject. However DavidLatimer has given one prediction that has been successfully made by creation science, there is no need for others. Lets see how open minded and objective you really are.

Deuc- Hume was quoted precisely because he was a hostile witness. He understood quite well that the claim that nothing could case something was absurd and irrational. If this is what you believe then ….

Virtual particles are generated from a quantum energy field. This is not nothing. To argue that this is evidence the generation has no cause is an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps your self-claimed ape brain is having trouble with logic.

jeshua,
I’d first like to point out that I did not say or imply that a belief in God was “a fantasy or delusion”, you concluded that. My point was that a proper belief in God does not require scientific validation, and in fact science can’t prove or disprove the existence of God because God is outside the realms of science.

No one doubts that there are statements in the Bible that we can verify and thus can be considered to be factual; places, some events, historic characters, etc. But there are other statements in the Bible that science and history tells us are just plain wrong, eg global flood. So one has to be careful when talking of the Bible as a source of scientific facts. Of course the inconsistencies are only a problem for those “believers” who take the Bible literally, and don’t take into consideration the time and cultural aspects of when it was written.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/bible-science.cfm

Your argument that the fact that lots of people believe in a Christian God is somehow scientific proof that God exists, holds as much weight as me saying because there are more people in the world who don’t believe in a Christian God there is scientific proof that such a God doesn’t exist. Neither statement is logically valid or correct.

If you have a personal experience of God that allows you to believe in Him/Her, well and good. But because it is personal I can’t see it, touch, measure it or verify it, so in what way does it represent a scientific fact?

There was a time when, and indeed are, people who have claimed personal experience with other gods. This by your argument implies that their god(s) also exist. Do you believe in multiple gods? If not how do you empirically measure that your personal experience is somehow truer than another person’s personal experience?

And at the end of the day ID is still not science and should be an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person with or without a belief in God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

Deuc– I understand you have no interest in justifying any of your points. You just try to shift the burden of proof away from yourself (YOU are making the claim). This isn’t how debate is done. The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Deal with it.

I made a specific claim about your understanding of IC in that you made an untested claim about evolution to refute IC. We can see by observation in other areas that IC implies design, it is an INDUCTION to generalise this to biological life. I am not using a false dichotomy as I am relying on observational evidence as the basis of the induction. That your evolutionary claim (or any other non-design cause) hasn’t been supported observationally means that it is not a supported competing explanation, hence the best explanation based on the evidence is ID.

DavidLatimer: You have yet to support that you were misquoted. Yet here again, you have misquoted me. I have never claimed that nobody else is properly arguing.

The Magnetic field prediction is here http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329

So now that there has been a successful prediction, who thinks there is perhaps some science to creation science?

Btw, the light travel problem exists for big bang too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
Note: inflation (the proposed solution to this problem) has essentially been falsified http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v628n2/19153/brief/19153.abstract.html

“Grey is declining to argue and being a hypocrite about it.” Asking a question before I answer is hardly declining to answer.

Lets face it David. Your post (23/10) misrepresented what I said and you have yet to correct that misrepresentation. You instead accused me of misquoting you, but without explanation this is just a lame attempt to distract from your own mistakes. Just as your attempts to focus on the prediction issue are. Your lack of understanding of creation science is evidenced when you contrast natural selection and creation science (24/10). Creation science has natural selection as part of its theories. You beg the question with regards to similarity indicating common descent. Instead of dealing with these short-comings of your own position you try to distract.

ARJAY: "Science explains the relationships and laws that govern interactions in our world..."
Not to argue with Arjay but to point something out;

#There are some things Science CAN MEASURE but still CANNOT EXPLAIN:

Why do two masses attract eachother?
Although science can measure everything to do with this phenomenon (even discovering the univeral gravitational constant: 6.67x10^-11) but cannot actually explain WHY it happens.

Why do opposite electric charges attract and same charges repel?
Similarly, the laws have been found but the reason WHY this happens has eluded Science.

Why do opposite magnetic poles attract and same magnetic poles repel?
Similarly, the laws have been found but the reason WHY this happens has eluded Science.

These are just a few things I have selected to mention.

#Conversely, ID is something that CAN BE EXPLAINED, but CANNOT BE MEASURED.

Just thought I might share that.

PS. Use of capitals was to ensure that a pattern was detected ;)

This realy is a silly thread ID is an attack on science full stop.

For those of you who might have had trouble with the technical document that grey linked to (relating to a possible problem for the Big Bang Theory) you might find this one a bit more digestible:
http://uahnews.uah.edu/read.asp?newsID=572

Some ID supporters, most notably Michael Behe; do believe in Evolution by natural selection and the fact that we all evolved from a common ancestor. They however feel that some of the structures that occur are too complex to have evolved by chance and are divinely designed. Behe’s argument for Irreducible Complexity has almost universally being rejected by the scientific community as bad science. However, other ID supporters like the founder of ID, Philip E. Johnson, don’t seem to support either concept (evolution or common ancestor) and view ID as a political tool to get religious creationism taught in US public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

On the theme of science and religion co-existing (with the exception of creationism) you may find interesting these statements by a number of religious groups of their support of the Theory of Evolution, their belief that religion and science should be taught separately and that the use of the Bible as a scientific text is not only bad science but bad theology,
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp

a couple of extracts follow:

“…the dispute [Creationism vs. Science] is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority”
United Presbyterian Church in the USA (1982)

“Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible — the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark — convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey information but to transform hearts.”
Extract from a letter signed by 188 pastors from Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and other churches in Grantsburg, Wisconsin.

Numbat, inter-dependency does not violate the theory of evolution. You are arguing a simplistic version of the irreducible complexity argument: this argument has so far proven to be a deadend for ID proponents.

What you need to prove is that particular structure for a particular species is used for the *exclusive* good of another species.

So, for example, does the croc use his teeth for anything or are they useful only as cleaning surfaces used by birds?

For how long will you continue your appeal to authority? "Even X doesn't think ¬Y" is no more valid an argument than "X thought Y".

"Virtual particles are generated from a quantum energy field. This is not nothing."
Yes, even in a pure vacuum there is still some energy. I'm no quantum physicist, but my understanding is that said energy is itself, or is a result of, the creation and destruction of those particles, as such if they are generated from the field it is still spontaneous as there is still no external cause. If the field of a pure vacuum isn't a good enough "nothing", then I hardly consider it necessary to show things can come from nothing, since a field would have been at the first instant.

"I understand you have no interest in justifying any of your points."
Correct, I will defend them but I will not otherwise justify them. (My points don't even claim that evolution is true.) The least you could do is state which ones you disagree with, but I expect you to say why. I'm happy to continue on the spontaneous creation part if necessary, and any disputes on the relevant part of my list, but otherwise I'm done here.

"I made a specific claim about your understanding of IC in that you made an untested claim about evolution to refute IC."
Specific? You said my understanding was badly skewed. (General.) And then you said "it has not been shown that IC systems can arise by evolution" and went on about induction, no mention of any claim by me. In that post I gave arguments for how evolution could explain IC, and stated that IC is basically normal in evolution; nothing that required testing.

"it is an INDUCTION to generalise this to biological life"
Yes, but that's not what you had written, which was of the form ¬Y=>X. Inductive reasoning is of course, not foolproof. (Hence basic point #1) The fact that all non-biological forms of IC (ignoring gene-tech) fall into a group which has vastly different characteristics doesn't help.

Kenny, you’re right.

Extreme creationists** want to rip up the science textbooks. They want to take out physics, biology and geology and put Genesis in our science classes. They want to teach that the stars and planets are about 6,000 years old, because that their interpretation of the Bible. They want to teach that dinosaurs and people lived together, like in the Flintstones. They want to teach that all geology is a hoax. Respected scientific organisations are in on the plot.

(** I say “extreme” because there are a number of people here who believe strongly in God’s role in creation and our lives, but generally supportive of science. My critical remarks don’t apply to them at all.)

If anyone wants to verify misquoting, use the FIND command and type “lower apes”, where Grey misquotes and Big Al responds thinking it’s a real quote. Can anyone verify Grey’s misquote allegations?

“I have never claimed that nobody else is properly arguing” denies Grey (27/10).

Really? What about “You need to actually make an argument” and “make an argument for your position” (24/10) “you have no given any refutation” (25/10) “continuing with assertions but not arguments” (26/10) “unsupported accusations” (27/10)

Grey says he cannot decline to answer an unasked question. “[What are] some of the predictions...? asked Itsnoteasybeing (24/10) as did Deuc. Grey’s response is “Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions...?” (25/10)

Lets discuss Grey hypocritical complaint about comments out of their contexts (Grey 24/10, 25/10, 25/10 again and 27/10)

Did Syliva say “predictions is all that you need to be science”? (Grey 21/10)

No!

Was it me who gave “one prediction that has been successfully made by creation science”? (Grey 27/10)

No, but I am happy to remind everyone that creationists CLAIM that they successfully predicted the magnetic field strength of the planets by using the “evidence” of Genesis 1:1-11, where God turned water into planets. Read verse 14 and you may conclude the theory doesn’t even respect the Bible.

If Grey stopped disguising his assertions as rhetorical complains, his subterfuge would be there for all to see.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and ... the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Saint Augustine
"The Literal Meaning of Genesis"

Taffy,
You make a statement that God is outside the realms of science, True! Quote "My point was that a proper belief in God does not require scientific validation, and in fact science can’t prove or disprove the existence of God because God is outside the realms of science."

Then you state, Quote "And at the end of the day ID is still not science and should be an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person with or without a belief in God."

I ask if God is outside the realms of the physical sciences, then please explain why his metaphysical design involvement in the physical is an insult. Obviously you find the design of our planet insulting

ARJAY
in matters of faith and proof...consider this.

I have a broken arm. (x-rays to prove). I am prayed for, I feel a zinggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg kind of feeling, flooding of incredible release,power,renewal... who can find words for this.
Next thing I know, my arm is now STRONG..... a moment ago, I could not even hold the steering wheel of my car, now, I can throw a shotput :)

Fantasy ? nope.. it really happened, just like that. I know it because it happened to me, like the Blind man of Johns gospel..
"As to where this man (Jesus) came from I don't know, but one thing I know, once I was blind, but now I see"

Now.. as I relate this to you, it is one step removed from what I experienced. It is now a "report", just like the gospels.

The problem comes when 'you' have to decide what my 'report' means.
Is it realllly true ? if true, what would that mean for you ?...
That is the point where one begins the trading off...

If true.. WOW.. but ..wait..what might this mean for my lifestyle, attitudes, ideas... friends... family.....etc...or..even the respected opinion of some non Christian person, who may have been your mentor.

Then there is the 'What's in this for BOAZ'..hmmm he wants me to 'join his church' :).... he want's to grandstand.... have importance etc.....

So the mind plays games with us as we struggle with not so much my story, but the gospels. But it leads to the same place, "If I see it with my own eyes, then I'll believe it"

But the Lord has an answer for this, and he spoke it to Lazerus.

I wont say it here, I'll leave you in suspence :) and give you the link
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=16&version=31

scroll down to verse 19 "The Rich man and Lazarus"

See if u can find His answer... and let me know what u find.

Blessings

BOAZ-David, Like ID proponents claim of scientists saying evolution is the the best theory open our eyes to the facts as others have seen. Christianity like every other religion in the world have components of the beliefs from older religions. The catholic church has borrowed extensively form the Eqyptian sun worshipping as indicated in my last posting. Noahs flood come from the ancient Summerian and Babylonian floods stories when Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooded. So using the same arguments these facts must be taught in religious studies (as well as other religions and their history) to give students all the facts and let them have choice.

As to your arm . The power of the mind is a powerful thing.

Grey, along with most other religious blanks, you fail miserably to uphold your arguments. A deep flaw within the oppressed enslaved ideologists, is their inability to understand truth and implement it as truth, rather than try to delude with fantasy. You attempt to label me as hypocritical, because I accept others beleifs, I call it understanding. Then state, that I am trying to push my philosophy upon you, when you have no idea of my beleifs or philosophy and probably couldn't understand them.

That is just a typical act of the drowning religious, clutching at straws as their beliefs are rapidly being shown for what they are. You can fool blindfolded fools, but you can't fool unmasked reality.

As you claim to be science orientated, explain the substance or medium called space, from an ID and or IC understanding. What that represents, how and for what reason was it designed. If all things have been created in finality, what is ID's plan for the future of this creation and the aim. Also you have still failed to explain where the daughter in laws of Adam and eve came from.

Why, if ID or IC, created paradise that gave the original humans everything they needed, did the ID create a flaw for them to use and wreck the ID. What relationship and reason is there for the rest of the universe in ID, if the only intelligent reasoning beings in existence, reside on this planet.

Philo, so god is outside of physical science eh, that would mean god is in another dimension, wouldn't it.

BD, could you please refer us to the link or address of the medical facility that holds the x ray's of your arm, showing the broken bone and the subsequent x ray's taken within 24hrs of that one, showing total healing of the bone. I am sure you would convince many with that unscientific evidence, against the veracity of your words.

Actually, not a bad request, Alchemist.

Sincerely BD, if you could provide permission to view both the before and after x-rays – you just may have me thinking more deeply regarding God (Surely, a change of that magnitude would have all the doctors falling over themselves to check out, wouldn’t it?).

Care to advise your doctor/hospital that a group of people will be dropping in for a viewing?

Imagine that after life, there is Heaven, but no Hell.
This would negate our freedom. How could we choose to be with God if we would just have to go to Heaven anyway? There would be no choice. No freedom.
The main pain of Hell is the pain of loss- loss of that priceless opportunity. The physical pain, (which, although it is worse than any pain here), is nothing compared to this pain of loss.

I think, Alchemist, you were referring to the tree that Adam and Eve ate the fruit from. This too proves freedom. If there were no tree or whatever, then there would be no opportunity to choose to be obedient. No freedom; they would be obedient as robots are obedient.
Through disobedience we were lost and through obedience (of Christ) we were redeemed.

Substance of Space? As in Nothing? It does not have a substance. It is called space because it is the distance from and between matter.
(A field is the field of an object- gravitational, electrostatic, magnetic, etc)
You cannot measure this "space" you are reffering to. You can only measure the distance from and between objects.
Grab a ruler and take it away from all the matter and say, "there, 30 cm." But you will only be measuring the ruler.

God is not "within a universe". This is paradoxical because it implies that He is contained by laws. Rather, all things are within God.

[snort] Grey, you cannot be serious!

>>'Actually kenny, over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct.'<<

now becomes:

>>"check the gallup poll of October 13... 'Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings' to which respondents answered 53% for creation, 31% for God guided evolution. Both of these are consistent with ID."<<

If you look again at Gallup's findings, they are - and I quote their report verbatim -

"Americans are more likely to endorse a purely creationist view of the origin of humans than a purely evolutionary view or a view involving elements of both. Majorities of the public say evolution and creationism should be taught in public school science classes, while fewer believe intelligent design should be taught."

They add "It is unclear exactly how well Americans understand the different theories."

If you are going to use statistics, especially those that can be checked, it is prudent to use them honestly. You have patently not done this. I can only reiterate my previous point, that you simply invent stuff to support your argument. No attempt at intellectual rigour, simply a blatant attempt to subvert the discussion by lying through your teeth.

Unfortunately, this sloppy and devious behaviour encourages others.

Jeshua wrote: "Spirituality is reported to be of interest to 80% of the College population and Spirituality is being introduced into curriculums especially in medical schools - 50% of US schools."

Once again, quote your source please Jeshua. You don't want to end up like Grey, a proven fibber.

Philo,
I believe that all Creation is totally awe inspiring and not insulting at all. Scientific understanding increases my awe not only in the Creation but in the capacity and intelligence of my fellow Man.

ID is, and giving it too much credit, a hypothesis on the evolution of life on this planet (not as you suggested the creation of the world/everything).

Michael Bene, an ID proponent, does accept that life did evolve by natural selection and all life on this planet evolved from a common ancestor; this opinion is not held by all ID advocates.

But he then goes on to say that because there are structures that he observes that he can’t imagine evolving by chance then they have to be designed by an Intelligent Designer; Note: Bene has not, at least directly, equated the Intelligent Designer to God, although most ID proponents do.

Why should people be insulted by this?

Well ID is just bad science and logic. Bene not understanding how something complex evolved via the rules of the Theory of Evolution does not automatically imply that there is an Intelligent Designer. To claim so is a lie.

At best all Bene has shown is that there exist structures that the Theory of Evolution can’t possibly account for. Even if this did prove to be the case it does not automatically imply the existence of some Designer, all it would prove is the Theory of Evolution is not totally accurate. It should be pointed out that most of what Bene claims to be “Irreducibly Complex” has been show to be reducible.

I also find the dishonesty involved insulting. The ID movement pretends that they are not talking about God, but some Intelligent Designer. They are trying to present what is metaphysical in a way that can be considered physical. In essence they are denying God as a way to foist their fundamental religious beliefs on others.

There are things that are outside science and should not be considered or taught as science, to pretend otherwise is I believe a lie and therefore an insult to intelligence.

Deuc – An appeal to authority is only invalid if the authority being appealed to is not an expert in the field or if they are biased. (plus a few other minor reasons) That Hume is a hostile witness means that an appeal to his expert opinion is not fallacious. That ape-brain giving you trouble again? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

On virtual particles, wow…so now you think the first and second laws of thermodynamics don’t apply either. Why are you trying to destroy science? That you try and change the meaning of nothing to something is more evidence of the lack of quality in your argument.

Re: Assertions. Once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. Why should I have to give more support for my disagreements with your positions than you do for your position. The burden of proof is on you. If you don’t want to support things, then really your points are worthless.

Re: IC, yes, I said that evolution has not been shown to create IC via observation or experimentation. This is because your claim was that evolution does show it is possible to generate IC. You are unable to support this statement with any observation or experimental evidence.

Re Induction: I did leave out the middle step of how we determine designed objects in other areas by IC. This was mostly due to the 350 word limit and that it is implied by my comments. Different characteristics don’t matter much here as they haven’t been shown to relate to the characteristic(IC) being looked at.

Alchemist: Your comments are self-refuting. If everyone has a right to believe what they want, then this includes beliefs about forcing their beliefs on others. This means your comments cannot be correct. Yet still it seems as if you want to force your beliefs (about understanding) on others, the very thing that you object against.

Pericles: Color me dense, but I do not understand your point. Can you rephrase or expand to explain it more as I don’t see a problem with what I have said or the reports summary?

>>Color me dense, but I do not understand your point. Can you rephrase or expand to explain it more as I don’t see a problem with what I have said or the reports summary? <<

Grey, let me try just one last time.

You said: "over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct"

When asked to provide your source, you said "check the gallup poll of October 13"

There was not a relevant poll on that day, but there was a release from their news service, and I assume this is what you meant.

In that report, a Sept 8-11 poll was referred to, that asked the question "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings". In the column "Evolved, God Guided" was the figure 31%. The other answers allowed were "Evolved, God had no part" and "God created man exactly how Bible describes it".

The difference is 49 percentage points. That is, you inflated the proportion of US citizens who "believe that ID is correct" by 158%. You have had ample time to revisit your source, but instead assumed that no-one would bother to check.

I may be robinson crusoe on this, but to me, this spells intellectual dishonesty. The reason I take it seriously is that there are others who might think "well, 80% eh, that's pretty convincing", totally unaware that the figure is specious, provided cynically by someone so unsure of their ground that they need to resort to fiction.

Is that perhaps a little clearer? What "color" are you now?

DavidLatimer:”If anyone wants to verify misquoting, use the FIND command and type “lower apes”, where Grey misquotes and Big Al responds thinking it’s a real quote. Can anyone verify Grey’s misquote allegations?”
I gave a commonly used concrete example for your general comment “The clearest example of ongoing testing is the various genome projects. These continue to show that DNA is modified along established branches of the evolutionary tree and doesn’t jump across branches. Prior to our understanding of DNA, similar work was done looking at the migration of species across island chains, however genome evidence provides much stronger and measurable support for a common ancestor.”

Have I misrepresented your point with my example? Are you not assuming that DNA similarity implies common ancestry? If I have misrepresented your statement please explain how.

Grey:“I have never claimed that nobody else is properly arguing” denies Grey (27/10).

DL: Really? What about “You need to actually make an argument” and “make an argument for your position” “you have no given any refutation” “continuing with assertions but not arguments” “unsupported accusations”

The key words here are ‘nobody else’. I certainly suggested that some people were not providing arguments for their assertions. This does not mean that I said nobody else was doing it.

”Grey says he cannot decline to answer an unasked question.”
Sorry David, but once again you misquote me. I said that [me] asking a question before I respond is not refusing to respond.
Perhaps you should relax and think about things a little before you overheat. You might make less mistakes then.

As for “creationists CLAIM…” There is no claim. It’s verifiable that Dr Humphrey’s predicted the field strength based on his creation based hypothesis. That you attempt to cast doubt on the truth of this by using ‘CLAIM’ is a pathetically low act and it shows just how biased you are. As for verse 14, I have no idea what you are talking about.

It is becoming more obvious that you have no interest in truth and would just prefer to enforce your own faith on others schooling.

Whether he is a hostile witness or not is irrelevant. Even if Hume was an expert, his statement could not be an exercise of his "expert opinion". As I said the first time it was a response "to those who were mistakenly taking his epistemological examination of causation as an attack on the very idea of causation"; it was not a reasoned discourse. Hume was of the view that we can't demonstrate causation, and that the only reason we perceive causes was because of our nature. He couldn't show it's logically absurd, if anything he demonstrated that it's logically valid even if actually absurd. His response was only his personal opinion and not based in reason. How is he meant to be an expert on something he concedes it is impossible to know? He can't.

Nice comeback about the virtual particles, you're certainly validating the comments of other posters. As I've said I'm no quantum physicist, from my quick look it seems to be something to do with the uncertainty principle, and the incredibly small amounts of time the particles are in existence before annihilating each other, with some saying that it does break one of the laws.

"Why should I have to give more support for my disagreements with your positions than you do for your position."
It wouldn't be more support, you haven't even stated your disagreements, my points have been posted for a week now.

"This is because your claim was that evolution does show it is possible to generate IC. You are unable to support this statement with any observation or experimental evidence."
Stop being obtuse, you know that the formation of such complexity takes too long to be demonstrated that way. And I didn't claim "evolution" shows it is possible, just that evolution can explain it.

All the things with IC that are known to be designed are recent creations or are lifeless, don't grow and are not the result of, nor capable of propagation. That restrains potential manners of producing IC, but those not known to be designed lack those limitations.

Pericles: I understand and agree that it is important to be accurate and honest in discussions and debates. That being said, I still don’t see how what I said was even remotely inaccurate.

ID is a broad concept that says “that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology” (Dembski – Intelligent Design 1999).

Please tell me in what way the statement that ‘God created man exactly how the bible describes it’ is incompatible with ID.

As such, it is completely accurate to have both the 31% who said God guided evolution, and the 53% who said God made man as per the bible as approving of the ID position.

I made no assumption that people wouldn’t check and instead hoped people would. They can see for themselves if they create a 30 day free trial account with gallup and view the report themselves here http://brain.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=19207&pg=2
My confusion is understandable as I naturally assumed I was missing something, when instead it seems that you are the one who has got it wrong.

This idea of ID seems so religious to many people. However as a scientist I have agreed with everything in this article. Science should always allow for the exploration of ideas and the discovery of new concepts. Why throw out a theory that has substantial preliminary evidence? The only reason for throwing the idea does not appear to be based on Science but always appears to be based on the religious implications that this Scientific theory can have. Hence it is actually a prejudice against religion that could want people to throw this ID theory away not genuine scientific rationality and analysis. As a scientist here is another idea of what could support ID.

Another example of ID is the nature of protein production and DNA replication within every living cell. Proteins are needed within a living cell to make the DNA replicate which leads to the cell living and replicating. Without proteins the DNA would not be able to replicate. Without proteins the cell would not be able to live and replicate. However protein production is coded from the DNA. So to produce DNA proteins are needed, however to produce proteins DNA is needed. Hence proteins and DNA have to have formed or been introduced to the cells environment at the same time. At this present time it seems impossible for the chemicals that make up DNA and the chemicals that make up proteins to be synthesised in the one environment. This leads to the scientific conclusion that a designer instead of evolutionary chance was required for proteins and DNA to come together.

A thing about ID is that IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE IDEAS OF NATURAL SELECTION? It does not exclude the ability for organisms to adapt? It does not exclude the idea that genes / DNA / chromosomes can mutate?

However one thing it does exclude is the evolution of many sections of every living organism where multiple stepped cyclic operations are required to be there all at once. You miss one or two steps in the cycle and the organism cannot survive.

Protein production and DNA replication rely upon each other however the ability for them to co-evolove is a load of rubbish. The KREBS cycle (Citric Acid Cycle) works in a cycle and with steps missing the whole idea of your cells being able to produce life giving energy is impossible. In other words multiple steps would of needed to evloved all at once. The actual probability of this is about as likely as a twister ripping through a garbage tip and assembling a fully working Ford. It's just not going to happen.

As a scientist I must state that to rule out ID as a possibility in comparison to evolution as a possibility seems like foolishness to me.

1212,
Well said!

Pericles - you ain't Robinson Crusoe, mate :)

And further, my only problem with 1212's view is that it is entirely teleological. As such it is ultimately of no greater value than any other faith-based perspective.

We should also remember that 'evolution' simply means change over time, about which I think that most of us agree that it occurs, except perhaps for extreme Creationists. It seems that Darwinian natural selection has been able to be accommodated within the interesting worldview of ID proponents.

From an agnostic point of view, god only knows why s/he/it would therefore have created such evolutionary 'advantages' as all the phylogenic dead ends and extinctions, not to mention the perverse new pandemics about which we are supposed to be very concerned (indeed, as a responsible citizen I ensure that my chooks are separated from the ducks, so to speak).

Obviously there's a great deal of interest in ID as a philosphical idea, which may provide grounds for its inclusion in, say, a high school humanities/social sciences strand.

But it certainly ain't 'hard' science, and in no way deserves the intellectual imprimatur of inclusion in Science subjects. It's ironic that this year is the centenary of Einstein's "miraculous" year.

Now I'd worship whoever it was that designed him...

Hey 1212
ID is:
1) Dogmatic.
2) Possesses fixed ideas.
3) Has no peer review.
4) Sees all criticism as a conspiracy against it.
5) Presents mainly egotistical benefits to its followers
6) Does NOT use Occam's Razor.
7) Posseses an inability to predict.

Explain how all that adds up to science? The truth is that ID is merely a bunch of criticisms of the theory of evolution, a philosophical proposition (ie Irreducable complexity) & special pleading. NOTHING more! Criticisms, philosophical propositions & special pleading do NOT a scientific theory make.
Finaly about your argument that oposition to ID is oposition to religion. Why would opposition to ID equal opposition to religion when many scientists who oppose ID are also believers in God? How can believers be opposed to religion?

Bosk,
I can recognise from posts here that atheistic evolution is:
1) Dogmatic.
2) Possesses fixed ideas.
3) .
4) Sees all criticism as a conspiracy against it.
5) Presents mainly egotistical benefits to its followers
6).
7) Posseses an inability to predict.

Explain how all that adds up to science

Philo
How can evolution be atheistic when MANY scientists are religios?
How can evolution be dogmatic when it has responded to evidence by raising up views counter to it's original hypothesis?
Ditto fixed ideas.
I noticed you left out My points on Occam's Razor & peer review philo. Could that be because even you recognise that ID does not use these?
Evolution has produced, & continues to produce, benefits to the community. What will ID produce if we adopt it except a warm fuzzy feeling?
Finally the theory of evolution possesses the ability to predict & is falsifiable. ID is neither of these things.
But you knew all these from previous posts. So I will ask you one last time. What would you accept as evidence that evolution is correct & you are wrong? I don't believe you will ever answer that question though I've asked it many, many times. Are you so afraid that I'd be able to present whatever evidence you asked for? Doesn't that very thought suggest you might be wrong?
Just something to meditate upon :D

As ID is orientated to thought, with no material basis, then it should be acceptable to include all thought as having equal relationship to reality and truth.

Then the most glaring example of evolution would be science itself, which has and continues to evolve. Evolution is a progressive change which constantly adapts to its requirements. ID is set, permanent and unmovable in its hypothesis. This makes it false, nothing in existence we know of, stays the same, (except the religious). It changes state or combines to change state, giving rise to evolving change and not static repetition.

It is easy to see the veracity of the ID supporters. Their beleifs are so shaky and lacking in substance, they have to resort to whatever their fanciful minds can, in an attempt to convince themselves that there is substance in their illusions. In doing that, they show how lacking in ethics and credibility they are.

As an example, we have the miraculous broken arm, healed by a zing. Then we have their unsubstantiated claims, that when questioned, are ignored or sidetracked in an attempt to change the subject. You always know where they really come from when they resort to cheating in an attempt to justify their irrationality.

Most posters adhere to the rules of the forum, I have noticed that some do what they can to circumvent the rules, to push themselves upon other, in whatever way they can. One ID proponent constantly attacks others as pushing their philosophies, to counter their own inadequacies, even though they have no idea of what others philosophies are.

That person circumvented the forum rules by posting their 3rd comment on this thread in 24hrs, using another name. Now thats what I call ethics. A good example of the veracity and credibility of the ID proponents and to what depth they will stoop to push their enslaved egos onto others. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually had something of merit to say, but their history and ability to answer questions on any thread, show, the shallowness and emptiness of their understanding.

Response to Grey:
If you’re summarising or extrapolating from my views do not put them in quotes. Misquoting is prima facie evidence of misrepresentation and expect that I will correct the record, especially when it was picked up in another post. If you make an issue over it, I am right to expose the misquoting directly.

Your ability to conduct honest debate is markedly inferior to others in this forum, both sides. Dishonestly does get me flustered. To pick me up on the precise definition of “nobody else” is fair enough, but nothing more than a colloquial error. Another unintended mistake saying “unasked question” (17/10). It should have read:

Grey says (quote 27/10) “Asking a question before I answer is hardly declining to answer”. Itsnoteasybeing (24/10) asks “[What are] some of the predictions...? as did Deuc. Grey’s response is “Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions...?” (25/10)

Well?

This also nullifies your misrepresentation claim (27/10.) Having raised the matter, it’s referenced in my summary and these questions ask for detail. So when you say “Creation Science has made predictions that have been borne out”(24/10) instead of crying “misrepresentation”, stop complaining and give us the detail. Some “science educator” you are (Grey 25/10).

All I know about is one creationist prediction, which only creationists say was borne out. The idea is based on God turning water into planets, but shows only that magnetic field strength of a planet is broadly relative to its size. And the claim of superiority is only for Uranus.

My conclusion is this: If we take this prediction seriously and teach it in our science classrooms, teachers must explain how this is evidence that universe is < 10,000 years old. That would mean fossils, sediment and volcanic rock were built into the earth at the time of its creation. From there explain that our scientific understanding of light and the wider universe is entirely false. From there, let most of physics and geology fall like a house made of cards.

BTW: Now Grey has broken forum rules by posting 3 times in 2 hours.

Alchemist

X-rays taken at Port Morseby Hospital, but sent back to Australia with me, lost in the 'RAAF' hospital system.... so, nothing to show you.
As for 'post' 'healing' Xrays.. don't have any, I was so overwhelmed with what had happened, the last thing I was contemplating was needing to 'prove' it to a bloke(?) named "Alchemist" 30 yrs later :)

Big Fish, the power of the mind ? err.. would your are to elaborate on that pls ? All I can think of is:
1/ Nothing had changed by my own personal perception of the event.
2/ Something changed, but as to 'how' well... perhaps I was halucinating.
3/ Ah.."It was hypnosis" :).....just took the pain away.
4/ We suddenly tapped into 'cosmic energy' and zappo... a done deal.

Please add to the list as you feel led :)

Personally, I prefer 'once I was blind, but now I see' kind of thing, its not exactly rocket science.

But lets not labor this, I don't mention it much because of the types of reactions which predictably occurred here. My faith is founded on the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, well attested by history.
I wish you guys would come up with something substantial rather than outmoded and outdated 'Christianity bashing' stuff :)

Speaking about 'bashing' I wish this important thread had not degenerated into a kind of slanging match where some of us are very eager to 'win the argument'. We won't and can't, but both poles should recognize that the other has something to say, and all things have a place.

It seems the 'atheistic' science mob are desperate to show ID has no place in the science class room, though I feel it might be beneficial to a well rounded education as 'one' theory on the apparent irreducable complexity of organisms. C'mon, just a word or 2, maybe mention Behe's name :)

I'm more concerned that Creation itself is brought into philosophy/civics classes, and yes, along with some other ideas is ok too.
In all, its truly gratifying that we can all exchange views here.

About “Christian bashing” and the “X-Rays”:

I think David Boaz has been quite brave to talk about his personal story regarding prayer and the healing of his arm. He would have known that this would have been greeted with scepticism.

I am happy to take his story at face value. I think its rather poor science to be investigating the power of pray, just as I’m sure that Boaz would still encourage people to seek medical attention if they are hurt. At the very least, the prayer would have given comfort to Boaz’s friends and family at the time. It wouldn’t have done him further harm.

The arguments against ID being taught in science classroom is not Christian Bashing and the idea that science is anti-religious is as false as the idea that science is religion. I agree with St Augustine (see my post 28/10) that nonsense harms Christianity. I was quite surprised to find that. On the other side I strongly believe anyone arguing against ID as science should maintain his or her respect for religious belief.

Furthermore, ID proponents are perfectly free to continue to investigate their ideas. Limiting the scope of the science curriculum to science is not a form of censorship. Creationism makes for a good debate in English class or a HSC General Studies class.

Regarding Boaz’s “well rounded education”, during high school my science class began with an outline of Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired traits.)

About protein and design:

1212 says “multiple steps would of needed to evloved all at once” (28/10). This does not make intelligent design valid as a scientific theory for all the reasons explained in previous posts, especially letting a theory be falsifiable.

Imagine, if you will, a clouds appearing like painted streaks such as in this great photo(http://australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2000/0530mb01.jpg).

Ask yourself, how do all those bits of cloud line up so nicely for several kilometres across the sky? Is that scientific evidence the wind is an intelligent designer?

Religious fanatics shouldn't use public hospitals. They can have their humors lanced and bled privately. No antibiotics nor access to medicines derived from gene therapies or nuclear medicine. No internal combustion engines or cheap jet star flights either - hitch up your donkeys, if it was good enough for Joseph and Mary. We also need to take back your tellies & DVD's. And mobiles..who needs microwave technology when you've got a direct line to Big Daddy in the Sky!

Those bastions of scientific discovery - Iran, Saudi Arabia and other theocracies are leading the world in avian flu vaccinations and your wife's breast cancer drug has been checked by the Minister for Religion in Karachi?

I didn't realise how many people are scared of dying. No god = no after-life. No reunions with Grandma and Uncle Tony in 'Cloudland'. Only scary dark space vacuum, smashing stars and black holes - too creepy. We want Big Daddy to tell us everything will be ok.

That life in all its amazing varieties and horrendousness exists, isn't enough. Like greedy 4yo's needing constant reassurance that Big Daddy is looking over THEM (narcissistic personality disorder on a grand scale) and more importantly, if your head should go through a windscreen this afternoon after colliding with another vehicle, that this wasn't your only 'go' on the ride. Just line up and have another turn... or stay in Cloudland with Grandma and Great-Grandma(& Great-Great Grandma & GGGG Grandma..Oh.. how lovely! You can visit Whiskers and Spot your childhood pets (and the animals you've eaten too).

Meanwhile, us grown-ups have work to do, making this life the best it can possibly be using the power of the human mind to discover everything single thing about how it works. In 15/20 years they'll be injecting gene therapies for mental retardation & mental illness. The religious gene will be isolated & religious fanaticism can be bred out over time. Evolution will win the argument...the earth is flat y'know.

BTW..as if religious nutters would take a drug - like schizophrenics they enjoy their delusions too much.

It should have read 'some' schizophrenics. Most of course, don't like the revelation-like plots and endings, and would try anything to have a normal life.

Unlike, US religious masters who are indoctrinating their sheep into wanting 'the Rapture' to happen.

Bring on that gene therapy - there's not a moment to lose!

Well, "Alan Grey", welcome to the discussion. I assume you are taking up the cudgels where your alter ego "Grey" left off.

Incidentally, you have an identity problem - you obviously associate so closely with his ideas that you use "I" instead of "he", but I guess we can let this pass, given your obvious enthusiasm to protect him from charges of intellectual dishonesty at best, and devious, deliberate cheating at worst.

Let me say to you what I would say to Grey. I'm sure you'll pass it on to him.

In a Gallup poll, where there are a number of possible responses from which to select as answers to a question, you cannot unilaterally decide that the respondents who selected (a) also meant (b) or (c), simply to suit your case.

The difference here is crystal clear. Those who answered "God created man exactly how Bible describes it" are creationists. Note the word "exactly" in the sentence. This includes the six days of creation, Adam and Eve (and their incestuous relationship), Noah's ark and the whole shebang.

Those who responded "Evolved, God Guided" clearly had ID in mind, and had rejected the creationist story in its favour. It is dishonest of you to pretend that these people, responding to a Gallup question, thought to themselves "I am a creationist, who believes that the world was created ten thousand years or so ago, but I also believe the bits of ID theory that are consistent with creationism..."

I strongly suggest that you tell Grey that he should resign from the forum, as a final cleansing act of contrition for his dishonest behaviour. Or perhaps "behavior".

WOW Josie, your eloquence surpasses alchemists early postings...(cough)
I think the topic was ID and not 'bash the religous nutters'..but hey, I can go along with your ideas for a bit of a fanciful exercise....

Until you can raise the level of your posts above that of screaming obscenities at each other like some street fight I doubt people will take you very seriously.

Religous nutters = 4 yr olds ? Indeed ! (Mr Newton would love that little comment) I guess you want Stephen Hawking to ridicule his wife for attending an evangelical Church, (as he sometimes does).

But that aside, how about putting some effort into the actual topic and addressing it ?

Apart from many of the "I'm gonna WIN this argument no matter what the cost" of some, there has been some helpful constructive input by others, how about joining the constructive side ?

Oh, Just one point, where in the world did you get the idea that Religious people reject the social and material benefits of science ?
For goodness sake, many great discoveries were made BY Christians.
We do baulk at the idea of fiddling with Human Embryo's, especially when we are told that 'adult' stem cells are quite useful for the same research.

For your information, I deleted half of my initial response, as it became too 'dark' as I contemplated a world populated by 'your' ideas.

You need to get out more Josie, the refuge/shelter is turning you into a vengeful spiteful abusive .....(words fail me)

While talking to my friend a Professor in microbiology at Church this morning I mentioned to him if he might write an article on his perspectives on ID. He is up to date on the debate, and will prepare a paper for the young people in our church who are encountering opposition from atheists. He himself has 4 children 2 at university and all dedicated Christians. He admits evolution does not and is not able to give all the answers to life. It cannot get to first base in the design and nature of basic inorganic chemistry.

David I viewed the cloud formation, to an artist it has asthetic appeal, to a poet God run his fingers through the clouds forming the display, to a scientist the nature of wind on the chemistry of the cloud formed the structure. Both the wind and the chemistry have design features that form amazing images. Who gave the clouds their chemistry, and the wind its nature?

Philo
Your church must be the only place in Australia where almost the entire congregation are scientists or computer programmers. Could you possibly give me a list of the people in your church who aren't scientists? It shouldn't take long, there would only be 3 or 4 surely. :D
By the way. I noticed you never answered My question. Perhaps you could ask your friend the biologist.
Peace all.

"X-rays taken at Port Morseby Hospital, but sent back to Australia with me, lost in the 'RAAF' hospital system.... so, nothing to show you.
As for 'post' 'healing' Xrays.. don't have any, I was so overwhelmed with what had happened, the last thing I was contemplating was needing to 'prove' it to a bloke(?) named "Alchemist" 30 yrs later :)"

Boaz, mate... I'm sure it hurt and all, and that you were wonderfully uplifted... but I'm not at all surprised that the only evidence of this 'miracle' exists only in your memory, unavailable to any objective means of verification whatsoever.

Before you lecture others about their need to 'win' an argument, perhaps you should reflect upon your own debating tactics. You are often dogmatic and strident - not to mention outright incorrect on factual, historical and theoretical matters - and you SHOUT a helluva lot.

You may have a deep understanding of something or other that you haven't revealed here, but I suggest you steer clear of science. Put it this way: on the basis of your ramblings here, I know more about the Bible than you know about science - and that's sweet FA :)

BD - I have thus far attempted to refrain from responding to your claims of miracle cures, however your riposte to Josies rankled. There is something immature about religion and its reliance on a 'protective' father and some kind of after life, however I doubt that you have the breadth of mind to see this.

Now, clearly you are special, so special that God looked down upon your broken arm and in a blinding flash repaired said arm - truly a miracle. I wish that your God had been paying attention during the holocaust, or had had words with Pol Pot, or, more recently, had stayed the force of nature during the recent disasters where people are suffering more than just a broken arm.

What has this to do with ID? Glad you asked. People who believe in personal miracles, after life and a good daddy God have the temerity to demand that ID be taught along with science. What amazes me about this thread is that so few of the religious on this forum are unable to accept science - I know plenty of religious people who have no problem with the concept of evolution - they see it as part of god's grand design. They also acknowledge evidence based theory and see that as part of their god's design as well.

Does this forum only attract the extreme fundies who can't see past their own dogma?

(Formerly Trinity)

Cheers dears

Some help, constrained by 350 word limit, for new posters:

Pedant: One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be use to make predications about natural phenomena.

Falsifiable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

Theory of Evolution: a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

Big Bang: The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the Big Bang theory.

Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Abiogenesis: hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup.

Model: A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its know or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics.

Cyclic Model: A brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe [ one of a number of different models of the origin of the universe being investigated by scientists]

Theology: The Study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Dogmatic: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

God of the Gaps: An argument that suggests that since the domain of natural phenomena controlled by [explained by the existence of] God is shrinking, theistic or divine explanations for any natural phenomenon become less plausible.

Intelligent Design: 1) a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent being(s) and were not created by chance.
2) Creationist pseudoscience or junk science.

Please Josie, don't use the word nutters, it's not nice to demean the thickness of a nut, compared to the thickness of an ID proponent.

BD, if you keep going on like this, you will break that mirror stuck in front of you, then what will have you see, deeper blankness.

Explain the actions of neutron stars, black holes, stellar gas clouds and how their actions relate to ID. How does ID explain what occurs within a blackhole, where the material goes, where it comes from within a neutron star, and the evolution of the mind. ID says it is all there, nothing is new, everything is foretold and set. Yet you can't explain who, what or where the ID is, nor how the ID gave you this information.

The problem with ID proponents, is their theories belong to the distant past, they can't lift their minds beyond their fear of change. The evolution of the mind has left them far behind, way back, somewhere in the 1st dimension.

Those that live in the future (science), are always willing to have theories tested, which leads to change and understanding.

On the other hand, ID, IC and IS, have a single dimensional stance, which stays just where it has always been, deep within illusion. Throughout history, every claim by these people has be debunked.

Each dimension has its foundations, our foundations are the elements of the universe, that in their varying combinations gives existence, life. For ID to be real and the IS to prove their assertions, from their privileged stance as the knowing voice of the ID IC, then explain the outcome for the universe.

Come on, how about a little miracle, after all you say your churches are full of them. Yet not one has been proven (lost in transit), nor subjected to medical or scientific analysis. I have witnessed many healings in churches. Pity they didn't work, so couldn't be documented. I doubt they can provide any evidence to substantiate their claims. Doesn't that says something about the veracity of these people.

1212, you're largely talking about abiogenesis, which is different to evolution and not a requirement for it. Still, you are making the assumption that cells from the past would have the same/similar form as what we have today, but the complexity we see could have evolved from simpler versions. Ie. we need DNA to create the proteins in new DNA, but proteins form naturally and simple replicating sequences could have combined without so high a need for chance as has been suggested. Again, this is not evolution. What is a compact and efficient cycle now may not have been any of those previously.

"Why throw out a theory that has substantial preliminary evidence?"
ID doesn't meet either of those conditions. Science doesn't rule out ID, it just ignores it since it lacks evidence, is unnecessary and isn't scientific.

BOAZ_David, if I'm not convinced by a book without any objective evidence supporting it, I'm not going to be convinced by objective evidence or proof of a miracle? Silly book. Of course, if I didn't have objective evidence that Lazarus was previously beyond resuscitation, I wouldn't accept that he had been resurrected. Your story doesn't tell us anything about the source of healing, since such stories come equally from other religions.

And then there's the aspects of it that make it less believable:
-The lack of x-rays to check, so we have just your word.
-Scout's point on why it happened to you.
-Getting prayed for over a broken arm?
-That arm apparently not being put in a cast?
-Overwhelmed? Yet you didn't tell anyone who suggested getting it checked? Or was so enthused that they wanted to show others?
-Alternate explanations, eg. the x-rays getting switched, endorphins from an un-pinched nerve.

Pericles, ID isn't specific, so it applies equally to "dust and breath", intervening in evolution, FSM and genetic engineering. (Wonderful material for scientific exploration.) And "Evolved, God guided" isn't necessarily ID.

Taffy, Grey's not going to be happy with you just stating all those assertions, others have no reason to accept them, the burden of proof is on you.

Deuc said “… just stating all those assertions, others have no reason to accept them, the burden of proof is on you”.

The majority of definitions given came from dictionary.com. A couple (namely the definition for “God of the Gaps” and ID) either came from wikipedia or a combination of entries in directory.com and wikipedia.

Now just because they appear in either web site doesn’t make them true, granted. However, they do seem to indicate that they are the standard accepted meanings.

The one that is in dispute is ID which is why I gave the two definitions, the second being taken from wikipedia, which in turn references this document:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
Not a particular scientific journal, but then wikipedia could have chosen this letter from Bruce Alberts, as president of the National Academy of Sciences. Where he, to my way of thinking, politely describes ID as being a “non-scientific based ‘alternative’” to evolution.
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution

My purpose for posting the definitions was a hope that it might give pause for thought [this applies to me as well]. It appears to me than a number of arguments in some of the various threads are not resolvable due to a lack of common agreement of the terms being used.

For example, as others have tried to point out, saying that the Theory of Evolution is flawed because it doesn’t adequately explain how life arose from an inanimate chemical soup is a strawman argument. The Theory of evolution doesn’t cover how life fist appeared, but how once it had appeared how it evolved [ I’m fudging it a bit here, as some maintain that natural selection did play a role earlier]. Equally wrong would be to say that Theory of Evolution offers scientific proof about the origin of life.

There are a number of scientific hypotheses on abiogenesis and the origin of life, and investigation is ongoing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models_of_the_origin_of_life

I personally don’t believe that because science doesn’t have the answers for something today it never will. Or such gaps in understanding automatically requires that an intelligent designer(s) has to be invoked to plug the gaps.

Alchemist, you asked for an example of a miracle,
I'll give you one, although I apologise as it will be simplified due to the word limit.

Guadalupe, Mexico 1531.
Mary (mother of Jesus) appears to Juan Diego. Juan Diego tells the Bishop. The Bishop asks for proof. Juan goes back to the spot. Mary appears again and tells him to go up the hill and gather the flowers into his tilma (which is a classical Mexican garment- like a poncho). It's the wrong season too, but there are these flowers up there. He gathers them in his tilma and goes back down. Mary re-arranges them and sends him on his way. Juan goes to the Bishop where he lets the bottom of his tilma fall back down, the flowers falling to the floor. The Bishop and 1 or 2 others with him see the print of Mary left on the garment.
So that's the rough backround.

Interesting stuff about this image.
- In the eyes of Mary are relfected the men standing in front of Juan Diego as he reveals the image.

- The stars on the garment Mary is wearing are in a pattern. NASA checked it out. The pattern matches exactly the stars in the sky on that very day in that vey year- only they are in reverse (the perspective is from above, not below).

- These tilmas are made from organic material that rots away in a few years. Still today (it happened in 1531) it is perfectly preserved without anything been done to it (and there have been scientific analyses).

- In the second half of the 20th century some clown put a bomb in front of it. The huge metal cross (in close proximity) was bent double by the explosion (now on display). The tilma was covered by a glass sheet. The glass sheet shattered into thousands of shards. Normally these high velocity shards of glass would rip a tilma to shreds. Nothing...

Jose - thanks for your miracle about the amazing poncho...... if only God could use his/her/its power for good (eg preventing the holocaust) instead of pointlessness.

Yeah ID really rational and logical.

Wow... so much to respond to :)

David Latimer...thanx your words are appreciated.

Scout,
there is nothing special about me, rather the opposite is true.
I can only conclude that God had a reason for touching me in that way.

Deuc,
I appreciate that you have given the matter some thought.
It was like this. Yes, I had a cast, it was removed in PNG without verifying that it had healed apart from the normal time estimate. (the local Hospital was not exactly firing on all 4) I had to return to Australia the next day anyway...
I'd prayed for healing, my answer was 'no' (now I guess it was "not yet".)

I gave the pertinent facts, but let me expand a bit, I was not 'prayed for' individually, a pastor was praying for those who asked, I didn't ask. What hit me was something quite unexpected and I didn't even know what had happened until I checked my arm. (elbow fracture, could not use tricep action)

But having said this, Please...... I didn't share that experience to 'prove' anything. I shared it to 'show' something. What I was showing, is this:

1/Something can happen. (Christs miracles)
2/It can be "reported" to others. (one step removed from the event)
3/The truthfulness of such an event will not change peoples minds if they are already made up. (Pharisees, Saducees,Deuc ? :)

The various reactions are totally in harmony with the reactions Jesus encountered and which Paul predicted.

"Greeks seek wisdom, Jews seek signs"

I used myself as an example, because I can relate it from personal experience, rather than hearsay, and it just confirms that people (who have no desire to follow Christ ?) will find 'something' to justify rejecting it.

Mahatma... chapter and verse pls (incorrect wrong etc)

By this time one may justifiably wonder "What the heck has this to do with the TOPIC" ?

Well, I suggest that "Creation" is something not provable to the unwilling mind, hence I've suggested 2 things

1/ Don't teach 'origins' in Science
2/ Do teach ID/CREATION/ORIGINS in philosophy classes.

Deuc,
in the following paragraph that started and finished,
"1212, you're largely talking about abiogenesis, which is different to evolution and not a requirement for it… …efficient cycle now may not have been any of those previously."

The basis of why people call evolution more scientific than ID is that you can supposably test where it came from and where it was going. In other words you supposably have tests. Science isn’t science unless you can test. Hence abiogenesis is essential for evolution because it is supposably what gives evolution scientific grounding. You can test where it came from and you can test where it is going.

Therefore if abiogenesis cannot be shown to be a part of evolution nor alluded to, then evolution is no more scientific than ID which has a designer as its beginning.
FOR EVOLUTION TO BE CONSIDERED MORE SCIENTIFIC THAN ID, ABIOGENESIS MUST BE A CONSIDERATION otherwise
EVOLUTION IS AS SCIENTIFIC AS ID or EVOLUTION IS AS UNSCIENTIFIC AS ID.

Secondly these supposed "simple replicating sequences" are completely unsubstantiated and untestable. Hence the only hypothesis alluded is as testable as the beginnings of ID. Hence EVOLUTION IS NOT completely scientific.

Third The Fundamental Difference Between ID and Evolution
ID does not believe that long chains of mutations can occur producing a new organism. Why? Science has never shown to have organsims produce continuous mutations in order to produce a completely different organism. This is not testable, and will never be testable. Hence ID may not be testable according to some however evolution it seems must be as unscientific / untestable as ID.

EVOLUTION IS NO MORE and NO LESS SCIENTIFIC THAN ID.

THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT MAKES EVOLUTION USELESS AS BEING THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE OF STUDY. BOTH ID and EVOLUTION should be studied.

in short deuc the real reason behind avoiding chemical evolution (into life essential molecules) is that it CANNOT BE PROVEN to be true. Chemical evolution leads to evolution according to the overall "grand master" theory. Again the ability to test where it has come from and where it goes is what supposably makes evolution a science.

CAN'T TEST --- CAN'T BE SCIENTIFIC according to many evolutionary scientists. ABIOGENESIS cannot be tested, it is often guessed at and even its guesses fail miserably. Why guessed? Because the scientists who perform these experiments are actually guessing from supposed rock analyses within our crust. However different rocks that are 4.6byo have different compositions, and what is in the lithosphere doesn't even show what was in the atmosphere and hydrosphere. Hence the chemicals that they list are short, too reducing, inadequate and changing them would only make their poor results even poorer.

If you were a LARGE VARIETY of different chemicals (land) at the bottom of urey and miller styled experiments you would find the chemicals produced would be nothing short of irrelevent and useless to life.

Chemical evolution will NEVER be proven, cause the reactants and chemicals involved can NEVER be synthesised in the one environment. It is literally impossible. Look at chemical reactivities of different funcional groups under UV and electrical storms and heat and you will see that what I am saying is very true.

HENCE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS NO GENUINE BEGINNING that could ever possibly work. Hence evolution from beginning to its ending does not and will not ever work.

By the way deuc I happen to be more of a chemist than a biologist which is why I concentrate on abiogenesis.

Therefore to study evolution without any alternatives to supposed origins is egocentrical - SOMETHING IS GOING TO CHANGE SOMEWHERE.

I normally avoid scoffing at other people's beliefs out of basic politeness, but this from the miracle of the poncho had me choking in my gin and tonic...

>>The stars on the garment Mary is wearing are in a pattern. NASA checked it out. The pattern matches exactly the stars in the sky on that very day in that vey year- only they are in reverse (the perspective is from above, not below)<<

Where exactly in the universe would a pattern of stars that we see from earth be visible as an exact reversal/mirror image/whatever?

Sorry, this is a nonsense, and has no place in a serious forum.

SBS Sunday 30 Oct 8.30pm. Documentary titled ‘Time Trip’ came up with the hypothetical conclusion that we are far more likely to be living our present lives as part of a computer simulation than we are likely to be ‘the real thing’.
This conclusion is reached by extrapolating computing power several hundred years to the point where every piece of particle matter/energy in the known universe can be replicated digitally & ‘posted’ as replicated past situations (for experimental purposes – time travel into the past, which is theoretically impossible to this day. Side note - time travel into the future happens all the time in real life). There would be no limit to the number of these ‘situations’ operating concurrently & therefore we are much more likely to be one of the participants in a simulation than what we think we are. It ultimately implies the obvious – we are god & we have a predetermined life.
The argument is compelling, but unfortunately falls in to a screaming heap when one considers that if we are to survive as a race for that long (year 2500?) we will have realised a much greater ethical existence at a point well before this technology comes into possibility.
Either that, or we will have created such a mess (through warfare etc) that technological advancement will have stalled.
The point is that when looking for the truth thru science or religion, or, as in this case, making predictions, all human factors must be taken into account. Yes, ID should be brought into the education system. It is not Science & should be classed appropriately.

But BOAZ, I don't know the truthfulness of the event. Which is not to say that you are lying, but we are fallible, gullible creatures with brains that seek out patterns. And there's plenty of examples of people being wrong.

Sure, I'm naturally skeptical of such a claim and there are those who would be inclined to accept it. Likewise I'm more likely to attribute unusual events to simple probability than others who may see Jesus in a tree, or Mary in a water stain or grilled cheese sandwich and think it's a miracle. But that's not being closed-minded, give me solid evidence and I'll accept it. Until then I'll unashamedly favour a reasonable explanation that adheres to the laws of nature over one that doesn't. If a god wants to give incontrovertible evidence I'm sure it could.

Taffy, I wasn't disagreeing.

Jose, all you've shown is that a painting considered sacred for 500yrs managed to remain in good condition.
http://www.tiogaadventures.com/L17-Cloak.jpg Reflection in eyes? Starmap? Don't think so, cite? Bomb: surprised if it would.

Pericles: molds and prints.

1212, don't SHOUT so much.

Short of time travel or a way to see photons that left Earth long ago, the actual origin of life on this planet will never be known. Abiogenesis cannot in that sense be demonstrated, but the possibility of it in some form or another can be shown. This is not entirely unsubstantiated:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1707185&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8700225&dopt=Abstract

The small set of chemicals used is not enough or not realistic, fine. But assuming a large variety of chemicals is also unrealistic. The spread of chemicals across the planet wouldn't be entirely uniform. Pockets of whatever might be required could form. UV and electricity are not the only possibilities.

I've said it before and I'll have to say it again, evolution is perfectly compatible with the first life being created by a god, alien or whatever. There was life capable of mutation and that's all evolution needs. No idea what you mean by this: "test where it came from and where it was going", but evolution is, or at least was, falsifiable.

On Miracles of healing, I was listening to Sydney talk back radio this morning, while a bloke was sharing his story on miraculously receiving his sight. He had been totally blind for the past six years with cataracts and on the morning of his operation two Catholic sisters prayed with him before the operation. He immediately received his full sight. He was not a Christian and never believed in miracles. When his surgeons came to do pre-operation proceedures they could not believe it, as his cataracts were already removed and he now had perfect vision.

I am generally a skeptic, even though I attend Church, about healings because I've seen so many of them are placebo psychological healings. However I have heard and seen some very real healing events.

The reality of evolution does not deny the existence of a greater consciousness.The new Testament was not written until some 300yrs after the death of Christ.If it wasn't for King Constantine the pagan religions of Rome would still be flourishing and Christianity would be a fledgling cult.

We all evolve in this existence,whether it be by trial and error or formal study,the process can be both painful and illuminating.

What honourable god would have a chosen people of arrogant manifest destiny who do little but pray to be released from their mortal constraints?Such attitudes to me are a cop out,since we crave eternal blissful immortality with no appreciation of the wounderous things this life does offer us.

There may well be intelligence in the design but we humans may have to face the reality of not being the centre of the universe.

When was the last time a Christian scientist looked down the lense of a microscope and felt compassion for the suffering microbes?Would a superior being feel the same way about us?

With scientific discovery the boundaries and rules are rapidly changing and it will be a matter of how well we can all adapt and cope with this seemingly overwhelming change.

On ya Deuc,

yes, I appreciate where ur coming from on the skepticism, to be honest, I share that view, but the difference I guess is that I'm only cynical or skeptical of what is clearly either psychological or 'of man' i.e. the Benny Hinzes pushing people down etc...
I've been in meetings in Borneo where a couple of charismatic preachers were going at it, I saw how it all works first hand, they prayed fervently for all those who had come forward for it, and asked point blank "Who has had a touch from the Lord" ? and people would put up their hand, and the meeting would ramp up a few emotional notches, it was all very general and non specific...
I've seen people collapse at my feet with eyes rolled due to the intensity of the meeting atmosphere... but I can see through all that.

I better not tell you about 'the voices' :) or.. the 'money' or about the village in Sabah who were told that a man who is a kind of 'Mike Tyson' type who was being brought in to beat the blith out of them for not accepting Islam, who God "killed" , (3 days prayer and fasting, -he never made it to the village) or you will totally freak out :) and then tune out.

Suffice to say, if it brings true glory to God and Christ, its usually ok, if it glorifies or enriches 'man' its dodgy.

Philo makes a good point. Why not follow that one up ? sounds like it is quite verfiable. BUT.... before you do :).... IF... it turns out that in Jesus name, this person received their sight, will you make a committment to give your life to Christ ? If it will, why not make that committment now ? We have the gospels, Acts, the death and resurrection of Christ, Pauls conversion etc... Imagine, suddenly finding out ITS ALL TRUE ? :) (sorry for the shout)

I've said all I need to about ID/evolution.

I would like to thank Jose - his historic references to images and stars and “catholic voodoo” has just made me realise what ID is really about.

It is here to explain the new "miracles".

It is the modern reasoning which proves, unconditionally, how an image of the Virgin Mary can appear on a cheese sandwich or the inkblots of a psychologists personality test.

It is the new wonder of the age which will draw the gullible back to the "mother church" and ensure a good supply of child victims are available for corruption by the priesthood.

If he were not eternal, God would be turning in his grave at all this ID bunkum.

Scout,
Why didn't God use his power for somethink good like stopping the holocaust?
We are the people who make these enormous problems for ourselves. God is not a robot on wheels that follows us everywhere and cleaning up all the mess we make. Responsibility is a part of freedom.

Pericles,
Exactly. There is no place where that view of the stars can be found. The point is, NASA examined the pattern and found that it was a perfect match, only it was in reverse. Does anyone think a forger playing with ink and a cheese sandwich could get that exact? In 1531?

Jose
Sorry but your argument has a few loopholes.
1) Most suffering in this world has natural causes such as pain, disease & starvation. Why doesn't god protect us from those? After all the monotheistic concept of god is that he is omnipotent [he's all powerful] & omnibenevolent [he's all good]. so why do we have any naturally caused suffering at all?
2) God being allpowerful can do anything correct? Then logically he could have created humans so that we would, of our own free-will, ALWAYS choose to do the right thing. If you reply is that that would make us robots I merely respond by pointing out a) we are freely choosing to do good & b) God being allpowerful must have had this option.
3) God could, anytime someone chose evil that would harm another, isolate the potential evildoer so they don't affect the rest of us. Free will is preserved but things like the holocaust never happen.
Why should he do this? Think about the teaching inherent in the parable of the good samaritan & then apply it to god. Does that parable not imply that god has a moral obligation to help if he can?

It comes down to this
either god wants to help us but CANNOT [then he's immpotent]
or he Can help us but WILL NOT [then he's malevolent]
If he CAN & WILL help us why do we have any suffering at all?

Bd, arm in plaster, people praying, looks at arm, (in plaster) healed. After normal healing time plaster taken off, healed. I can understand why you are leaving this thread. Give us all a break will you, we all understand how mass hysteria effects people, it is demonstrated daily throughout the world, especially in the confines of superstition, (churches). All it proves is that those that follow religion as controlled by emotional hysteria, rather than intelligence. Mike Tyson wasn't even born when you were supposedly in Borneo, so why the quotes.

Philo, I expect that this miracle, (cataracts removed) will appear in every medical journal and every newspaper in the world, the nuns will have to be canonised, as per church doctrine and the world will rejoice. Just like all the other miracles that your ilk espouse.

Jose, I studied the Vatican councils account of 1531 many years ago, as well as their other accepted apparitions. Reading that, will give you the true catholic churches version, a long way from your fantasy, but still a joke. Can you quote the NASA document you referenced relating to this investigation.

Here we have true examples of where ID comes from. The religious slaves are so trapped within their delusions that all they can see is fantasy. They just spew forth more unsustainable rubbish, in their insane attempt to change reality into illusion. The further it goes on, the more desperate they become, clutching at straws as they sink beneath the mire of their own delusions.

They can't answer anything, just rely on one or two very dubious points which they repeat over and over. Actually ID is not intelligent design, but Insipid Deceit.

There does not appear to be a muslim on this thread, it would be interesting to know islamic thought on ID.

Bosk, illusions just delude, they can't interact or function.

Duec, I knew.

All,
I might just bow out of this forum about now, it’s drifted very far from the original discussion about ID and I thank all for the robust discussion. I will however leave a final comment about a current discussed topic; a parting shot?

Claiming that miracles exist because you have seen them is not proof in the scientific sense; just ask any policeman/woman who has had to sort through the numerous, conflicting descriptions of some event. With each observer willing to swear that what they saw was true, despite it being in total conflict with other descriptions from other observers who are equally willing to swear to their version of events.

I, like probably many here, have been to shows where I have seen with my own eyes something which I know to be impossible. During the last school holidays my eight year old daughter volunteered to “have her middle cut out” by a magician at one such show, it looked “real” to the people in the audience and my daughter was not able to offer any light as to how it was done.

Now I’m not saying that miracles are stunts like a conjurer’s trick, but such tricks do show how easily the human senses can be deceived. And one should really consider the emotional state and indeed the intentions of the participants and observers when evaluating a claimed miraculous event.

In the Bible (talking New Testament here) there are many miraculous events. But in reading about them they don’t seem capricious, silly or stunts. They either form a basis for teaching via a parable or are presented as evidence of Jesus being the Son of God.

However modern day miracles don’t seem to have any such justification. They seem arbitrary and in most cases absolutely pointless (of course gaining ones sight back doesn’t fall into this category).

At the end of the day, if you are a believer, you have to ask yourself is God a meddler, a capricious trickster or is He a compassionate Creator. Only faith can answer that.

Deuc – Hume, the famous skeptic, understood that to deny causality was an ‘absurd’ idea. This was his expert opinion. To claim it was not based on reason is self-serving and lame. To complain that he concedes it is impossible to know of causes and so could not be an expert on whether the law of causality is logically necessary is fallacious (confusing logic with knowledge of whether something actually is the cause of an effect). To say that causality doesn’t apply is to violate the law of non-contradiction. It is like saying that there are 4-sided triangles. It is analytically false, and Hume knew this, especially considering his views of what sources of knowledge are valid. I’ll repeat it again. To believe that something can come from nothing is worse than magic as at least with magic you have a magician.

The uncertainty principle is to do with knowledge and so does not apply (remember Hume). Some people may say that it breaks the laws of causality, but so what. I can say there are married bachelors and 4-sided triangles. All statements are equally false because they are analytically false.

"Why should I have to give more support for my disagreements with your positions than you do for your position."
“It wouldn't be more support”
Actually, you said that “The least you could do is state which ones you disagree with, but I expect you to say why.” So if I had to say why, then I would be giving more support than you. But if I don’t have to give more support, then to start you off, I disagree with all of your basic facts.

“I didn't claim "evolution" shows it is possible, just that evolution can explain it.”
So are you are saying that there is no evidence that evolution can generate IC systems? I believe that was my point.

Pericles: I am not unilaterally deciding. I have made an argument that both positions include the agency of intelligent design in their explanations for human life. You have not refuted this argument.

DavidLatimer: It was not my intention to attribute the phrase in question to you. I used a valid syntax for writing that I agree could be construed in that way as well as in the way I intended. As such, I apologise for any misunderstanding caused and will attempt in future to make it clearer about whether I am quoting you.

Ironically, you have not claimed that I have misrepresented your position. (even though using words that you did not write), yet Deuc, using words I did write, has indeed misrepresented my position.

Re: ‘Nobody else’. I hope you also will endeavour to be clearer in future.

Re: Unasked question. Is there a correction to your statement in there somewhere, because I still can’t see what your complaint is or how it was valid? As such, my misrepresentation claim has not been nullified.

Re: Magnetism: You continue with poisoning the well on this claim. It is a matter of record and your attitude speaks volumes as to your objectivity. Bringing in points about teaching it is irrelevant as I have not been talking about teaching creation science in school.

Perhaps you would like more recent creation research that has successfully predicted the presence of c-14 in ‘ancient’ diamonds and radiogenic helium in ‘ancient’ granites.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=114

Other examples of prediction borne out are that the universe had a beginning and that the continents are moving.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html

Taffy: Thanks for your definitions. They are not assertions of fact and do not beg the question as to the discussion at hand. In all, I have no problem with you putting forward your definitions and I see this as vastly different to Deuc’s ‘basic facts’ which are not mere definitions but assertions without substance.

The only definition I would take issue with are ‘science’ -science is not easily defined, especially when you consider the wide range of scientific fields and methods. Stephen Meyer has a lot on the issue
http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=936&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Grey
A few points
First Answers in Genesis is hardly a credible source. Many, many acts of outright fraud & deception have been attributed to them.
Second, merely because an organisation, after the fact, claims that they predicted a discovery does NOT make it so. Hell I can predict a million things that way & have a 100% success rate as well.
Finally this quote "Other examples of prediction borne out are that the universe had a beginning and that the continents are moving."
Ah how things change. I can remember when Answers in Genesis was denying this & saying the continents were stationary. Such is the standard of truthfulness of those who attempt to find a scientific basis for creationism

There are too many problems with the article to deal with in one response so I will only select a few at this time.

The heading of the article claimed that we are denying children the possibility of discovering the truth if we don't teach intelligent design in schools. I have always been intrigued by this claim, virtually always from conservative Christians, that they want their children to be allowed to look at opposing views in biology and then, presumably, make up their (the children's) minds.

This is vehemently opposed in other areas. The last thing these people want is for their children to be taught Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, . . . and Atheism, before they are allowed to make up their minds.
To say nothing of assorted matters involving sex, drinking, smoking, . . .

And there is the subtle change in the first paragraph. After commenting about the origin of species, it then shifts to the origin of life.
Scientists keep pointing out that the origin of life is not, strictly speaking, part of evolution.
But if ID is accepted as an alternative to evolution, where does the rot stop?
Design by extra-terrestrials?
Design by a bumbling committee of demi-gods?
Design by Satan to mislead us all?

Ken

Grey/Alan Grey, you are clutching at straws.

>>I am not unilaterally deciding. I have made an argument that both positions include the agency of intelligent design in their explanations for human life. You have not refuted this argument.<<

Saying that something is so does not constitute an "argument", even in your bizarre fantasy world.

It is also impossible, even should I feel so inclined, to prove the negative, that all those who classed themselves as creationists do *not* as a matter of fact also believe in "God-guided evolution".

It is of course within the realms of possibility (but not probability, given the nature of the poll) that one or some or many are in this category. But as there is absolutely no evidence apart from your pure conjecture that all Christians, by definition, believe both, your "argument" is at least specious, and possibly mendacious.

And as for you, poor Jose, I feel even sadder to have brought the amazing backward stars to your attention.

>>Exactly. There is no place where that view of the stars can be found. The point is, NASA examined the pattern and found that it was a perfect match, only it was in reverse. Does anyone think a forger playing with ink and a cheese sandwich could get that exact? In 1531?<<

If there is no place where that perspective (of the stars) can be found, what was the "point" of reversing it in the first place...?

Oh, forget it. Have a nice day. And mind you put away the finger paints when you have finished.

I notice that the article was posted on Friday, 21 October 2005.

I don't know whether the author watched ABC TV "Catalyst" broadcast on the evening of Thursday, 20 October 2005, on the topic of "intelligent design". This included, among other things, an interview with Michael Behe, one of the proponents of ID.

He was asked to give an estimate of the number of scientists working on ID. His answer was "a handful - five or ten"

If ID can only come up with this miniscule number of people, compared with the millions who are working in other areas of science, it doesn't deserve a place in the education curriculum at any level.

Ken

I am not a six day creationist but I do not believe evolution can give all the answers.
Someone asked about Islam's view of creation:

-------

Praise be to Allaah.
Yes, Allaah created the heavens and the earth and everything in between in six days, as He says;
“And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us”[Qaaf 50:38]
This indicates that what the Jews, upon whom be the curses of Allaah, say is false, as they said that He got tired when He created the heavens and the earth in six days, so He rested on the Sabbath. Exalted be Allaah far above what they say.
More details are narrated in the Qur’aan. Allaah says:
“Say (O Muhammad): ‘Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists).
He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four ‘days’ were equal in the length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).
Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: ‘Come both of you willingly or unwillingly.’ They both said: ‘We come willingly.’
Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him, the All?Mighty, the All?Knower”[Fussilat 41:9-12]
And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)

Law of Islam: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&CR=376&dgn=4

Pericles,
What's the point of the reversal? How about, it's a message saying that God's watching from above (although the view from above wouldn't be like this at all, God can give messages to people with metaphors such as this one).

Bosk,
Re 1) No doubt you've heard of Original Sin (the effects are evident in the disordered nature of man). Man rebelled against God and now suffering is part of our condition.

Re 2) God did in fact create man so that he would always choose the good. It was not the DESIGN of man which LED HIM to choose to rebel (Original Sin) but man HIMSELF who freely chose to rebel. Now as a result, we have concupiscence (a tendency towards evil). However, we have not lost our freedom, as some heretics such as Luther would suggest.

Re 3) The good samaritan. Yes God is the good samaritan (came here Himself to die in order to save us). Through the disobedience of Adam, condemnation, through the obedience of Christ, redemption.

Imagine God prevented the Holocaust...

You'd have just said "Why didn't He prevent the Napoleonic Wars?" or something like that.
The point is, you expect Him to be like a little robot on wheels, following us around everywhere and cleaning up after us. We are the ones who make these problems for ourselves.
Another point is that, through your argument about "why didn't He stop this and that?", you cannot prove that He didn't stop other things from happening that almost happened and almost nobody knows about.

Re: [Either impotent or malevolent],
He has, as I have mentioned above, come to our aid (the Redemption) Through the grace of Christ, all these problems and disorders, concupiscence etc. is overcome. However, you can't sit on your back side and expect a magical and radical transformation into a Saint just because you may believe that Jesus is God. No. Through free and actual cooperation with grace, the individual works towards the fullness of redemption. Through the Sacraments such as Baptism, the fruits of the redemption are applied to the individual.

Kensmith
welcome to OLO, haven't seen a post from you before this.

Your points are indeed noted, re how would we feel if our (conservative Christian) kids are taught about Judaism,Islam,Atheism etc
Actually, our kids can sort through mis and normal information. But it depends on how they are taught.

What we are rather sick of, is how the general theory of 'evolution' by natural selection, suddenly 'morphs' into "no, God did NOT create the Universe or man, it was all spontaneous chemical reaction"

Now.. if Science/Teachers in general had respect for the "possibility" (at least) of Creation, they would perhaps teach such subjects in less 'No its not a theory, its fact' manner.

Unfortunately, pretty much every example of media attention to the origins of man, and life in general, are couched in 'assumed fact' terms. Now this is not only shabby science, its downright misrepresentation of truth. It comes from..where ? ah hah.. of course, the science class room and science in Uni's and educational insitutions.

What we prefer, is that science teaching does not..... suggest origins of life as 'chance happening', we would prefer they left it as an open and as yet unanswered question.

Of greater concern to me, is the lack of teaching of Creation as one philosophical option in non science classes. (this would encompass Islam, Judaism and Christianity by the way).

The moral (or immoral) implications of 'chance chemical reactions' for origins, are profound. It leads to a 'make-it-up-as-u-go' morality. This is exemplified in 2 incidents of recent days.

1/ Eva Longoria,(Desperate housewives) "#1 Hottest Woman in the World" on Maxim's 2005 annual "Hot 100" list, was asked at the Melbourne cup interview "How do you feel about your character" response "I love her, she has no moral boundaries, always gets what she wants, does what she wants to do" ....brilliant.

2/ Oregon USA has just passed a law which allows ALL bars/clubs to have live real sex acts for entertainment.

So, from a purely educational point of view, atheism leads to this situation. (Nihilism)"There is no right/wrong..only 'pleasant/unpleasant...legal/illegal'

BOSKY.....

AIG have indeed had allegations of fraud and blah blah levelled at them...but have you checked out:

1/ The credibility of those charges ?
2/ The background and motivation of the source of such charges ?
3/ The responses ?

I've followed some of them through, and its MOST interesting to see both sides ...responses...motivations...etc.

Also, having bad things said about you, is different from 'having bad things proved against you'. Anyone can say anything about anyone... u know this.

I wish to revisit the issue of 'miracles' for just a moment.

One poster very rightly said about the miracles of Jesus having a very specific purpose, to underline His divine origin/authority.
They are certainly not for entertainment value !

JOSE,
with all due respect, I have very little support for anything which points people's attention to "Mary" a specifically catholic icon. Any tradition which elevates Biblical characters beyond their stated boundaries is quite un settling to me. When I saw Pope John Paul's coffin had "M" on it.. (meaning Mary) I cringed. It just speaks of pagan ideas of 'heavenly family'... father/mother etc....
"Mary" related events only draw attention to the Catholic Church, rather than Christ.

Miracles/signs are valid if they glorify Christ and draw mans attention to Jesus, and specifically his redemptive role for mankind. As Pericles said, 'images' resembling Mary or Jesus.. (we don't know what he/she looked like anyway) appearing on a peanut butter sandwich... (for example) do nothing but hold believers up to public (and deserved) ridicule

http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/marian5.htm

Boaz David,
I would be happy to discuss this with you by email (joseph_howard@hotmail.com), so as to let the topic stay on ID in this thread.

Regarding the conduct of debate and misrepresentation:

If I say, for example “there is evidence of X” and someone responds “David said ‘X is proved’ ” then that’s a misquote, but if someone says “David you’re saying that X is proven” it may be misrepresentative, but the lack of quotes gives people the idea that I may not have said it exactly like that. I don’t believe that a neutral person will automatically believe what I say about others any more than ditto what others say about me. But I will correct misquotes and respond to claims that I misrepresent.

Regarding ID v creationism:

For all practical purposes ID and creationism are the same. The word ‘God’ has been changed to ‘designer’. We know the reason why this has been done – to bypass US constitutional law. Once the US courts dismiss this backdoor attempt to teach creation science in American classrooms, ID will be remembered as a fad. So, I won’t be respecting any distinction of substance between ID and creationism.

Regarding Philo’s thoughtful answer:

Looking at nice patterns in clouds I asked “Is that scientific evidence the wind is an intelligent designer?” to which Philo responded:

“to a poet God run his fingers through the clouds forming the display, to a scientist the nature of wind on the chemistry of the cloud formed the structure. Both the wind and the chemistry have design features that form amazing images. Who gave the clouds their chemistry, and the wind its nature?”

We may believe that God gave these things, but it is from philosophy and/or religion that we so conclude. Science may explain the patterns formed in a precise way, but not ascribe a purpose or grand design to the display. Students are welcome to muse on this outside the science class (that's where this thread has gone), but in science class the rigours of theory, experimentation and observation must be followed.

Regarding causation:

The arguments here are very outdated. Causation is ultimately philosophical and science repeatedly challenges classical notions of causation, especially over the last 100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation

Perciles- I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking what logical reason do you have from excluding either of the two explanations that God guided evolution or god created as per the bible from the set of explanations that fall under the description that Intelligent Design is responsible for human life? Both attibute it to intelligent design although they disagree on the method.

That was the argument I put forward, that you seem to ignore. Perhaps in your 'bizarre' world the words written suddenly disappeared, but those of us here in reality just don't get why you are throwing a bender.

DL: Note that this is different from DavidLatimer's contention that ID and creation science are the same for practical purposes. ID starts from a completely different position, not from the bible, but from observation of how IC is CS objects are formed. This is why many creation science organisations do not particularly agree with the ID movement.

Re: Causation - Sorry David, but you are mixing up epistomology with ontology. As the wiki you linked to describes epistomology type issues they are irrelevant. I am suprised as I thought Hume's quote would have made this clear to you.

Here we go again!

More philosophy.

Then let’s add a bit more philosophy. And to top it off some philosophy. Try to steer the argument back to science and the retort is … more philosophy. And it's so classical. Hume this, Hume that. Not epistemology? How many references are there to knowledge in this tread? Here's a big word for ya: theological noncognitivism! Sorry, sorry, sorry; it's two words!

We should be teaching science in science class. That's my repeated response to this article.

I don't care if ID proponents and creationists don't agree. They both share the problem of trying to dress themselves up as real science. The difference is that Ingenuous Design is untested before the US supreme court.

I am not interested in the popularity of whatever in the US. I am not interested in the "first cause". I am not interested in the Pope's funeral. I am not interested in miracles (good luck for those who receive them). I am not interested in nihlism (can't spell it, can't look it up).

None of these things will be taught in our science classes.

Why on earth are people falling intot he trap of debating this stuff in psuedo intellectual terms - tossing about references to epistimolgy, teleology, nihilism and ontology and all the rest.

The concept if ID is essentialy as I put it over one hundred tiresome posts ago - I may as well say an extra terrestrial egg plant designed the world as commit to the notion of ID. ID is a furphy, a fraud a faith.

As I indicated before to argue ID vs creationism to the extent it has been in these pages, particularly in the psuedo scientific/philosohical manner demonstrated here- and thereby affording it some undeserved credibility - is a foolsih move.

It is evident the proponents of ID/creationuism have set controlled and guided the agenda on this debate with in excess of 200 posts to prove it - shame on us all.

David, David, David. When will you realise that the definition of science IS philosophy. Trying to claim that ID is not 'real science' is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

It is ironic that you make a philosophical claim after trying to steer the thread back to 'science' and away from philosphy.

Grey/Alan Grey, your "argumment" is that creationists, who believe the literal description of the origins of life as described in Genesis, also believe in Intelligent Design. As far as I can tell, you justify this by asserting that creating the earth in six days is in itself a form of intelligent design. Making this connection allows you, in your view, to go ahead and make the statement that "Actually kenny, over 80% of the american population believe that ID is correct. I wouldn't call that a 'small number'."

(Somewhat ironically, you added "Why the constant need to overstate your case?")

You now ask:

>>what logical reason do you have from excluding either of the two explanations that God guided evolution or god created as per the bible from the set of explanations that fall under the description that Intelligent Design is responsible for human life? Both attibute it to intelligent design although they disagree on the method.<<

Your logic appears to be : "The six-day creation story is a form of Intelligent Design, therefore Creationists may legitimately be assumed to be of a like mind to those who ticked the box 'Evolved, God Guided'"

The reason I would exclude them from this category is that Creationists, by definition, do not believe in evolution, therefore would not allow themselves to be grouped with those who believe that mankind evolved, whether "God Guided" or not.

Incidentally, I don't believe you are actually serious about this, you just like hearing the sound of your own voice. But I'll play along.

I'm not saying Hume's view was devoid of reason, but that it was not an exercise of his expertise. You have written nothing that supports the contrary. Repeat "it's absurd" as many times as you like, it won't make it true. Hume did not restrict himself to knowledge of particular causes, but if he had that would remove (again) any claim to him being an expert on this issue. Being unable to know a cause for any event leaves open the possibility that the event was uncaused.

Self-contradictory? Yeah right. If it's analytically false then break it down for us. Remember, the question is not whether it's absurd to say there are no causes, it's whether the same can be said of something arising without a cause.

But you seem to only care about winning the point. If Hume's statement is expert opinion then this must be subsequent and prevailing expert opinion: "The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.", per Bertrand Russell.

"The uncertainty principle is to do with knowledge and so does not apply"
This is silly, if it doesn't apply here then whole "energy field" bit similarly falls apart.

You disagree with it all huh? So you think components of biological systems evolve separately and that evolution is incompatible with religion. Welcome to the atheist club! And that evolution is concerned with how life began? Sorry, but that and the "evolve separately" point make it abundantly clear how ignorant you are about this.

"So are you are saying that there is no evidence that evolution can generate IC systems?"
No, I'm merely halting your movement away from my claim that ID is unnecessary to explain IC.

BOAZ, more later, possibly tomorrow.

Pericles: Let me put it in a simple logical format for you as you seems to be struggling.

Intelligent Design is the position that intelligence is responsible for certain features (in this case that intelligence was involved in the design of human life in some way) (lets call this position ‘ID’)

The (non-exhaustive) set of possible explanations that are consistent with position ID then include the following.
1) The flying spaghetti monster did it with his noodly appendages
2) Aliens did it via controlling mutation
3) Aliens did it via direct genetic engineering
4) The Christian God did it via creation ex nihilo (Biblical Creationists)
5) The Christian God did it via controlling mutation (God guided evolution)
6) Odin did it via reforming matter into human life.

Your argument seems to be that ID must be equivalent to Evolved, God guided. This however is obviously not the case. Behe believes in common ancestry, Dembski does not. Both however believe that an intelligent agent was involved in the process.

To put it in another way. Squares, rectangles and trapeziums are all quadrilaterals even though they do not all have the same number of sides of equal length.

They are lumped into the same set on the broad category (having 4 sides) but do not get lumped in the same set when a narrower category is used (having the same number of sides of equal length).

ID is a broad category. The particulars of method the intelligence used in a narrower category.

Incidentally, I can’t believe you can’t grasp this simple logical relationship.

grey, its very simple.

if you had properly read the questions in the poll you are refering to, then you would know that the people responding favorably to the 'literal creationist' position believe that not only was the universe created around 10,000 yrs ago, as per genesis, but that life was created in its present form.

repeat: 'in its present form'

proponents of god guided evolution and id such as behe, aknowledge the timescale of existence and the fact, repeat fact that organisms in the past were different from those alive today. please note i havent said evolution is fact. merely that organisms were differnent in the past, which we explain through evolution, and which the id crowd explain through microevolution with the designer initiating the larger steps.

how can these possibly be consistent ideas?

on a side note. the 11 parents who challenged the school board at dover high school in america (the current id trial) are all devout christians who see no conflict with evolution. as are the majority of parents at the school wo do not support the teaching of id, and are in fact considerably angry that 2 fundamentalists who were ellected to the school board without disclosing their intentions on introducing id, have highjacked their childrens education. it seems likely that they will be voted from the board before the court even reaches its judgement.

behe's testimony didnt go so well either. its one thing to claim scientific basis to id. its another to have to qualify this under oath.

I am in concurrence with Alan Grey's post prior to this one.

I remember in my high school education, the amount of time we spent on evolution was about a month tops. After this we moved on to more interesting things like energy etc.
Everyone in my class was Christian and I went to a private school. In the classes I had, when Darwin's theory was taught, it was explained simply by my science teacher: there are no problems with the theory that species evolve in adapting to environments and that this theory is completely compatable with Christianity.

A question for all,(this question is completely neutral and not antagonistic to any opinion)

Supposing ID is taught in science classes. How much time do you think would be spent on it? Two periods? A week?

Grey/Alan Grey (have you decided which you would like to be yet?)

Now I know I'm right. Your introduction of a string of red herrings in the form of flying spaghetti monsters etc. is proof - if proof were needed - that the best you now can do is bluff and bluster ("as you seems to be struggling", "I can’t believe you can’t grasp this simple logical relationship.").

Logic is not on your side. In their summary of the survey, Gallup themselves separate the two - Creationists and IDers - through the rigour of their answer set. Remember the word "exactly" in the choice "God created man exactly how Bible describes it"? This alone is sufficient to separate the two camps.

Quoting Behe and Dembski (who he?) won't help you either, as Gallup chose ordinary citizens to survey, not pop philosophers.

But of course, you know this. You are simply carrying on the discussion in order to get the last word.

Pericles, gotta disagree with you here; ID really is that vague. (One of the main reasons it isn't science.) It's just the design argument being re-badged as a "theory". Anyone who believes an intelligence consciously and directly affected the biology of Earth's animals believes ID.

BOAZ, Most likely the guy is just some quack on the radio and I'm not going to go out of my way to check. But if it could be verified that his blindness was there up until that morning, no non-surgical medical efforts had been taken recently and cataracts in both eyes were gone, then I would conclude that there is no (known) natural explanation that was reasonable. Four possibilities: Some unknown natural cause. Actions of people hiding information from us. Actions of other natural beings (ie. aliens). Actions of supernatural beings.

#2 has the least plausibility. #3 is comparable to #4 in many ways except that existence of aliens is naturally expected and that supernatural beings could have a stronger reason for being interested in us. I don't know much about the nature of cataracts so I can't speak of the scope for #1, but I doubt it would be wide. On the basis that the speed of light might be an unavoidable limit, #4 seems barely most likely.

But within that, it is more probable (given the sparsity of the miracles and lack of objective evidence) that supernatural beings are just messing with us. If not, then considering the similar claims made in other religions I couldn't attribute it to one particular religion, regardless of the nuns.

In other words, showing that the cataracts disappeared would indeed suggest a higher power, but is by no means conclusive. Allusions could be made to the "god of the gaps". If such minor miracles could be shown to occur in different forms, in large numbers and with consistency re: religion then that would be much stronger.

But I doubt it happened, I'd expect a bit more publicity about it. And the nuns praying with him in pre-op, even though he was not Christian, seems dubious.

Who was it that said, "Even if I see it with my own eyes, I will not believe. The only conclusion I can draw is my etes are deceiving my brain."

Ha! And who was it who said that they human eye is irreducibly complex (or some other such doublespeak)? We've all just witnessed the eye devolve into an "ete"!

Jose: a double period would suffice, I reckon.

Response to sneekeepete: It's alot like life support.

Response to Grey: The definition or scope of science has hardly been challenged in this thread. If you find it ironic that my response is "science should be taught in science class", then so be it.

Response to Jose, who asks "Supposing ID is taught in science classes. How much time do you think would be spent on it? Two periods? A week?"

The relevant section of Genesis takes a few minutes to read. Apart from that, what can one do? Show students some fossils which the intellegent designer hid in the ground (or were they left off Noah's Ark) Carbon date the lab tables and discover they are +/- 20,000 years old?

From primary school, I remember a poem in "School Magazine", which implied that dinosaurs were left behind from Noah's Ark, and many of the students were so pleased when they worked out the meaning.

Would it be right to say that ID only claims to disprove evolution?

If this is so, fine. However, what does ID actually prove that sets it up as a science?

If ID is a science, what experiments can I perform to help prove it as a theory?

If ID is a science, what body of evidence does it rely upon to prove that something intelligent placed life on this planet?

For that matter, what intelligence does ID claim put life on this planet?

Can someone in the know on ID provide answers to these questions?

Ya know you've been posting to much when you've memorised the thread number.

Good One David L :)
yes.. this thread has indeed taken on a life of its own.

Mahatma.... "etes"... haha. Trust you to pick up on that.. I don't think the thread could have survived without that insight :)

But personally, I'm just thrilled that we are all making the effort to grapple with this important issue.

Genesis 1 is quite simple and without question a statement of 'fact' to Christians, Jews and Mulims, and a declaration of 'faith' to those outside the religious mould.

"In the beginning, (when) God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void"

This is not far from the scientific explanation. Its a million miles from the various pagan concepts of 'God A and God B had a huge fight, and God A chopped up God B, and his legs became the moon....etc"

I can pre-empt the chirping and muttering about 'talking snakes' etc though I don't see this as a big problem, after all, we have burning talking Bushes for Moses. The exact nature of the communication between Eve and the Serpant is not crucial to myself, after all, we have Cockies which can talk :) Perhaps the communication was not literal speech... ? who knows. At that time, language would have been very limited anyway, and probably largely symoblic. So, perhaps 'said' may be taken to mean 'hinted at with actions' ?

Anyyyyway.. I hope all you contributors will enjoy this lovely sunny day (in Melbourne) and bask in the beatiful freedom we still enjoy to share in this way.

A gentle reminder though, (to myself as much as others) lets try to focus on the core issues rather than some matters of less importance

DavidL: From the article
“They define scientific inquiry narrowly so that it will eliminate the possibility of their discovering the possible truth about the origin of life. They complain that ID is creationist religion in disguise but their eagerness to reject ID as science reveals their ideologically-driven definition of science. They think good science should only implicate chance and not intelligence, descent from apes and certainly not thoughts of God.”

It seems the definition of science is of great import to this discussion. That you continue to try and define science in a way that excludes ID is simply begging the question and a logically fallacy. That you do so is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one. And that is why it is ironic. You complain about philosophy whilst using it yourself in an attempt to pre-define that you are correct.

Its_not_easy_being: “how can these possibly be consistent ideas”
It is easy. They can be consistent in terms of both views mandate the influence of intelligent design in life. Which is the question at hand.

Pericles: As I have said and explained, you are in error because you ignore that both positions appeal to intelligent agency, which is the only consistency in the positions that relates to the question at hand – Quoting Dembski and Behe clearly indicates this consistency is not something I have made up. You have never addressed this point and so I can only assume you are either off your medication or wilfully ignorant. Considering you started in with casting doubts about my motives for continuing ‘I don't believe you are actually serious about this, you just like hearing the sound of your own voice’ it is somewhat hypocritical to complain about me blustering.

Deuc: Hume is a philospher of some repute who was well aware of the laws of logic. That even though he felt we may not know with certainty a cause, yet he still it was absurd to argue that an effect can happen without a cause is a fairly strong indicator that the case is solid.

It is analytically false because the if nothing could do something then it would be something not nothing. Also, as an effect is defined as that which is brought about by an antecedent cause it is also clear that saying an effect cannot have a cause is false.

Bertrand Russell is by no means unbiased in the topic and so apealling to his authority does not hold any force. What should also be noted is that he also wrote a book ('Human knowledge' from memory) in which he spoke a lot more highly of causality and how it was necessary for science.

And yes. I disagree with all your points. So if I use your logic this makes you ignorant about these issues right?

All things bright and beautiful,
all creatures great and small,
all things wise and wonderful:
the Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
each little bird that sings,
God made their glowing colors,
and made their tiny wings.
(Refrain)

The purple-headed mountains,
the river running by,
the sunset and the morning
that brightens up the sky.
(Refrain)

The cold wind in the winter,
the pleasant summer sun,
the ripe fruits in the garden:
God made them every one.
(Refrain)

God gave us eyes to see them,
and lips that we might tell
how great is God Almighty,
who has made all things well.
(Refrain)

I would like to project a thought, though I would first like to know if there is anyone here who is of the opinion that the human race evolved from some species such as apes or any other species around today.

(NB: I mean the previous species before humans -if you think there was one- so for example, if you have the opinion we evolved from fish, please suggest the species furthest down the list in the order of evolution, directly before humans)

"etes" demonstrates a mutation in the possible combinations of characters available to the expression of ideas. One might conclude it demonstrates accidental combinations and demonstrates the lack of involvement by intelligent design. However because there were previous experiences by the observers with character combinations was there any semblence of intelligence involved. The researchers concluded from their previous observations of design features that it was meant to be read intelligently as eyes. Considering the frailty of the organic chemistry involved it demonstrates the possibility that even under intelligent guidance mutations can occurr.

Jose,
The earlier species that may have resembled our body structure was not human as we know today; i.e. having our full human capacity. To be human means having the same range of genes available in the human species pool. Being considered human with the level of intelligence as we have today has only been around 10,000 - 12,000 years.

Good to see we have returned to the article. The paragraph Grey quotes (4/11 2:33:55pm) has many problems:

It begins with those who "reject the possibility of a designer". Being a scientist or science teacher does not involve this step, although an atheist usually takes this step.

It then critically says "They [atheists?] define scientific inquiry narrowly ...", which is merely suggests that the author prefers a wide definition. And that's about the "origin of life" which is not about Darwinism but abogenesis.

When I read this paragraph, I see a statement about what the author believes atheists believe and why. It implies that the decision to not teach ID is based, not on science, but on ideology.

I don't see a statement about what science is (or isn't or should be) in reference to the scientific method or the objectives of school science. The definition of science is mentioned but not challenged. Nor do we discover why the author thinks ID is science.

P.S. Square bracketed words within a quote are not part of the original quote.

You have your opposition by the short and curlies there, Jose!
What a challenge. Pretty much the equivalent of someone in a maths class saying that their faith dictates that 2 plus 2 makes five, and it is up to the teacher to instill within them an understanding of mathematics.

What amazes me is the religious believe that they can still fool people with their empty semantics. Years ago christians used violence to force their views, now its their younger mental siblings, muslims. Because of Christianities past failures, they now resort to poor semantics. I wonder if they will ever see how simple and controllable their minds are, that they can be so sucked in by nothing but thought forms.

An ID that IC'd existence in its completed form, is purely a thought form, just like the creator itself. The biologist Sheldrake describes them as “morphic fields”. It can only control those of little understanding, as its power and influence is primitive. There is however ID within existence, it is called change, that's the scientific proof, change can be seen, measured and altered, ID can't. ID can't explain human ability to create and mutate in positive ways, GE, nano's and stem cells show that ID is false.

As our understanding of the universe grows, then we may find that at some time, someone came to this planet and influenced it in some way. After all, the possibility of there only being us in the universe, is beyond calculation. I am sure that once they discover space is actually another dimension that can be moved through instead of across, ID and IC will exit, as we join the universal world.

Words are not logic, its their content that defines the logic. Space as a transitionary dimension is more plausible than ID and logical.

You can see in the proponents posts, how they say the same things over and over. They just try to make us think that they are saying something different by changing the words around. Fools only really fool themselves.

Philo' with respect, I asked for an islamic view on ID, not a christians view on islam.

I looked up wikipedia to see if there was an answer to Jose's question. The answer given is Hominini of which there are two living surviving species: chimps and humans, and five known extinct species: Paranthropus, Australopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini)

The relevant wiki project page warns that "Primate taxonomy is by no means fully known or agreed upon" and lists the references used. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Primates)

Thanks David,
So the thought I wanted to project was this one.

Say humans evolved from chimps (it may be true or not, either way I can live happily with either). Now, if a species evolves because they adapt to environmental pressures, I have 3 questions:

- What was the environmental pressure to which the species adapted, thus evolving into humans?
- Why are we not observing species such as chimps nowadays adapting to this supposed environmental pressure and thus evolving more like humans? (If our ancestors had to adapt to it, why don't the chimps nowadays have to adapt to it?)
- If this environmental pressure is no longer around, why did it go away?

1 What was the environmental pressure to which the species adapted, thus evolving into humans?
2 Why are we not observing species such as chimps nowadays adapting to this supposed environmental pressure and thus evolving more like humans? (If our ancestors had to adapt to it, why don't the chimps nowadays have to adapt to it?
3 If this environmental pressure is no longer around, why did it go away?

1 As well as “pressure” there is also “opportunity”. Adaptability and free-will are "qualities" commonly found in humans and less so in other orders. They are the qualities most likely to propel humanity to a level above and beyond lower orders.

2 Maybe the inherent intelligence of chimps etc. limits their adaptability and response to what humans know as free-will. Some have also suggested the benefits of a high protein diet commonly associated with fish and meat contributes to brain development and from that higher / advanced brain function which separates humans from other, predominantly vegetarian, primates.

3 Maybe the environmental pressure still exists and has been forgotten about in the transcription of history across the ages.
Lets face it the theologians were the original scribes and they used very selective memory in recording human history. This question is similar to asking “Why did the last Ice age end?”

So as man has evolved he has risen intellectually to realise we need morality, ethics and laws for a degree of social order but they are not exclusively religion based and need no intercession from a priest-class to have merit. Humanity, being adaptable and able to deploy “freewill” into whatever attracts the individual mind allows for almost any known obstacle to challenged and ultimately diverted or overcome provided we discard the powers of repression (Galileo v the Pope etc) who would deny exercise of that will.
.
Packaging up religion into the pseudo-science of ID is a last ditch attempt by the religious minded to find relevance and justify rules to inflict on the rest of us who inhabit this increasingly secular world.

BOAZ, forgot to say that the gospels, resurrection etc. are of a much lower evidential quality and their support is far less objective than the would-be return of sight.

Philo- Who was it that said, "'Even if I see it with my own eyes, I will not believe. The only conclusion I can draw is my etes are deceiving my brain.'"
I guess you have a problem with nuance, I said it would suggest a higher power. And of course I didn't see it with my own eyes, but it's true that's not conclusive, but not because of faulty senses. All it would tell me is what happened, and while the circumstances may imply the cause other issues must be considered. It's not some large, distinctive and explanatory miracle. That's just me trying to be as reasonable and objective in my skepticism as I can.

Jose, if you exclude from the classes misleading or false statements, ID could be explained to high school level in about 5 minutes, more if it's used along with other "alternative" notions as a counter-example of scientific methods. I would be incredibly surprised if any *species* we evolved from still exist, that would require an amazing degree of adaptation to an unchanging environment. We are still apes and hominids, mammals etc. Who says other apes aren't evolving in similar ways to what we did? For all I know they are, but it's hard to compare.

Grey,

"Fairly strong indicator" ...riiight. At least Russell gave reasons elsewhere. Yes I suppose if you construct an asinine & self-contradictory strawman then that strawman will indeed be self-contradictory. Whatever valid points you may or may not have are rendered useless by your failure to present them and to honestly and intelligently deal with issues that have been raised.

I see that aware of the atheistic consequence of your position, you choose to re-affirm it. But you're dishonesty is showing again, with you now "misunderstanding" my "logic".

Col regarding Chimps:I heard an experiment recently whereby a chimp in one cage had access to two levers.One to feed himself and the other to feed a companion in the next cage.Even with the begging of the hungry chimp the chimp on the levers just fed himself and ignored the pleas.The inference was the humans have a higher developed sense of empathy which may have helped our evolution through co-operation.

Not a conclusive experiment though, since one chimp may have just disliked the other.

I thought that I'd have a go at Jose's questions:
- What was the environmental pressure to which the species adapted, thus evolving into humans?

The environmental pressure was the loss of forest areas and the expansion of grasslands. Some continued to live in the forests (chimps), while others managed the survive on the ground (humans). An ability to move on two legs improved once's chance of surviving.

- Why are we not observing species such as chimps nowadays adapting to this supposed environmental pressure and thus evolving more like humans? (If our ancestors had to adapt to it, why don't the chimps nowadays have to adapt to it?)

Forests still exist, but if they don't then the chimps will either adapt or die out. The absolute dominance of humans over the whole environment suggests that they will die out.

- If this environmental pressure is no longer around, why did it go away?

Look about. Don't you watch the news? The environmental pressures are hundreds of times worse. Desertification is on the march. The Earth will probably change more in the next 100 years, than it did over the past 10,000 years.

Grey/Alan Grey

Have you cast aside your previous nym? If so, why? Is it so that you can adopt some subtle variants on your previously held opinions without being accused of inconsistency? If so, nothing is visible yet.

Let's take a look at your latest spray at me:

"Pericles: As I have said and explained, you are in error because you ignore that both positions appeal to intelligent agency, which is the only consistency in the positions that relates to the question at hand – Quoting Dembski and Behe clearly indicates this consistency is not something I have made up."

Once again, you propose that two different starting points "appeal" to your cause. You ignore the fact that the agency that set the question was not you, but Gallop, and it should therefore be their definition that we respect, not one that you appear to have made up on the spot in order to support your pet theory.

"You have never addressed this point and so I can only assume you are either off your medication or wilfully ignorant."

I keep addressing "this point". I have offered a contrary opinion, which is that the question was designed to separate the two views, creationism and ID, not amalgamate them. Gallop's narrative bears me out, and in this instance, as the survey's authors, they have more authority than Dembski or Behe. It doesn't matter to me whether you accept this or not, but your resorting to personal abuse does give me the deep satisfaction of knowing that you are totally bereft of an intelligent reply.

Have a great day.

David L,
Good answer, I'm quite satisfied with that.

Another question for anyone, (I'm sure it's been asked before)
What was the cause of the Big Bang?

Just to clarify, David L, your answer was brilliant in how it offered an explanation of the biological evolution. When it comes to souls, that's where evolution doesn't matter, souls being not biological but spiritual.

Jose, the big bang theory is virtually extinct. As astronomers look further into the universe, the more unlikely it is becoming. Now it appears that galaxies are expanding outwards towards and away from each other as well as moving in different directions as a whole. This could mean that this universe was either always here, or is an evolving transitionary universe where matter comes in from some where else and goes out to somewhere else. Our sun could be burning on fuel from another dimension outside this one.

To me the big bang theory is as plausible as ID. The Big bang can't explain where that ball came from, nor can ID explain where god got his material to build the universe. They say from nothing, so the big bang theorists can say the same thing, the ball came from nothing. Stalemate.

Now lets get back to reality and realise that both god and the big bang, are in a bottle, marked hic

Pericles: I am not appealing to 'my position' but the actual reality of the question at hand. The respondents answered the question asked, with the wording given. As such, the wording given to the question in question clearly supports my contention.

Gallup's narrative was not the question, but their own comments afterwards. That their narrative is not inconsistent with my position is fairly obvious when you take into consideration that they also state that many people did not really know much about intelligent design.

Your hypocrisy in complaining about personal attacks is lame as every post but your first has included a personal attack on me. Get over yourself.

There seems to be little point in continuing this discussion with you pericles, so I expect this will be my last response to you. I stand by my position that the poll quoted indicates over 80% of the population believes ID to be correct.

Deuc: Actually, I don't understand most of your points. Nothing dishonest about it. You seem to labor under nonsensical notions about causation and logic, so I am not suprised that many of your comments are somewhat confused.

You have simply ignored when I have dealt with your comments so I fail to see any use in continuing to do so now.

Good day to you sir.

Thanks Jose.

I agree that science has no comment to make on souls.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory where there is some evidence but there is still some debate and new evidence continues to be checked out.

The "cause of the Big Bang" is mostly speculation by scientists (cosmologists), mathematicians and philosophers. The Big Bang itself is also thought to be the begining of time, so the physics of the event is speculative in itself. How can one imagine real timelessness?

It's a big question as to whether science can even try to probe this far back (or far away?) for evidence. I guess it will be speculation for a long, long while. The more we know, the more there is we don't know.

This is why I believe science or scientfic progress is no threat to anyone's religious belief. You cannot run your moral or spiritual life on science.

Grey/Alan Grey, I think we can agree on this.

>>There seems to be little point in continuing this discussion with you pericles, so I expect this will be my last response to you. I stand by my position that the poll quoted indicates over 80% of the population believes ID to be correct.<<

Now that you have stopped claiming that you are right, and have accepted that your interpretation of what you believe was going through Gallup's mind - and that of the responding public - is just a "position", I can rest easy.

The fact that your understanding is coloured by the need to exaggerate the amount of apparent support that your ideas have out in the real world is totally understandable, given the weight of evidence against you.

And please, don't get on your high horse about personal attacks, or I will be forced to put together a collage of your juicier contributions. I think I will find a few items - from both Grey and Alan Grey - that will establish new boundaries for the concept of hypocrisy.

Who'd have believed the Catholics could see it straight?...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Reason - your last post - hallelujah!

BD, Grey, BD, Philo et al ... please read link - I beseech you.

:-)

Science is compatible with any religion/philosophy.

ID is incompatible with everything including common sense.

I predict that ID will become extinct.

(formerly Trinity)