I've got no problem with ID being taught in history classes and religous studies but not science class. The basic trust of science is to find natural causes for the world we see not the supernatural.

The theory of evolution began as just that - a theory. Darwin at the end of his life was disturbed that it was presented as proven fact. Darwin never intended that it be presented as fact. No true searcher places a predetermined paradigm on genuine research. Evolution begins equally with a paradigm that life mutates from basic forms to emerge as higher forms. A fact still unproven, it is based upon asumption. Intelligent Design has equal validity as a theory and the intimate details of life have dependent purpose.

The very fact that the human species has such complexity and a brain that is capable of evaluating design is not beyond reason that a non metaphysical design / designer predetermines the formation of living species.

Sorry Philo, but that's plain wrong.

Darwin was not the beginning and end of evolutionary theory. He wasn’t even the beginning (but that’s too complicated to get into here). Yes, much of what he said was flawed and evolution has since…well, evolved, and many more questions have been answered. Therefore criticism on Darwinian theory should never be confused with criticism on evolutionary theory.

That’s another thing. People think the word ‘theory’ implies evolution hasn’t been proved. But in scientific terms, "theory" doesn’t mean "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer any reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. A ‘debate’ in schools about evolution would make as little sense as debating the ‘theory’ of gravity (theonion.com poignantly commented on this with an article on ‘Intelligent Falling’ theory).

There is much controversy on many topics that aren’t discussed in the classroom, simply because they are irrelevant. For example, some religious groups deny that micro-organisms cause disease, but there is no reason to mention this in a biology class, because these claims are groundless and false. While intelligent design theory may be a little more thought out than creationism, it could never be justified as being a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory, nor should the controversy (that is no doubt intentionally stirred up by the proponents) be given attention.

My reference (a website designed to combat the push for teaching creationism, but relevant nonetheless): http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism

Come on spendocrat, whilst I disagree with ID I am primarily a scientist. Any theory, be it evolutionary, ID, relativity, super string or whatever is merely a theory until proved otherwise (that is, that it does not hold completely). Never FACT. Darwin's theory has vast amounts of supporting evidence, and so is the most effective theory to be plugging in high school biology, but in teaching science a far more important aspect to be teaching is an open mind. This includes the possibility of inherited traits (which I was taught), and ID.

However, equally important is only teaching a theory that has supporting evidence. ID support that "gee we're complex so there must be a God" just doesn't seem to cut it.

ID proponents have set up their straw man (Darwin) and are intent on beating his theories into submission. However, I cannot take ID seriously when the best they can come up with is, as Jude says, "gee we're complex so there must be a God".

Or, as the summary of a fairly typical recent "scientific" paper by Dr. Stephen Meyer states:

"An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate - and perhaps the most causally adequate - explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa"

Dr. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and has a PhD from Cambridge [I suspect Massachusetts rather than PhD Cantab]. He makes his living from writing books, articles and giving lectures on Intelligent design. Yet the best he can come up with is a "suggestion" that ID might be worthy of further investigation.

The article is here:
http://tinyurl.com/5n3kh

This is fairly typical of the articles I have seen and read on the topic - lots of Darwin-bashing, followed by "so, if evolutionary theory is wrong, ID must be the answer". This one cites 145 references to show that it is scholarly, and therefore its conclusion has to be suitably circumspect.

My question is, why are they doing it? When the best they can do is point out flaws in previous theories, but offer only an unprovable metaphysical pandect to take their place, there just has to be a subsidiary purpose.

(One of the references in Dr Meyer's article was Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead", which must be the least credible scientific reference provided in a professedly serious paper, ever.)

But by all means "teach" it in schools, but in General Studies, next to Comparative Religion.

My immediate thoughts about this is that teaching it to children would be a waste of their time.

I still think that, but as an argument against teaching it it comes up against the problem that a lot of other stuff taught in schools is arguably just as much a waste of the children's time. Most people seem to remember little of what they were taught at school, beyond the three Rs, and even what they do remember is not applied to their lives in any apparent way.

So why do we teach science? I think it's because in the hands of a minority of the population, science has proved immensely valuable to society. By teaching it at school, we are able to discover the people who will fill the scientific roles in the future.

Science is valuable because it is predictive. It allows scientists and engineers to understand how the world works, and exploit that knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole.

If ID is judged by this criterion, then it obviously fails. It makes no predictions. Teaching it schools would simply use time that could be used for teaching the much more beneficial science subjects.

And, yes, I do realise that the same argument could be applied to some other subjects taught in schools.

Sylvia.

I agree with others on this thread that ID should be taught in schools - but in classes on religion, as with creationism, ID is faith based and not evidence based. I support its teaching because I believe that we should have a full understanding of human nature and religion is a part of that for many people.

It should never be taught as a valid alternative to science as there is no solid evidence or a continuum of observable facts for either ID or creationism. It undermines scientific inquiry to have it included in science classes.

In "Show Me the Science"
By DANIEL C. DENNETT

He describes how the hoax of ID has been presented as a valid scientific hypothesis and why it is simply an attempt by the religious to undermine scientific research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Thanks to science I have glasses with which to read, good health care, an understanding of my inherited geneology and an appreciation of the natural world and the expectation with science that the more we learn the more we will need to explore. Science is infinite, religion is stagnant. Science fills me with hope. Religion is a dead end. I do not say this to be deliberately offensive to those with religious convictions - it is my world view and I am just as entitled to state it as are those of you who like to spout religious texts. I will not enter into any debate that religion is any more than superstition. I have agreed that religion (all religions) should be taught in schools and that should be good enough.

I ask the question:
How has the theory of evolution benifited us scientifically?

It merely represents a theoritical history of the Universe and a philosophy of no intelligent Designer. So should be confined also to classes on history and philosophy / religion.

Philo – evolution has benefited us by providing us with a wealth of knowledge about how the world works. For example, have you heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Know how they became antibiotic-resistant? Evolution. It's happening all around you whether you realize it or not. And its very applicable in many fields of scientific research.

The best scientific minds in the world have discussed and debated evolution, according to scientific principles, for over 100 years. To call it ‘just a theory’ is like calling Einstein a 'bit of a smartass'.

(ref: www.straightdope.com)

"A fact still unproven, it is based upon asumption" [Philo talking about Evolution].

To me, believing in something unproven is faith. If faith is not to be taught in science class, than lets not teach the Big Bang, 6 days Creation, or any other faith system that poses some some sort of unsupported, untestable and unprovable scientific hypothesis on the origin of life.

Sincerely,
YngNLuvnIt

The best part about the article.. was its HONESTY :).. amazing stuff.
A very high 'wow' factor there.

Very happy to see at least a modicom of acceptance by some who I might not have expected it from, for being taught in comparative religion or social type classes.

I fully realize that aspects of evolutionary theory are correct, natural selection being one of the most obvious. But that true aspect does not explain so much, it just shows how species adapt.

ID is actually based on evidence, that being 'irreducable complexity'.

I know this is challenged, and I can even see how the challenge has a small degree of merit, but 2 factors make me quite skeptical about the scientific honesty of the 'evolution is the only way' school, and these are they:

1/ The author of this article brought out how the main contributor to the evolutionary impetus was theological. As soon as one can disconnect society from the belief in God, and His creation, it opens up many 'interesting' possibilities, as Sartre said ..".. But God is not, so all things are morally permissable"

2/ The way Prof Sternberg was 'burnt at the stake' by the Smithsonian institute for even allowing a pro ID article in the biological journal.

I smell a bit of 'ego protecting territoriality' in a lot of this.

Given that most peoples thinking reflects their educational experience, I also venture a degree of wonderment about 'who' is speaking when 'pro-evolution/anti ID' proponents talk.

I would suggest that it is philosophically imperitive to have a belief in God, and creation. The abundance of existential writers who openly admit that the alternative is total despair (for the honest thinker)and a meaningless, nihilistic existence.

But in most cases, culture comes to the rescue, and appears to offer re-assurance of meaning, people retreat into the foetal comfort of the cultural ambionic fluid, with folk denying the philosophical reality and choosing to believe otherwise.

I rather love the certainty of "I came, that they might have life"

Well! I'm glad to see that at least most people here seem to accept that evolution happened in history.

As a scientist, I do not believe in ID. Of course, I have no real objection to it being taught in schools, as long as it REMAINS ID. I really do think that this will be used as an excuse to bring religion in to the class room.

Many (not all, I know, but many) IDers say "An intelligent creator" but what they really mean is "God, our God, the god of chrisitianity, you know, the god that did the flood and the Eden and all that," and before you know it.... Religion in the class room! Good "God" no.

I prefer my states secular and non-religious, with freedom of religion. ID is a theory (although really it has no evidence, or at least, much less evidence than evolution has) and people need to be careful or it will be hijacked by the Religious to bring God into the classroom.

ID is typical 'god of the gaps' theology (see http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html&ei=20gYQ8LtFr-aYICr4OYJ or for a laugh, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html&ei=20gYQ8LtFr-aYICr4OYJ). As Pericles pointed out, all IDers ever do is point out what evolutionary theory and science has not yet explained, and say 'god did it' or the classic 'then a miracle occurs' (see the cartoon: http://downtownlad.blogspot.com/2005/08/and-then-miracle-occurs.html).

Every body is suggesting from the tone of the postings I am reading that ID is falling into the “religious studies” or equivalent. But here is a twist, which ID proponents must deal with. (This is pretty wacko idea, hell, maybe not, but you never know?) If ID is to start to be presented in schools then they will have to not only present arguments for, and the mechanism of ID but start questioning the “intelligence” behind it. That falls into the mechanisms doesn’t it?

Now lets run through some “possibilities” behind ID.
God,
Aliens,
Humans from the future,
Others?

Do the ID proponents from the religious background really want to start questioning the existence of aliens, time travel or God? And could one be more likely than another?

Some of us, the Pastafarians, believe that children should be taught of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who made the universe and all within it many years ago, and who ever since has been guiding us with the aid of His Noodly Appendage.

Those yet to be enlightened by His teachings can read more about FSM'ism at our website http://www.venganza.org/.

I'm sure the understanding proponents of ID will agree that in the interests of giving children a balanced perspective on the subject of our existence that all three of Evolution, ID, and FSM'ism should be given equal time in our childrens science class rooms.

HarryC, I don't actually think the IDers would take issue with your Flying Spaghetti Monster, since they do not seek to describe the nature of the designer. Their (mistaken) point is only that it was designed – speculating about the type of designer is irrelevant.

It’s also a shame that you’ve bundled global warming in there, since there is a great deal of scientific evidence supporting human-caused global warming (unlike ID)– the two topics don’t really compare at all.

Philo asks what understanding evolution has done for him. Well if Philo is neither ill nor eats, then probably very little.

Humans have been taking advantage of evolution since we moved from hunter/gatherer to agriculture as a means of survival. It was then that humans really began a series of discoveries that have (for better or worse) brought us to our present knowledge of vaccines, genetic engineering, medicines, crops, ecology - to name a few.

Perhaps Philo should go back to secondary level science - I recall studying the fruit fly - one of the easiest creatures in which to observe evolution at work in a short amount of time. Perhaps then he will understand how creatures evolved here in Australia - completely unique to the rest of the world. Or, alternatively he could study animal life on Galapagos - the adaptations of finches are particularly fascinating.

Without this knowledge we would not have developed anti-biotics, cures for many genetic disorders or even drought resistant crops. None of this knowledge is finite nor perfect that is what makes it so exciting - scientific knowledge continues to evolve as well.

All ID does is attempt to fill in the gaps that science has yet to answer - and in time, no doubt science will answer these questions. As a subject ID would hardly stand up at a tertiary level - along with other faith based systems it should be taught at a primary level as a part of religious studies.

Although I am not a fan of secular moral relativism, nor do I care much for a theory of existence ultimately based on Biblical stories.

Christian scientists clearly lose all sensibilitiy when defending the faith.

While I do not think we should do without God in our society we can sure do without theories cobbled together by extremists to save face for a religion which has been primarily man made

Trinity,
Your arrogance and emotion is evident with statements like:

"Well if Philo is neither ill nor eats, then probably very little.

Humans have been taking advantage of evolution since we moved from hunter/gatherer to agriculture as a means of survival. It was then that humans really began a series of discoveries that have (for better or worse) brought us to our present knowledge of vaccines, genetic engineering, medicines, crops, ecology - to name a few."

I can probably claim the use of genetic breeding and food production more than youself; I having been involved in agricultural research and dairy breeding. My use of selective line breeding and knocking out certain genes in vegetables and introducing other genes did not come from my knowledge of a theory of evolution but by intelligently applying changes in selective genes. We only worked with genes already in existence we did not introduce new genes. Evolution has not answered how new genes have entered the upward development of more complex species. Why each select species aligns only itself with their own species.

Will humans grow wings by cross breeding with birds, or four legs like horses as ancient mythology envisaged. The problem is we are likley to end up with bird brains, or can only breed stallions. Of course all this could happen in evolution without intelligence being applied. That the eye of an eagle developed from genes of an omeba without intelligent design is nonsense.

Intelligent design has, I believe, little if any scientific evidence.Above all who created the intelligent designer? As far as I can make out from my somewhat scanty knowledge of physics everything in the universe including life is governed by the laws of quantum physics where there is no room for an original designer.Chaos theory shows that complexity can arise from simplicity.However all this refers to the physical universe. But there is an equally important human universe ( i.e. relations between humans and the self) and here religious ideas may have an important place.So I.D.;creationism and various religious ideas should be taught in the social not the physical sciences.In other words God is in your mind not in the physical universe but that does not make him or her any less important.Any comments?

greg_m, that's not actually my site, or one that I have had any input in. If you didn't already realise that was a letter a concerned physics graduate had sent to the Kansas education board who are debating a move to introduce ID into their schools. I do agree with his argument though and might very well enter "Pastafarian" as my religion at the next census.

Whether evolution has or hasn't happened should be a no brainer. Consider that humans have a coccyx bone sticking out at the end of the spine, if that's not the remnants of a tail then what else? Dark skinned people evolved in climates where the sun is strong and pale skins where the opposite is true (obviously skin cancer isn't conjusive to survival). Fossils, the appendix, walking fish, animal breeds...

Another point, if an intelligent designer is responible for it all then why on earth did he create so many UNINTELLIGENT designs? Why are there human genes that promote breast cancer, sperm that has to be produced externally because it can't tolerate body temperature, eyes that don't always work (often used as an example of an ID), animals too large to feed themselves.

ID's are clutching at straws, with overwhelming evidence against their preferred theory (God made it all a few thousand years ago) they've had to compromise to something less fanciful but still not supported by the evidence.

Sorry to disappoint you Boaz, but "irreducible complexity" is not evidence, it is simply a manufactured, self-actualizing theory with no proof possible. The entire argument is tautological, a linguistic conjuring trick. A clever one, I grant you, but a trick nevertheless.

Incidentally, Professor Sternberg was properly excoriated for passing off his essay as having some form of scientific basis, when it was no more than a simple re-hash of the "God of the Gaps" argument, which has been discredited by any number of sane and sober scientists.

You will have to stop reading Sartre, you know, he's having a bad impact on you. You have quoted that single Sartre line about "since god doesn't exist, everything is morally possible" so many times now, it is becoming predictable.

Sartre was fairly confident in his atheism, and did propose that the concept of God was a limiting factor to man's imagination and rational thought processes. But I suggest that he is more commonly associated with the idea that man has created God in order to provide some form of meaning to life. Exactly, in fact, what the Intelligent Design proponents are trying to achieve.

Pericles, u've heard the saying "When your on a good thing, stick to it" I repeatedly use the 'phrase' because it is educational to the ignorant mind to be exposed to the logical ramifications of a 'no God' view of life. We've been down this path before in our 'Absolute Truth' encounter, so I won't revisit it.

ID. The idea that we can 'exclude' a specific possibility before we begin to examine evidence is not objective. When faced with certain otherwise unexplainable phenomena, it is justified to explore any possibility. Further information may come to exclude such, but in the meantime it is as valid as any other.

It might seem a tenuous connection, but the idea of Creation by the Almighty, is supported by one of the most well attested events of history, being of course the resurrection of Christ, and the conversion of Paul.

When faced with observable phenomena, such as irreducable complexity, and the abovementioned events, it is not unreasonable to suggest "God". But to be honest, I'm persuing this line only to remain faithful to the articles point, I don't think many people will be brought to humble themselves at the foot of the cross just because of ID. I find the resurrection and Pauls conversion, quite adequate themselves.

Like any interdisciplinary subject in university, ID would be critically examined and pulled apart to reveal its philosophical and epistemological platforms. I for one don't think it would last more than two lectures as a stand alone science - [before its revealed as a back door to fundamentalist Christianity??] So I have no problems with studying a fundamentalist Christian scientology. I know my devil worshiping mates would love it.

Oh BOAZ David, careful what you might say. “is supported by one of the most well attested events of history, being of course the resurrection of Christ, and the conversion of Paul”

Now I am not a religious person but lets just look at this statement. The resurrection of Christ?
As far as I remember the body of Christ was removed by somebody unknown who moved a large stone blocking the tomb? Aliens coming in a taking the body could be possible?
The appearance to the disciples later, well holographs are starting to get sophisticated so was somebody/something giving hope to the hapless primitive humans.
Mary’s conception without sex? Implantation of a test tube embryo?
Angels telling the shepherd that the savior is born. Aliens flying around gathering some interest??
Sodom destroyed by an advance weapon?
I know this is rather stupid but it illustrates my point.

Remember what Arthur C Clarke said, Immensely advance science is indistinguishable from magic (something like that)

For ID to become a “theory/fact” then these hypothesis must be tested. You cannot start with the observed "ID" and conclude there is a God. ID need to prove what type of intelligence is behind it. The type of intelligence may give insight into the design. If this intelligence has periodically visited earth then the design/intervention is periodic?

Philo - my comments stating whether you eat or get ill - were poor humour - sarcasm, to which I admit guilt.

Arrogant? Not. Arrogance is the assumption of superiority based on a lack of knowledge. Such as your blind assumption that as a dairy farmer you know more about evolution that do I. No, Philo all it proves is that you are a religious farmer.

There is abundant fossil evidence showing the evolution of the eye - which BTW is not perfect, may never be perfect.

As follows:
"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process. "

This was taken from Show Me the Science By DANIEL C. DENNETT
at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Where is the evidence of this intelligent designer? Will It/She/He be returning to this small planet any time soon? Is this 'intelligent designer' an intimation of life on other planets? Why is it so preoccupied with life on this planet?

ID - no evidence, just blind faith.

Can somebody clarify a point for me?

Is the designer a perfect, or imperfect entity, or as quantum physics may put it a superimposition of both sates?

If the designer is perfect, then his design must also be perfect. Therefore there can be no miracles and human pray is a wasted effort. Given that by definition a perfect design can not be bettered.

If however, the designer is imperfect, then it is possible that he may still be tinkering with the design. Miracles will be two a penny. Further as is the way of most odd job men, he can change the design as a consequence of human request. This implies that with an imperfect designer prayer and devotion will bring its rewards.

Can any body suggest how a super imposition of states would work? Perhaps they collapse into one state or other at the commencement of a biology classes

How did the single cell amoeba from its gene pool develop into a more complex gene structure like an eagle’s eye without intelligent design? According to Trinity’s logic it just had to stay in the sun for long periods of time and it would eventually grow eyes. The same logic would apply to those who believe we can grow wings by continuing to jump off tall buildings; sooner or later someone would survive and find they have grown batlike wings. Batman is the new development in human evolution - well we have been dreaming of it long enough - so soon a latent gene from a prehistoric batwing will accidentally mutate into the human genome. Believe it or not! All the evidence is there, it is not blind faith or intelligent design that causes this accidental mutation - evolution has shown it works in fact. So let us start jumping of high buildings.

Quote Trinity answer,

As follows:
"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and colour) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process. "

This was taken from Show Me the Science By DANIEL C. DENNETT
at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Her conclusion: ID - no evidence, just blind faith.

Trinity,
In the evolution of your knowledge of design you fail to recognise the eye is not made of inert material but of living organic material that functions on organic principles. You may see no need for the blind spot, but the nature of the materials used require that the internal functions of the retina be linked to the central nervous and circulatory system.The fovea is a small rodless area of the retina that enables acute vision.

I have no problems with the blind spot because I have two eyes. Do you suppose if we were to sit on mountain peaks like eagles for long periods we would improve the function of our eyes? This is the type of logic used by atheists who do not perceive intelligent development or purposeful design.

The article you give above does not identify how or from where new genes appeared or why light sensitive patches became more relevant to the existing species or how the emergence of the importance of light sensitivity played any role in the existing species. It merely gives an assumed history. You assume there were merely accidental mutations occurring I assume the process of design was happening in a certain direction to create superior and more complex living species. There was intelligent genetic design energy exerting its influence to create, not merely accidental mutations - but intelligent design. We can now observe what is optimum design of a species because we can evaluate mutations that are not normal within the design of the species. There is a forward thrust in design to have more complex and resulting in the ultimate intelligence of the human species. The human species has an optimum intelligence that is rarely employed, so human intelligence did not occur by continual exposure to need for higher intelligence. In fact some primitive tribal groups that have been isolated for thousands of years when educated are equal to the intelligence of any sophisticated line of persons exposed to thousands of years of formal education.

>>I repeatedly use the 'phrase' because it is educational to the ignorant mind to be exposed to the logical ramifications of a 'no God' view of life<<

My point, Boaz, is that you have oversimplified Sartre's message to the point of absolute incomprehension. He was trying to explain how atheism transferred responsibility of action from God to man. A believer can rely on his deity for a prescribed path through any moral dilemma, while an atheist has to make his own decisions.

The intention is not to describe a situation of total license, but to underline that man is capable of making "good" moral choices without reference to an outside source. Sartre points out that every man creates his own morality. Because he is free to do this, he is sometimes put in a situation where he needs to choose between two different courses of action. He would not have to make these decisions if God existed. Instead, by choosing, he creates what he really believes in - choosing his morality, developing his own morals and beliefs which result in his individual set of principles.

If you believe the result is necessarily horror, moral anarchy and widespread mayhem, it is only because you have a low opinion of your fellow man. Sartre on the other hand is prepared to bet on a strong independent humankind that thinks for itself.

>>When faced with certain otherwise unexplainable phenomena, it is justified to explore any possibility<<

I have no argument with this, except that ID is not in the business of "exploring" anything except the holes that exist in other folks' arguments. It might have a little more value if there were some positive, as opposed to negative, "hey, look at this" moments

"Do you suppose if we were to sit on mountain peaks like eagles for long periods we would improve the function of our eyes?"

If sitting on mountain peaks was the means by which we discovered our next meal then those amongst us with the best eye site would be better equipped to feed themselves and hence more likely to survive. Being alive is a farely fundamental requirement to breed so those with better eyes would produce more offspring than those with poor eyesight. The "good eye" genes at each generation would be more likely to carry through to the next. So to answer your question, yes the species as a whole would develop improved vision as a result of sitting on mountain peaks.

That should have been obvious, do you really know what evolution is all about Philo?

‘Intelligent design’ has no scientific basis & clearly should not be taught as such. It is nothing more than a theoretical philosophy.
One could say that ‘Christians’ in positions of power are attempting to create a bridge between their faith & science through this philosophy, & in a big way (public education). Many recognise this, hence the ‘Time’ article.
ID’s introduction to the public school system as anything other than a religion or philosophy would be beyond controversial. I can only hope the Hurricane disaster has shaken a little more reality into the US administration.
Another gin & lime, please…….

A question I wish to ask BOAZ & any other contributing Christians-
I seem to recall that we are made ‘in the image of God’. If this is the case, may it not be that God himself is evolving, & should be considered as such? Why cannot evolution as a random process be God’s creation, his great experiment? Why cannot this be God’s way of telling us that we are responsible for our own destiny?
The point I wish to make is that religious belief of any kind should be accepted, but should not wholly determine our path of action as a species.

Hi Swilkie
good to have your interaction.

I guess we see creation as being for a purpose, to bring the world and its inhabitants into being, for God's own plan.
The idea of evolution as God's experiment, really does not fit the Biblical picture, though I freely concede aspects of evolution are undeniably true, natural selection being the most obvious. I think most conservative Christians would baulk at taking it any further.

The concept of a 6 day creation does seem far fetched to the scientific mind on the surface, and how this is interpreted gives rise to a number of different positions and emphases among even Christians.

Intelligent design, I feel is very much an attempt by 'my mob' to regain a lot of lost influence and educational ground, but let me stress, that those of our persuasion, feel it is important because
it gives a foundation for our being, life, destiny, or a God centered framework for life. (Which, does not have to mean closed mindedness or stifling of scientific enquiry.)

The idea that it is about 'control and power' is quite foreign to the biblical understanding of society, but I'll grant that the large hierachical churches (RC, Anglican) would be most prone to abusing such a situation.

If you look closely at Pericles response to my use of a Sartre Quote, he actually underlines this matter, by admitting that in the moral realm, 'it all depends on us' (if God is 'not') This seems fine to we who have been enculturated with positive values already, but take these away, (as in the Soviet Union where atheism was taught at every level) u end up with few people who have moral fibre and backbone which a bribe won't bend. (if anecdotal evidence is valid)

Intelligent Design should be taught in the science class room. It is about time that teachers who believe in evolution are brave enough to defend their faith in the classroom, rather than trying to putting themselves above question and beyond debate.

If we compare the way science is taught at universities with almost any other discipline we would have to conclude that scientists are an arrogant bunch. From almost the first lecture in law, philosophy, history, religion, etc. students are encouraged to argue their views in the classroom and lecturers are prepared to debate them. But in the science classroom students are expected to shut up and learn from the experts. It is only after someone graduates and proceeds to a higher degree will the lecturers condescend to discuss issues with them.

Yet the idea that this universe made itself, and that no god was involved, is a religious position. It is about time that those who teach such views were required to defend them against alternatives.

An excellent and judicious piece by Dr Caton. I am deeply suspicious of "Intelligent Design" as some sort of alternative to natural selection and evolution, but Caton's suggestion that it be taught at tertiary (not secondary) level, is full of merit. Students at this level need to understand all the issues surrounding the troubled interface between science and faith, and not have them swept under the carpet.

The insistence of ID's proponents that it be taught in schools, however, gives away their agenda. By exposing young people not yet fully equipped with the tools of reason and scientific method to ID, they hope to gain converts from the most vulnerable. Let us be clear about this: ID is not science; it makes no testable predictions. It is rather an interpretation or argument along the lines - complex organic machines are so well suited to their tasks that they have been designed for the task. Hence there was a designer. This is a proposition one can argue about, but science it isn't. Nevertheless at the tertiary level anyone studying life sciences, as well as those interested in philosophy, the history of science or theology, should be exposed to the argument.

I do disagree with what I saw as Caton's willingness to blur the separation between church and state. In our democracy we have freedom of religion, or non-religion. The state's sole function is to maintain and protect that freedom. It is not to endorse, or be seen to endorse, religious propositions on scientific issues. These are matters for free debate, as we have here.

Church-state separation is vital in democracies. Once the state begins to intervene in religious issues, the way is open for successive extensions of such intervention. The far end of that road is either religious oppression (the state suppresses certain, or even all, religious views) or theocracy (a religion comes to dominate the state and uses it an instrument).

ID has no evidence to support it, no logically sound arguments. Its success is based on opportunism, intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance. In so far as it is falsifiable, ID already has been falsified. But the concept requires very little and this amorphousness makes it impossible for it to be fully debunked.

----
rockhound:
"It is about time that teachers who believe in evolution are brave enough to defend their faith"
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (From dictionary.com) Ie. the very opposite of science.

"If we compare the way science is taught at universities with almost any other discipline we would have to conclude that scientists are an arrogant bunch."
And mathematicians, doctors and computer programmers...

"From almost the first lecture in law, philosophy, history, religion, etc. students are encouraged to argue their views in the classroom and lecturers are prepared to debate them."
And what do all those subjects have in common? Great big bits that are open to interpretation and opinion. Debate is useful for those early students because detailed knowledge isn't required to have a reasonable opinion and ideology plays a significant role. You can't very well have a undergrad arguing with a professor about the inner workings of atoms, or have maths students questioning Rolle's theorem. They don't have any research, they don't have enough knowledge. Students need to grasp the basics of scientific fields before they can seek out the contentious and the undiscovered, so yeah they need to shut up and learn from the experts. (And learn from pracs.)

"Yet the idea that this universe made itself, and that no god was involved, is a religious position."
No, the idea that this universe made itself is logically contradictory and not a scientific theory. Whether or not a god was involved would be a religious position, but science doesn't deal with that.
----
And what's with all the talk about irreducible complexity?

The confusion and lack of knowledge of evolution as displayed by the IDers to this thread emphasizes the need to separate religion from clear concise scientific study. The discipline and pragmatic approach of scientific inquiry alone is a vital skill to be gained.

I don't have a problem with religion being taught to young children - I attended religious study and at the age of 11 I was able to decide for myself whether to believe in an unsubstantiated faith or the very real evidence based view of our world. At the age of 9 I was given a copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species by my parents because of my interest in the natural environment, this gave me the tools to decide at the age of 11 what made more sense.

My point to this little revelation is that do not underestimate the abilities of children to discern truth. In fact the best B*!!*$#*T detectors are fact, children.

Bored of this topic now

evolution r00lz

Does everybody in this post realise that macroevolution is NOT science? ID is posed as a fill the gaps theory- everything that evolution does not explain, ID supposedly does. But the Big Bang was the original fill the gaps theory- with no proof whatsoever, but a humanist and atheist outlook on life- scientists (not science) posed the theory of the Big Bang to explain what the lack of a Creator could not.

I will reiterate what I posted earlier:
"To me, believing in something unproven is faith. If faith is not to be taught in science class, than lets not teach the Big Bang, 6 days Creation, or any other faith system that poses some some sort of unsupported, untestable and unprovable scientific hypothesis on the origin of life."

Deuc: Whether or not a god was involved [in making this world] would be a religious position, but science doesn't deal with that.

Yes to the first part. That means that evolution is a religious position because science does deal with the issue of whether a god was involved. Scientists do not restrict themselves to documenting observations in the present, but speculate about what happened in the unobservable past. The idea of evolution (protozoa turned onto people over billions of years) says that no god was involved. So evolution is a religion (a worldview). Why should people holding one particular worldview have exclusive access to the science classroom to promote their religion

The “no new information created” is a line that gets banned about by creationist and their like. It’s based on the same flawed logic as the old zygote drawings or the moth coloration scam. The mechanisms that “create” new genes are while not very well understood, are developing and our knowledge is deeping and developing all the time. The two methods best understood are new DNA sequences added during copy errors and genes developing new functions. It quite amusing to anyone who uses information theory the blatant misrepresentation of the field by Creationist, all most as amusing as their use of the “law” of thermodynamics. The fact that Ider’s wish to argue the science in the public arena rather then science journals simply demonstrates their real agenda. One hundred years ago heredity was irreducible complex.

YngNLuvnIt - get your facts straight. Evolution (and macroevolution) is based on tested and provable evidence, so yes, it totally, totally proved. It is only considered theory as a scientific term. By the exact same standards, gravity is only a 'theory'. Do you challenge the theory of gravity, and suggest it shouldn't be taught in science classes? Don't be ridiculous.

As I have already said, antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a good example of evolution happening right now. The evidence is all around you, whether you choose to believe in it or not.

There is no credible challenge to evolution, despite 100 years of debate among the greatest scientific minds. Do you really think you can suddenly jump in and point out some imaginary 'flaw'?

Why do religious people choose to remain ignorant on evolution? Trust me, your God does not want you to be stupid. She/He wants you to know the truth. Pick up a science book before you try to make outrageous claims.

Boaz, at the (severe) risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I should like to make a small point about the examples you choose to illustrate your arguments.

>>'it all depends on us' (if God is 'not') ... seems fine to we who have been enculturated with positive values already, but take these away, (as in the Soviet Union where atheism was taught at every level) u end up with few people who have moral fibre and backbone which a bribe won't bend.

So according to you, if the Soviet Union had maintained its Russian Christian heritage instead of teaching atheism, all would have been wonderful?

I assume that you are aware that Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, and Rudolf Hoess were all Catholics from devout Catholic families? Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann were Protestant. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family.

In his book on the current Pope, John L. Allen Jr. writes about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Nazi Party. "Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected 'liberal individualism.'"

Liberal individualism, eh? Sounds pretty much like that which you object to so strongly, doesn't it.

Boaz, can you please stop using Christianity as the magic pudding that unites humanity in harmony? It patently does not, and never has.

And of course so that we are politically correct all forms of creationism must be included in this intelligent Design such as Hindu etc..... So religions would have to start arguing which creator is in fact the designer....

Another thing to kill people over.

Great.

I'll stick to aliens, beam me up, please.

The neodarwinian theory of evolution demonstrates WHAT designed life. If creationists want ID to be taught in science classes to explain WHO designed life, then they should first have there theory published in a reputable science journal. Until such time it should be taught only in religion or philosophy classes.

Spendocrat:

Do not presume to judge me ignorant because I do not accept your beliefs to be "totally, totally proved", or even anywhere near equal to the theory of gravity.

"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria 'after their kind', not a different type of creature.

Viruses are sometimes said to 'evolve', but what really happens is that mutations cause the changes to their protein coats. There is no increase in complexity, but sometimes the changes mean that antibodies do not recognise them. So the viruses are 'fitter', but there is still no increase in information.

A similar case is a recent discovery that some antibiotic-resistant bacteria have abnormally high mutation rates. This is caused by a mutation in the genes for the sophisticated genetic proof-reading mechanisms present in all life. This means there is more chance of errors not being corrected. Sometimes one of these defects happens to result in antibiotic resistance, as explained above."
-Part of "Has evolution really been observed?" AiG

That viruses might be "fitter" in isolated cases doesn't mean much to me about the universe evolving from some sort of cosmic soup.

Observable facets of science within the evolutionary theory might be discussed from primary/secondary school level on, but as to the Big Bang, macroevolution, etc. (and other things which I STILL MAINTAIN are not proven fact), these should be argued at tertiary level along with other religious and/or philosophical outlooks such as ID, 6 day Genesis, whatever else.

rockhound, so any position becomes religious simply because it contradicts somebody's claim about the supernatural? I should hope that's not your claim, and hence I think you'll need to explain why evolution is a religious question but the mechanics of breading rising isn't. (Assuming someone holds a belief that God personally and directly makes it rise.)

"Scientists do not restrict themselves to documenting observations in the present, but speculate about what happened in the unobservable past."
"The unobservable past", is either a tautology or means a point in time where the is no evidence from which to draw a conclusion. That point in time would then be about 13.7 billion years ago, which covers most everything, and assuming the tautology then I see no reason why science should limit itself to making predictions about the future. Even without direct evidence relating to an issue, why should scientists ignore the implications of other theories that are supported; but this is getting less and less related to evolution, which has no such problem.

"The idea of evolution (protozoa turned onto people over billions of years) says that no god was involved."
No that's the theory of evolution, ie. the description of how evolution did occur on Earth, not the concept/fact. (Either way it isn't particularly concerned with people.) Does it say no god was involved? In a way, but that is because of what the evidence shows. It doesn't say no god created *the universe*, that no god created life, or didn't make slight alterations in the environment to bring about a certain result.

"So evolution is a religion (a worldview)."
While technically it may be a worldview, a worldview is not a religion. There is no belief in a supernatural/spiritual power, or using the broader meaning, no devotion.

"Why should people holding one particular worldview have exclusive access to the science classroom to promote their religion "
Because that worldview is *scientific* and it is a science class? Because there's objective evidence for it? Not sure whether I'm fascinated, appalled or merely saddened by the level of creationist sophistry.

A copy-cat of powerful BIG allies is a very IT of a local political life.

That is why publication in Sunday Herald Sun was of no surprise:

<"Science is still hazy about the origins of the universe"
BRYAN PATTERSON FINDS MUCH TO SUPPORT A CONTROVERSIAL THEORY
Sunday Herald Sun, 04-09-2005, Ed: 1 - FIRST, Pg: 037, 736 words , OPED2

HONESTLY, you would have to be awestruck to believe the universe came about by cosmic accident. You would have to marvel at the complexity and beauty of a natural order made by blind fate. But marvelling is not thinking. An alternative theory – that the organization of our world is evidence for God’s existence-seems more compelling. ...>

A question remains, which GOD should be used as reference if children from different backgrounds attend government schools in a secular state having proclaimed segregation between political and religious powers.

Talking to a fellow mum on the train to work today, she said; "If (insert name of religious private school here) starts teaching ID in science, I'm marching my kids right out of there. If its taught in religion, no problem." I agreed, but am less concerned that my kids secular public school would teach ID as science. I think you will find most parents feel the same way unless they have chosen a fundamentalist Christian school. So the argument is probably irrelevant, parents won't let it happen.
I am no scientist but the theory of evolution makes intuitive sense to me, that doesn't make it fact, just believable until we find out more. I have no idea about a 'creator", maybe there is one, maybe there isn't, but doubt we'll ever be able to prove it, the way we keep finding concrete fossil evidence for evolution. Scientists debate stuff all the time, like global warming/global dimming etc, but they do it based on knowledge and evidence rather than a faith they were taught from birth. Lets leave science as science and religion as religion.

I share an above response but < ”…If its taught in religion, no problem.” I agreed, but am less concerned that my kids secular public school would teach ID as science. I think you will find most parents feel the same way unless they have chosen a fundamentalist Christian school. So the argument is probably irrelevant, parents won't let it happen > sounds a bit different to me in a general context.

A main reason for any schooling is establishing the basis for further manipulating of the predominant majority of “free participants in democratic processes”. In environment where a half of the Australians already have reading problems (see a related article in the same volume of The Sunday Herald Sun mentioned) it cannot be underestimated.

If the sacred was a basic stone of the science upon the history, the Earth still rests on the elephants as King Saud's decree had proclaimed not so far ago,circa 1997.

Moreover, a relevance of a core concern my last message had expressed upon, that is a de-facto intentionally divisive process, which is placing the elementary education on particular religion's ideas while educating children of different faiths, does not look irrelevant during this discussion at all

Has anyone observed anything evolving in his or her children lately? Believe me, Ive noticed a batman syndrome developing in my grandson.

In 400 - 600 years we will run out of avgas so we will not have the fuel to transport numbers of people by flight. We'll be ground bound. The new development is to grow giant batlike wings. The gene hasbeen in past creatures and retained in some existing species. The fact is we must expect and involve ourselves in the activity that will develop appropriate gene.

Diet should consist of Albatross wings, bird bones ground fine so we absorb genetic fibres of their frame. So we do not grow feathers we must consume large amounts of fruit bats, mice, webs of ducks feet. Women - be warned their child could appear with wings, squawk like a bird be born in firm calcified shell the husband will take time incubated.

Exercise programme should be jumping of heights until enough muscle strength is evolved and body weight reduced. Base jumping is banned but those performing such feats are on the move, let us join them before we become the next zoo display.

I happened to be talking to my daughter about dreams only to find she dreams of flying. I'd said it was ego, but have changed my mind she inherited this flight gene. Exciting stuff this evolving. A friend when I offered to help her move said, "You are an angel" so I'm now beginning to believe I am evolving.

As a child I could jump off the roof of the house or sheds after retrieving balls. Seven years ago I fell 3.5 meters of a building and spent seven months off work with a fixator on my severed arm. Small damage, because the gene is developing. This is how evolution works it is important that we persevere for about 1,000,000 years and one human will ultimately leave this earth on wings. My prediction is firmly based in evolutionary science. This is not a religious belief.

So go jump!

A simple introduction to Intelligent Design Theory for the uninitiated:

Q. If an archeologist comes across a piece of rock that may be an ancient tool, how does he tell if the instrument is in fact a tool?
A. He looks for evidence of design.

Likewise, a detective investigating an apparent acidental death will look for any evidence that perhaps the death was not accidental (maybe it was murder or suicide). He looks for evidence of planning and intelligent action.

In a similar way, astronomers searching for life in outer space focus their search on signs of intelligence such as the transmission of a non-random code.

You could do a similar thing right now. Ask yourself, does the computer you are using show evidence of intelligent design? How could you recognize if something were designed if nobody had been there to see its beginning? Notice also, that if you conclude that the computer you are using is designed you don't suddenly become "unscientific" about how a computer works. Knowledge of the origin of something and knowledge about its operating mechanisms are two different things.

None of these activities I have just described can be said to be looking for an easy way out or for a mystical explanation for "gaps" in our human knowledge. They are sincere and practical attempts to discern if intelligence is at work. Very simply, this is all that Intelligent Design Theory attempts to do when considering the origin of life and the universe. It simply asks the question, "Is what we see in the galaxies and in our genes likely to have been designed?" By asking such a question, I don't suddenly become unscientific in my understanding of how things work, but I do open mywelf up to the possibility that there may have been an originating intelligence in the universe. Because this possibility has huge philosophical ramifications, many people are stridently opposing the theory of Intelligent Design.

I guess it doesn't come more simple than that, mykah.

In fact, this has been the cry for so many years, ever since the caveman came out of his cave, looked up to the sky and said “Ugh”.

Which, translated, meant “dammit, it's raining again, can't go kill animals for food. I bet there's a god of rain up there who decides to mess up my hunting unless I worship him.”

Over the years, more enquiring minds than our caveman set themselves to work, and found that there were what they called “natural phenomena” at work – you know, condensation, clouds, air pressure, temperature bands, that sort of stuff. These people got together and called these phenomena “the weather”. All sorts of other people jumped on the bandwagon, including governments (who put together a thing called the me-te-o-ro-log-i-cal office – I know it's a big word, but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it) and TV stations.

There are still people out there who believe that there is in fact a rain-god who can, when asked nicely, cause the rain to fall, but they are mostly English cricketers these days.

YngNLuvnIt – my belated response:

I’ve grabbed a lot of the below from the www.straightdope.com (handy site) discussion on micro v macro evolution, which itself references ‘The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism’ by Stephen Jay Gould.

Your comments suggest you accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Cool, we’re half way there!
Macroevolution is actually the same story as micro, just on a larger scale. Creationists haven’t come up with a reasonable explanation why evolution should stop at the boundary of a species, rather than include the process that changes one species to another over time. Fact is, there’s no such reason. It's all one process.

The evolution of a family is no different in its basic nature, and involves no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The conclusion reached some time ago was that the same principles of adaptive divergence - primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection - going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life (the ‘mutation’ you argued is, easily pictured as a tiny step in a much bigger journey, in other words, yes, its evolution, just on a smaller scale).

Creationists say there can be variation within kinds but not between kinds. Biologists assert that there has been one history of life: all life has descended from a single common ancestor; therefore one process-evolution-is responsible for the diversity we see.

The truth is there is no magical dividing line between micro and macroevolution. Biological evidence shows that changes within species are caused by the same natural forces that eventually cause differences between species, genera, families, and so on.

So to re-iterate (again): evolution r00lz. No one has come close to providing a decent challenge to it. Ever.

mykah, a nitpick first: SETI etc. look for patterned signals, not simply non-random singals because pulsars etc. aren't random.

Tools of that sort are by definition, something that has been designed and we know that such things exist. Similarly a detective has reason to give significant consideration to an unnatural death because such things have happened before, and the detective would be looking at the immediate cause of the death first in order to determine any grounds for suspicion anyway. We know alien signals will be structured, because that is what makes them signals; my point is that the search is based on knowledge of and evidence for what is sought. ID lacks such evidence and we do not know the suggested means of design.

It is not a scientific theory, as it is neither supported by evidence nor falsifiable. There is no way to demonstrate that design did not take place on some scale, and yes the same is true for the other 3 examples and they are not scientific theories either.

Firstly ID is limited to biological processes (not the universe), but in asking "is what we see in our genes likely to have been designed?" a result/hypothesis is being presumed that is not based on existing observaiton or evidence; unlike scientific theories. If we do try to answer it anyway the answer becomes no, since we have no evidence for it. Why should a science class consider something that is not supported by evidence?

"By asking such a question, I don't suddenly become unscientific in my understanding of how things work,"
Yes actually you do, because hypotheses and descriptions are being made divorced from any observed phenomena. That doesn't mean that the hypotheses are necessarily false though. The detective has observed such phenomena, and is merely testing whether the current death matches the pattern. But he still has no scientific theory because the pattern can't ever be rejected. ID *doesn't* explain how things work, it just says "it was designed by an intelligence".

Dear MichaelK,
You responded to me, and I would like to respond to you, but, I'm afraid I simply don't get what you mean. Could you explain it a little more simply for a plain old mum like me? I actually don't even know whether you agree or disagree. Are you, perhaps, saying that parents may not be the best judges of what is the best education? If you are, I tend to agree, but they are the final arbiters under this govt, apparently.

Who was the designer?

Philo's last post shows he does not understand basic neodarwinian evolutional theory. He’s is describing a mechanism for evolution that was dropped 100 years ago. Try reading a book about evolution written by a knowledgeable person rather then Aig or other such garbage.

To other poster’s the fact is creationism and ID is an attack on science and should be treated as a religious ideology that it is.

I share an opinion that mailing-to-this-forum-rules effectively prevent from prompt responding.

The following is a digest of my replies to messages appeared last 36 hours.

1. To Deuc <..Why should a science class consider something that is not supported by evidence?…
ID *doesn't* explain how things work, it just says "it was designed by an intelligence". >

Lack of evidence is not prove to/of ID of which main purpose as understood was the CREATING neither explaining anything if something, anyway.

And none responded to my previous messages that what is significant evidence itself.

2. To enaj: Parents should decide. Especially those who themselves do not bother to improve their reading and writing as was mentioned above.

And my concerns regarding imposing particular believes on variety of government schools pupils are still omitted.

i dunno bennie,

but it aint gonna be happy when it comes back and finds out what those apes it was playing with have been doing while it was gone.

Bennie, The answer is 42

for a different perspective.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

its not easy being-
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 proves that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean sanity.
I still think the answer is 42. Another gin & lime please, waiter...

Philo just needs to back to my post

"Posted by HarryC, Sunday, 4 September 2005 7:02:40 PM"

in which I responded to another of his asshat suppositions. If that ain't clear Philo then it's time to give up because the adults are speaking.

You are still sitting on that chair, when the evolving gene is to squat to alight speedily or land shock absorbed. Your descendants will never get off Earth. "The're of the Earth, while the spirit is to rise to places unknown"

From the articles I read here on no intelligent designer, conclude the following. It doesnt take intelligence or a concept of design to write a theory of evolution as facts place order as a possible sanario.

Evolution happens over many generations by slight mutation being introduced into an existing species. The example given was the eye. Eg, continual exposure to sunlight caused neat cavities to appear on each side of the simple cellular species, give or take a 1,000,000 years and eyes formed because the simple species felt the wampth and needed the light of the sun to find its way more quickly to its meal. [So apparently it was able to reason and direct an intelligent thought process to direct and recreate itself into a new species from outside its original gene pool] When it got there it found it had no digestive system other than to absorb the water that contained nutriment from rocks. [Using the same logic] So it pushed hard against the rock for many thousands of generations at the position where the eyes could see the rock and finally the rock itself penetrated the surface of its membrane because lips and a mouth had been formed, and as all foreign matter in a cell it must now be excreted so thousands of generations later an anus was formed after millions of years of excreating the foreign matter through the same way it entered.

The theory of evolution reads like any dreamtime story but there was no one else there, no observer, no brain no design it all just evolved. You see all those people who believe in intelligent design believe in an eternal intelligence and that structural design principles were at work even in primitive DNA.

Atheists denounce intelligence or principles of design exist outside the DNA, nor were instilled divinely within the species.

PERICLES

point taken, actually I don't regard Christianity as that magic pudding, and no, humanity will indeed not be united in the way you seem to think I suggest.

And don't worry about Godwins law, I can respond meaninfully, as I realize ur intent was serious.

It seems to me, (just as a casual observer) that the likes of those you mentioned, had a reason to be passionate, in Hitlers case, he appears to have a firm belief in some kind of divine calling. Quite wierd reading his quotes. The others, may well have felt the same, irrespective of the waywardness of their understanding.

By contrast, and speaking with a hugely broad brush here, the Soviet Union deliberately taught atheism, which I feel is more likely to produce an atmosphere of despair, specially when things are tough.

You should know me well enough by now, to realize that what I offer and emphasise is the individual encounter with God through Christ, not the radical 'Christianisation' of society in a legislative way, though it must seem like I advocate that at times when I'm speaking purely in 'Christian in a democracy' mode. It must be confusing at times. Not much I can do apart from put a 'heading' "mode=xxxxxx" :)

On the topic, I feel that it is totally irrational,dogmatic and subjective to a-priori exclude a possibility incuding divine authorship of the Universe and life.

Just a brief reply to Deuc, and by the way, I appreciate the fact that Deuc to his credit has directly addressed the issues I raised, rather than resorting to ridicule.

To quote:

"mykah, a nitpick first: SETI etc. look for patterned signals, not simply non-random singals because pulsars etc. aren't random.

Tools of that sort are by definition, something that has been designed and we know that such things exist."

I accept your correction on the fact that SETI looks for patterned signals, but I beg to differ with the thrust of your comments. Your main point as I understand, is that in those areas (SETI, detective work, archeology) there is prior knowledge of a designer, so it is valid to look for one, but with the order we see in the universe, it is not valid to test and see if there is a designer behind it because nobody has ever seen such a designer.

Very briefly, I find your reasoning fallacious. Why? For one thing, nobody has seen any E.T., so SETI is based only on the possibility that intelligence may be "out there". Likewise, a detective may have a hunch of fould play but is in essentially the same position, he is looking if there signs of intelligent activity, he has not made a prior assumption that there is an active intelligence behind the death or not. Ditto for the archeologist. All this proves, rather than disproves, my point that being open to the possibility of intelligent design of our DNA is in the same category as the examples I gave. It is only those who have a prior assumption (or prejudice) against the idea of intelligent design who pronounce that ID is unscientific. But proclaiming something unscientific before objectively examing the evidence is itself not a scientific attitude. A scientific attitude will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it is to a philosophically unpalatable conclusion.

Sorry MichaelK, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you are trying to convey; I think there's a bit of a language barrier. From what I understand you are saying that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science classes but the option should be there if parents want it?

Philo, it is really hard to tell whether you are being entirely sarcastic, entirely serious or a bit of both. If you are being serious, then you really really need to go explore how evolution actually works. Your caricature seems to assume 1) that biological functions are formed in stages and 2) that animals make a conscious decision to evolve.

Take a population of small blind creatures. A mutation of a gene results in the creation of cells that respond to the presence of light. Some of the population has this mutation, which gives those creatures a very slight edge over the rest of the population (maybe they stay under where it is dark and there is more to feed on etc.). Over time this sub-population grows relative to the total population, now rinse and repeat.

Within that sub-population there are new mutations where there are more photosensitive cells or perhaps it causes an outgrowth. This sub-sub-population also grows in relative size because they have an advantage -- so the beneficial gene propagates. Having an outgrowth while moving lets you determine the source of light, thus larger growths will result in larger numbers of more successful creatures. A semi-spherical shape is a very efficient shape, and computer simulations have shown how easily and quickly the basic shape of an eye can evolve.

Now you have eyes, but having to move your body to get the full picture can let predators know you're there, so movable eyes form. Creatures will be more likely to hang around long enough to reproduce if they have better eyesight, eg. to avoid predators or see them in the distance. So the structure of the eye will change slowly in line with what works, such as lenses, sockets & lids to reduce blindness.

mykah: tomorrow.

Let's just agree to call it "the confusion of Boaz"

>>what I offer and emphasise is the individual encounter with God through Christ, not the radical 'Christianisation' of society in a legislative way, though it must seem like I advocate that at times when I'm speaking purely in 'Christian in a democracy' mode. It must be confusing at times<<

It is confusing, Boaz. You are using different rules to assess the damage caused by institutionalized atheism as against that caused by institutionalised Christianity. What I am unsure about is whether you are aware of this.

But back to the topic.

>>I feel that it is totally irrational,dogmatic and subjective to a-priori exclude a possibility incuding divine authorship of the Universe and life<<

You are absolutely right. If I gave you the impression that I have dismissed the possibility, then I haven't been sufficiently clear. I haven't dismissed any possibility from my consideration, including the intervention of beings from another planet. However, I do tend to grade them in my mind on their likelihood or probability, and on this basis make a decision whether I would prefer my offspring to learn about it as part of science, or in General Studies - metaphysics, philosophy, comparative religion etc.

It is actually quite refreshing to keep an open mind on these issues, Boaz. To be able to continue to ask questions when others have decided they know all the answers is a really good feeling. I can recommend it.

PERICLES.. I'm glad you haven't dismissed the possibility of the divine.

Yes, u may describe my ramblings as 'confusion' and indeed they must seem to be at times with my 2 mode contribution. Especially when people want to lock me into some little box of understanding about my position on various matters.

I don't see much to be gained by the endless examination of the current scientific flavor of the month re creation/evolution. The science is in flux at all times.

The only major point I can make on this topic would be as follows:

In science lectures, on the subject of 'origins' it would not be amiss to mention the idea of creation as 'one' possibility, (but one in which millions believe) that cannot be rejected on any grounds other than dogmatic exclusion. And indeed your point about alien intervention is worthy of a mention.

When we tell young people 'what' to believe and what not to believe, we are always in danger of them doing the opposite. Just so with 'no,God could not have created' will possibly back fire. I can't wait for the report of the teacher who was then confronted with a bright student who came back at him with a few juicy quotes from my favorite atheists :)

We live in exciting times, and the pendulum has reached its peek in the non religious direction, now I see a large group of science ego's grasping at the weight, trying to hold and cling to it so it remains on that extremity of the swing.

Anyway, have a nice day, I'm a bit off color today, aching bones and joints, headache etc.. back to normal soon.
cheers

A thought, BD. What on earth (or in heaven) was the purpose of designing the lurgy from which you're apparently suffering? Assuming for the sake of argument that the world is designed, can you or another ID proponent describe the ways in which the world would be different if it were not the work of a designer?

Sorry to hear of your 'flu symptoms, I'm just recovering from a bout myself.

To be fair, you yourself introduced the concept of "the confusion of Boaz", I was simply agreeing with you. And you did it again in this last post...

>>In science lectures, on the subject of 'origins' it would not be amiss to mention the idea of creation as 'one' possibility, (but one in which millions believe) that cannot be rejected on any grounds other than dogmatic exclusion.<<

Now you have re-introduced creationism into the argument - I thought we had left that one behind ages ago? And it certainly would be "amiss" to introduce the topic into science lectures, as it is an entirely un-scientific concept, as is ID. The grounds of "dogmatic exclusion" would not need to be invoked, as there isn't a skerrick of science in either theory.

Get well quickly.

US: Religion A Strength And Weakness For Both Parties

Public Divided on Origins of Life

Both major political parties have a problem with their approach toward religion, in the eyes of many Americans. .......
The public also has distinctly different perceptions of both parties when it comes to dealing with religion and personal freedoms. By a wide margin – 51% to 28% – the GOP is seen as the party most concerned with protecting religious values. By a nearly identical margin (52%-30%), the Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices.
...
...Most independents (54%) think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, while fewer, 43%, think secular liberals have too much sway on the Democratic Party.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center...on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula.

....Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism.

The survey also finds that while large majorities of Americans say that parents, scientists and school boards all should have a say in how evolution is taught in schools, a plurality (41%) believes that parents – rather than scientists (28%) or school boards (21%) – should have the primary responsibility in this area.

Thanks MichaelK, for some really, really depressing statistics. 64% are open to the idea of teaching creationism ALONGSIDE evolution? If that statistic is correct, we're in more trouble than I realised.

I believe old religions no longer serve the positive purpose they used to, and that we've outgrown them, and that they're redundant. This is a perfect example of an outdated, silly, superstitious belief halting intellectual development, and slowing the progress of mankind. The longer we hold on to the lies, the longer it takes to find out more truths.

Why hold on to the faith stuff when the observable world is more amazing and fascinating than anything you can dream up? Eh, whatever, no ones gonna change their mind.

Deuc, I liked your discussion of the formation of the eye as a theoretical input to the thread.

Unfortunately the fossil record is very short on intermediate species such as you describe.

I don't really have an opinion either way with regards evolution and ID, I try to keep an open mind about the subject.

Having studied a few evolutionary science subjects while at university, the absence of these fossils certainly proved puzzling, although I do think that evolution probably is the most likely mechanism for diversity.

Maybe a stepped approach, rather than gradualism, brought about by spearation of populations is part of the puzzle.

t.u.s.

Spendocrat, I enjoy talking to you on this subject.

I think the reason Creationists argue it stops at the species level is because we have never observed it beyond that. Also, there are no transitionary fossils from millions of years ago to prove otherwise.

You have shown that macroevolution could exist, in a way similar to the fact that microevolution does exist, but you have not shown that macroevolution does/did exist.

I still have a major problem with the apparent “totally, totally proved” element of evolution that has never been shown- that is change occurring from an increase in information, not a decrease. If one animal is to evolve to a higher one, it must inherit a gene that will somehow allow it to pick up that next animal’s attributes. If that animal does not yet exist, where does the gene come from?

Within species, breeds simply lose information, and do not evolve to any higher being. A whole breed of dogs raised with longer fur than other dogs because they are in Artic climate does not mean in millions of years they will evolve into polar bears. They lack a number of polar bear features, and merely specialising in particular dog features will not get them all the way.

What you’ve argued to me actually more logically supports the idea that more advanced beings have de-evolved into what we now have today, not the other way around. Of course this is the wrong direction and I don’t think anybody actually believes that to a large extent, but I state that as a by-the-way, because it is the only type of “evolution” we can now observe. (Actually, I think Creationists believe there were originally created “kinds”, approximately equal to “genuses”, and there has since arisen variation within them into more specialized species, but I don’t think any other viewpoint goes any further back than that).

Neither the whole theory of evolution (how do you know the Big Bang happened?) nor 6-day Creation (how do you know God made space, time, matter and energy in one day and the rest of the stuff in the next 5?) nor ID (how do you know something else made us?) has shown itself to be science yet.

So back to my original solution: I agree with the article. Particularly considering the poor literacy and numeracy rates at many Australian high schools at the moment, let’s teach current science in high schools today, and leave speculation of the past to university students (in perhaps philosophical-science classes).

Peace,
Y&LI

Ok, easy questions first, we know the Big Bang happened because the expansion of the universe is measurable and the observable radiation and energy in the universe fits exactly in with what it should be according to Big Bang theory. Next!

Fair enough that you dispute its ‘totally, totally’ provable – that’s my overly excitable language at work. But to call evolution just speculation (or philosophical)…well, that’s just plain nuts. It’s science. Seriously.

One mistake you make is thinking that genes need to just appear out of nowhere for a new species to begin. This isn't how evolution happens. New species come from recoding of DNA, or combinations of genes. This is an important distinction. A mutation is when a couple of genes are coded differently within DNA, and evolution is when this results in a gene combo more likely to survive. The mutation stays, and in another however many years the process happens again, the slight changes better adapted for survival stick, and the ones that aren’t helpful die off. Give it enough mutations and separate this group of animal from the original, and you’ll end up with a group so mutated from the original, it can be considered a new species.

Of course there are fossils of transitional species – any species, living or extinct, can be considered a transitional species. What we are now can be considered as the transitional point between what we used to be and whatever we will evolve to in the future. But since we can’t predict the future, we have no way of telling what genetics will prove to be the best adapted for survival, and thus cannot predict in which direction we will evolve.

Plus, considering how incredibly unlikely it is for an animal to become fossilised, and how much of the land on earth remains unsearched, it’s lucky we have found as many fossils as we have.

Ever wonder why the experts on the subject (the biologists and other scientists) all accept evolution, and it’s only those that know little about it who challenge it?

There’s a reason for that.

t.u.s: Well, almost all fossils are examples of intermediate/transitionary species. (But I see spendocrat has already pointed that out.) Given the low probability of fossil formation and the limited things they can show, it isn't surprsing that we don't have comprehensive evidence; but there is quite enough to show that it happens. I'm sure there are many different mechanisms involved(eg. genetic drift) and you are proabably more schooled in those things than I am.

mykah Part 1:
"Your main point as I understand, is that in those areas (SETI, detective work, archeology) there is prior knowledge of a designer, so it is valid to look for one,"
First let me repeat that I'm not saying those things are science, (which is the real issue) nor am I saying that it is ever "invalid" (not sure what you mean by that) to look for a designer. I am saying that those things are closer to science because they have prior evidence to suggest the possibility and they know what to look for. (Yes this is true for SETI: we exist and have radio.) Those two things make the decision to search more logical & supported and thus more reasonable. It would not be reasonable for a detective upon seeing evidence of strangling/suffocation to consider whether Darth Vader or a daemon may have done it. He has not made an assumption that the Sith Lord is involved, but he has assumed the possibility of it, ie. developed the hypothesis, without any prior evidence.

"but with the order we see in the universe, it is not valid to test and see if there is a designer behind it because nobody has ever seen such a designer."
Again, let me say that ID is about biological design not the universe; the creation of the universe is not relevant to a discussion of evolution. The problem isn't that it is invalid to test for a designer, it is that we can't or at least don't know what to test for, and that it isn't following the scientific method.

i'd agree with deuc that a number of gaps in the fossil record are a result of the low probablity of fossil formation, the other issue of course is that soft tissue (where you would expect the smaller and more gradual mutations to occur before effecting the bone structure) is even less likely to be fossilised than solid matter, hence it is very rare that scientists get the oportunity to study the very early forms of life.

intersestingly, there are a number of digs in china at the moment that are producing a large amount of dinosaur solf tissue, including feathers (in suprisingly large amounts). the arm structure of smaller dinosaurs is suggesting that instead of the idea that they evolved into birds from gliding reptiles, the arms and feathers (originaly display and insulation) were held out from the body and used to create downforce, stabalising the animal and allowing them to run much faster. obviously, larger arms and feathers would make an animal a much more effective hunter, hence the success of those particular gene combinations.

the point of all this? that we are seeing documentable evidence of the evolution, not only from one species to another, but from one whole class of organism (only took about 15000000 years).

spendocrat,
Your statement is incorrect and sweeping: Quote, "Ever wonder why the experts on the subject (the biologists and other scientists) all accept evolution, and it’s only those that know little about it who challenge it?"

I have two close friends who attends my Church, one is professor of microbiology in UWS, the other a retired professor of physics previously involved in the NASA space programmes who are not in any way atheistic evolutionist, but prefer intelligent design.

The theory of evolution is based upon intelligent deduction from sequential principles of design. Atheists cannot argue that living species are random accidental mutations. There is causal evidence of emergence or degrading of a species. The present human genome is weakening because parents are exposed to higher levels of radiation are fertilizing older ovum, using less virulent spermatozoa.

mykah Part 2:

Scientist notices unexplained occurrences, then comes up with a hypothesis to explain those observations, deductions are made from the hypothesis and those are tested against new observations or experiments. If the hypothesis passes the test then it can be called a theory.

Applying this to ID:
We have no unexplained occurrences -- nothing that couldn't potentially be explained by evolution, although there are gaps in our understanding of specific mechanisms. For ID, the hypothesis comes first which is a not so good thing. It doesn't explain anything about the principle behind the occurences, which is very bad. No deductions can be made from the hypothesis, there is no way to test the hypothesis or conduct experiments based on it and so it is not falsifiable and can never become a scientific theory. (Some criticise string theory for being metaphysics not science; for similar reasons.)

"It is only those who have a prior assumption (or prejudice) against the idea of intelligent design who pronounce that ID is unscientific. "
No, there are many people who don't accept evolution but don't think ID is science or should be excluded from schools. The methodology is what is important, ID does not follow the scientific method and hence is not science. Saying Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb is not science, detailing how the bomb destroyed Hiroshima is; ID could have oodles of evidence but it still wouldn't be science.

"A scientific attitude will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it is to a philosophically unpalatable conclusion. "
Yes, science doesn't care about philosophy or anything else; but there isn't any evidence. Even if there was, the (current) ID hypothesis still doesn't describe a mechanism and can't be tested.

Pericles,
“There are still people out there who believe that there is in fact a rain-god who can, when asked nicely, cause the rain to fall, but they are mostly English cricketers these days.”

I think you will find it is the Aussie cricketers theses days… :-)

As to evolution vs. ID, how’s this:
God induced evolution as a part of his ‘scheme’ called creation. Gives everyone a say. Still, there’s no need to call it science and every possibility that it can be discussed in philosophy or theology. Now everyone should be happy. Except those that don’t want to be a relation to a guy/gal still hanging in the trees… or on the sea bed… or on the open plains of Africa… or the mountains of Tibet… or… oh, bugger it. Just get used to the idea we’re all related.

In reply to Deuc (my final post on this article by the way)

One of your statements says it all concerning people who reject ID out of hand:

"ID could have oodles of evidence but it still wouldn't be science."

In other words, you are saying that your mind is made up, and "please don't confuse me with the evidence".

I rest my case.

Surely, spell checking highlights too many in Deuc messages.

That is a normal situation for rather privileged than educated.

MichaelK, if your rather cryptic comment means what I take it to imply, I suggest your spellchecker is at fault.

Philo – well done! By pointing out I said ‘all’ instead of ‘almost all’, you totally won a point for your side of the debate! Damn, I’ve been ruined! I know not to mess with you again!

(Oh, the two scientists who attend your chuuurch…I seeeee….)

Give me a decent challenge. Swatting away these mosquito arguments is hardly a fun debate.

The only logical basis that ID has is that the world is too complex to have happened by accident. Well, why shouldn’t it have been by accident? Given the vastness of the universe it seems only reasonable that somewhere the conditions would be just right for the earth’s story to happen. Why not here?

Back to the subject of fossils, I believe it was Bill Bryson who said "for the entire population of America that is alive today - 280 million people - their entire representation in the fossil record will be about 200 bones - not even a full skeleton. Such is the likelihood of becoming a fossil." Creationists argue about the fossil evidence we don’t have, and ignore the evidence we do have – a laughable way of looking at things.

By the way, I love mykah’s case being rested on a complete misunderstanding of what Deuc was saying. Such is typical of the way people challenge evolution. They completely misunderstand a phrase, or intentionally take something out of context, then throw it back at the person as some sort of ‘point’, backing it up with ‘well you said it yourself!’. It’s like arguing with a child.

I'll bet that in most cases scientists who adhere to a creationist philosphy had a religious upbringing imposed on them. Essentially they want to have their cake and eat it to as the alternative is to reject an institution that has been made an entrenched part of their life. It would take some audacity to tell the ones that you love and have supported you in life that you now reject the belief system that they installed in you because you have concluded it's a load of codswallop - "sorry, won't be seeing you guys at church anymore...". Much more personally agreeable to say that science, which keeps you feed at the end of the day, and religion can both exist in harmony.

I urge Philo and others who still have no grasp on:
a) what evolution actually is; and
b) the overwhelming body of evidence there is to support it;
to visit this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html which uses humans as a case study for evidence of evolution.

The important thing to remember when looking at the evidence for evolution is this. The theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. They do not. These empirically validated predictions present overwhelmingly strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason.

That convince you? Of course it did, its hard to argue that logic, isn’t it.

Peace out y'all

Spendocrat: ‘These empirically validated predictions [of evolution] present overwhelmingly strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason.’

What is the big deal? All worldviews make predictions that can be tested. Evolution is just one worldview. The Bible provides a worldview that can be stacked up against reality too.

Please don’t just make generalizations. Name one specific prediction you have in mind. Then we can look at how the same evidence can be interpreted through the lens of another worldview. That will let us see which worldview works the best.

Now *that's* fallacious mykah. Specifically a non-sequitur: being closed to evidence in no way follows from a hypothetically well-supported ID not being science. All it means is that ID is not, nor could it ever be, science. If anything, it would be history. My previous posts demonstrate why.

Your original point seemed to be that ID was science, but you can't counter my arguments that it isn't science, so now you seem to have tried to dodge it by claiming I am not open to evidence of ID. (Ie. the ad hominem fallacy-- quoting me out of context in the process.) Or maybe you simply misunderstood as spendocrat said. I am of course, quite open to any evidence but I have yet to see any that stands up to the slightest scrutiny. If you or anyone else has some then they should present it, since it would disprove much of the theory of evolution (though not evolution itself).

MichaelK., I'm guessing you took my "language barrier" comment as an insult, sorry, I didn't mean it that way. But as you can see both enaj and anomie are also having trouble understanding you. Running a spell-checker would have been a good idea, but I don't think 7 mistakes out of about 2000 words is a overly high error rate. Privileged? No more than the average white male. Educated? Well, one degree so far.

spendocrat, any idea what philo's last paragraph was about? Allusions to the fall perhaps?

My conclusions as per the “theory” of ‘Intelligent Design’ are as follows-
-By definition, the only satisfactory evidence for the existence of ’ID’ is the appearance of the designer, at a level that transcends all the religious divisions of human history.
-Mathematical or Statistical models are insufficient at this point in time. Modelling could only be proven by the capacity to predict an ‘outcome’ ie the future. Get to work, mathematicians!
-Philosophically, ID supports predetermanism & negates existentialism. It says that someone(thing) else is in control of our destiny. What we do will have little or no impact on human destiny. We are merely ‘pawns’ – Help me please!
-Its source is upper Christianity, in the structural sense. It is a convenient psychological bridge for Christians who suffer from doubts in faith due to their rational recognition of the process of Natural Selection.
-It deserves no more debate. Its introduction as an educational subject in secular schooling borders on the impossible, due to resistance by science-trained teachers.
Another Gin & Lime, please…

Why not "teach the controversy" by teaching Darwin? Since Darwin in THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES framed his "theory of natural selection" as the alternative to "the theory of special creation," why not have high school biology students read some of Darwin's writings and decide the controversy for themselves?

The real controversy is not just a scientific argument but a moral argument. The American conservatives promoting "intelligent design theory" do so because they are afraid of the morally corrupting effects of Darwinian science. But, in fact, Darwin defended the "moral sense" as rooted in the evolved nature of human beings. Far from subverting morality, Darwin provided a naturalistic explanation of moral experience.

Furthermore, Darwinian science would support almost all of the fundamental principles of conservative social thought--including family values, private property, and limited government. Most importantly, Darwinism would sustain the conservative vision of the imperfectibility of human nature (in contrast to the Left's vision of human perfectibility). That's the argument of my new book DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM. A blogging website for the book can be found at darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com

If it wasn't bad enough having a religio-philosophical debate on the topic, now we have Larry dragging politics into it.

>>The real controversy is not just a scientific argument but a moral argument. The American conservatives promoting "intelligent design theory" do so because...<<

An interesting diversion, though. Larry is saying that while the ID debate is being driven by conservative/Christian ideologies, they really ought to be putting their energies behind Darwinism.

I think we can guarantee low sales for this one, Larry - you have challenged a conservative thought process, which is enormously tough going, and you include the c-word in the title, which renders it automatically unreadable by the lefties. Your audience is thus restricted to fellow-academics whose own books you bought recently, and who are returning the favour. Fortunately, there are probably enough of those around.

I'm not sure how we got here, nearly a hundred posts and still nothing to add to the original article.

What has occurred to me though, is that I don't recall ever being taught "Darwinism" per se. I do recall Darwin's voyage on the Beagle being mentioned, and his work having something to do with turtles, but in truth, his conclusions seemed to be just another way-station on the journey to understanding the broad concepts of evolution. If ID ever is able to gather positive evidence of its theory, and take a genuine scientific stand against the prevailing orthodoxy, I'm sure we will be able to take it in our stride, just as true scientists were able to come to terms with Darwin.

Larry's attempt to divert us into yet another bout of pointless theorizing may or may not succeed, but I think it's time to move on.

Because you believe "only those that know little about it challenge it" I have decided to respond to what you have to say with quotes from people with Ph.D's in various answers of science.
They're all creationists, but I haven't found any non-Creationists against evolution with good stuff on the web.

"Ok, easy questions first, we know the Big Bang happened because the expansion of the universe is measurable and the observable radiation and energy in the universe fits exactly in with what it should be according to Big Bang theory. Next!"

Actually no it doesn't.
John R. Rankin: holds a B.Sc. (Hons) with first class honours in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, and a postgraduate diploma of computer science from the University of Adelaide. He has taught in tertiary institutions for more than 17 years. The 3rd paragraph onwards is what you are interested in.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/rankin.asp

"But to call evolution just speculation (or philosophical)…well, that’s just plain nuts. It’s science. Seriously."
Wow you've convinced me. Not. Sorry, not enough substance in that sentence to convince me.

"...Give it enough mutations and separate this group of animal from the original, and you’ll end up with a group so mutated from the original, it can be considered a new species."

Not really. This article is by John Safarti. Education B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted) and Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry), both from Victoria University of Wellington. The title seems broad, but the article responds to what you argue.
"Argument: Some mutations are beneficial" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

"Of course there are fossils of transitional species – any species, living or extinct, can be considered a transitional species. What we are now can be considered as the transitional point between what we used to be and whatever we will evolve to in the future. But since we can’t predict the future, we have no way of telling what genetics will prove to be the best adapted for survival, and thus cannot predict in which direction we will evolve."

So basically, "we know there are tranistional species because we are transitional species, because we know there are transitional species". You haven't actually stated HOW we KNOW we are transitional species, only that we ARE transitionals species, with nothing to back it up. Not satisfactory.

"Plus, considering how incredibly unlikely it is for an animal to become fossilised, and how much of the land on earth remains unsearched, it’s lucky we have found as many fossils as we have."

Yeah, true, but scientists the world over have been looking intensely for a couple hundred of years for this stuff and haven't found anything worth reporting yet. The lack of transitional fossils doesn't mean they have not occured, only that there is not (yet?) a (non-speculative) reason to believe that they did.

"Ever wonder why the experts on the subject (the biologists and other scientists) all accept evolution, and it’s only those that know little about it who challenge it? There’s a reason for that."

That's ridiculous, as someone later said, how can you say all?
I have a friend who is an Assistant Professor of immunology at Johns Hopkins University.

She has been studying/researching/writing articles in respected (non-Creationist) science journals at a tertiary level for 20 years and still chooses not to accept evolution.

It's people like her that mean a lot more to me than a bunch of scientists who have been taught what to believe by their humanist professors from day one of uni and have never had the resources (or gumption) to offer a suitable rebuttal.

rockhound – you say the bible provides a worldview that can be stacked up against reality, you’re absolutely right. The reason for this is because such a view is not falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is.

Say you have a particular belief that the world is ‘all in your head’. There are no tests you can do that would ever prove this wrong. Whatever results you got from whatever tests, nothing can disprove your belief. That means that your theory is not falsifiable. ID theory and creationism are the same.

Evolution, on the other hand, has countless tests that could prove it false (and would prove it false if evolution was wrong). These tests, far from proving it false, absolutely verify evolutionary theory. Not only is evolution falsifiable, it stands up to countless different kinds of tests, all of which could easily prove it false but never do. It’s the ONLY theory about our origins that lives up to these standards.

Examples? Read the link.

YngNLuvnIt – It’s not up to me to convince you that evolution is science. It’s up to you to accept that reality.

The number of scientists who don’t accept evolution are negligible. They are not representative of the scientific community and never have been.

Oh, and let’s not get into Big Bang theory, it has nothing to do with evolution. The only connection is that creationists reject both (and try to lump the two together). If one were to somehow be proven wrong tomorrow, it would have absolutely no effect on the other. Any attempt to link the two warrants a healthy eyebrow raise.

Instead of getting into all the details you’re listing (what would a fossil have to look like for you to accept it as transitional then?) I urge you to read the link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html. Your earlier claims of ‘devolving’ and such show a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works. You can’t legitimately debate with so little knowledge of the topic.

Anyway, I don’t expect to convince you. It seems to me the only thing that would help some people is a miracle.

YngNLuvnIt, citing John "evolution goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics" Sarfati is generally considered to be credibility suicide of an extent greater than claiming the moon landing didn't happen.

What are the possible options for the species of a fossil? Either A) new species evolve from it, in which case it is the transitional species between what it once was and what it will be, or B) the species dies out and it is transitional in the sense it is the last evolutionary step on the way to extinction.

Haven't found anything worth reporting yet!? Couple of simple questions, how do you explain the whole bunch of fossils that show progressive deviation from earlier forms along with the development of new and more complex features? And, if the fossils that demonstrate this progression and feature development aren't transitional species, then what is the criteria?

"She has been studying/researching/writing articles in respected (non-Creationist) science journals at a tertiary level for 20 years and still chooses not to accept evolution."
She must have an interesting explanation for antibiotic resistant bacteria.

SPENDO

ur right, in terms of origins,evolution is falsifiable. So, have a peek at this link also

It shows the following:

1/ Behe's position
2/ Criticism (and ridicule.. always a good 'scientific' tool :) of his position
3/ His response to the criticism.

I think any fair minded person can see enough in this to come up with a reasonable assessment of the issue.

What I find noteworthy is how critical aspects of Barry Hall's research were conveniently left out of the reports quoting him in support of the evolutionary view. Now..that would not be 'subjective dogmatic bias.....would it' ? :)... perish the thought.

The simplest solution of course, is for Christians to simply .. set up our own schools, choosing our own curriculum and the secularists can go on their happy way down the cultural 'make it up as u go' moral gurgler.

In line with this, I predict without hesitation, secularism will see increasing rationalization and de-demonizing of 'sex with children' over the coming years, just like what occured with the gay lobby.

We are already seeing a re-emergence of the 'worship of Dionysus' in comedy, pornography, and 'fringe' festival content.. even in radical feminism. (this might be a bit deep.. may have to do some searches to 'get' what I'm on about here)

When a society disconnects from the Creator, the results are inevitable, not overnight, but... inevitable.

Deuc lerve yur work -

>>She (a creationist Assistant Professor of immunology at Johns Hopkins University) must have an interesting explanation for antibiotic resistant bacteria.<<

Why can't the religious accept evolution as a possibility. Couldn't a god/superior being/deity/very smart martian have set the universe in motion and evolution be a part of all that? Let off the big bang so to speak.

MichaelK, if your rather cryptic comment means what I take it to imply, I suggest your spellchecker is at fault.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 8 September 2005 11:24:08 AM

MichaelK., I'm guessing you took my "language barrier" comment as an insult, sorry, I didn't mean it that way. But as you can see both enaj and anomie are also having trouble understanding you. Running a spell-checker would have been a good idea, but I don't think 7 mistakes out of about 2000 words is a overly high error rate. Privileged? No more than the average white male. Educated? Well, one degree so far. …….
Posted by Deuc, Thursday, 8 September 2005 6:32:59 PM

Average white male-it is enough comparing with other e v e n white men from different backgrounds.
And where a direction of discussion went to? ID is based on faith and pure belief, science-bad or good – on data, where SARS mutates a blood of its survivors, for example.

High five Deuc, I consider this one in the bag.

We've established without (legitimate) challenge that:

a) Evolution is the only theory that stands up to rigorous scientific testing;
b) It stands up to that testing extremely well;
c) ID and creationism can only be taken on faith, and thus do not belong in the science classroom; and
d) Creationists aren't as evolved as us.

Have a good weekend everyone!

David BOAZ your slip is showing...

"The simplest solution of course, is for Christians to simply .. set up our own schools, choosing our own curriculum and the secularists can go on their happy way down the cultural 'make it up as u go' moral gurgler."

What could be more 'make it up as you go' than ID? By all means create your own curricula. This secularist would like nothing more than to see self-righteous god-botherers doing the Christian thing. Forgiveness, tolerance, understanding; that sort of thing. I take it science won't feature large in the classroom.

"In line with this, I predict without hesitation, secularism will see increasing rationalization and de-demonizing of 'sex with children' over the coming years, just like what occured with the gay lobby."

Not even a moment's hesitation, David? How prevalent is sex with children in non-religious communities? As opposed to, say, within the established chuch? Or any number of religious sects?

The gay lobby incidentally does not advocate sex with children. The laws in this country are not based on any bible yet come out strongly in favour of punishing such behaviour, and I hardly need a deity to point out it's sick. It's always been a mystery to me why religious folk see secularists as having no moral compass. You and I were both agnostic at birth.

"We are already seeing a re-emergence of the 'worship of Dionysus' in comedy, pornography, and 'fringe' festival content.. even in radical feminism. (this might be a bit deep.. may have to do some searches to 'get' what I'm on about here)"

This is your work David, not anyone else's. The arts scene is full of liberal-mindedness, often with the intent to shock or surprise. This has always been the case - some of the most confronting (read, pornographic) art is ancient.

"When a society disconnects from the Creator, the results are inevitable, not overnight, but... inevitable."

As the saying goes, If God didn't exist man would have to invent one.

During my time at breeding genetic lines in dairy cows we specialised in genetic breeding of cows yielding larger milk quantities and higher solids. As the yields increased the quality of the milk decreased - i.e. low fat and protein solids. So we had to introduce genes from other breeds that yielded higher fats and solids from the same food of grains and hay. Our cows could not roam easily in open grazing because of the damage that occurred to their udders, otherwise resulting in lower yields of milk and mastitis. There was always a need to revert breed to the original wild species to retain muscle and frame strength. Too much line breeding, though it was from diverse bloodlines sources, ultimately affected the frame of the cow and shortened her effective production life from 6 to 8 years; compared with the original species of 10 to 12 years.

In genetic line breeding of a vegetable species like tomatoes we had to reintroduce genes continually from the base stock to retain flavour.

In a sense this breeding was the emphasis upon certain genes from the species to create a certain result, i.e. fruit to ripen simultaneously for machine picking, or smaller for table salads, or more flavour for sandwiches, more flesh less seeds etc.

However all specialty breeding is an emphasis upon certain genes and not the introduction of new genes, but there was always a need to retain contact with the genes of the original wild species. This breeding was done on human intelligence that constantly required modification. A mutating gene ultimately identified a weakness developing, indicating there was strength needed from the original gene stock of the species to retain the virulent life.

The conclusion was that the original species was best adapted to survive in the natural organic environment for which it was designed. It did not always suit specialist human need, but it was stronger because of contact with its original gene creation. Cross breeding of species to humanily introduce a gene is another matter beyond natural selection

Philo has competently demonstrated the superior viability of natural selection over artificial intervention by humans.

Natural selection evolves to suit a broad range of possibilites - far more inclusive than the limitations of breeding to specific requirements as in the case of dairy cows or other breeding by design.

Well done Philo.

Woooooops...... no link -Thanx Bennie for that reminder.

Now, do you want it 'with' or 'without' ? :) (a skidmarx/attack dog verbal onslaught).. I'll take it you want it 'without' :)

First, the link http://www.trueorigin.org/behe02.asp

the link by Yungnluvinit to Rankin was quite interesting.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/rankin.asp
so I'll repeat it here.

BENNIE.. you seem to have a very rigid picture of the 'closed minded Christian' that is guiding your keyboard taps. I see no reason whatever that a Christian would not wish to explore the wonder of creation and how God made it.

GAY LOBBY I think I either mis-expressed myself or you misunderstood, so I'll re-phrase. The trend to rationalize child sex as acceptable (the actual words I saw in a pshych mag were "positive sexual experienc") indeed is not a feature of the broader gay lobby, but it is a feature of Nambla. I intended to show that similar to the way the gay lobby used persuasion and pshycological data to advance its cause, so too is Nambla (and others) ok.. hope that clarifies

THE GOD WE HAD TO INVENT
Yes Ben.. like we have not heard that 5 million times in the last 5 minutes :)... duh.... One problem, man will invent a god of his 'convenience and pleasure' not one who is against his base desires. So that theory falls flat. A survey of the Ancient near eastern 'gods' and Yahweh's relationship with Israel shows this easily.

TRINITY now that ur here.. you need a (neanderthal ?) hug :) yes u do ! Wanna know why ? simple.. you summed up the core issue on the feminist thread in 3 words "Love to all" when love rules between men and women, I believe there would be no 'feminism'. Even IF gals had symbolic head coverings or were modest and quiet in worship :))) P.S. our fellowship has girls leading at times, and no head coverings, but Xena has almost convinced me to revisit that :)

We've established without (legitimate) challenge that:

a) Evolution is the only theory that stands up to rigorous scientific testing;
b) It stands up to that testing extremely well;
c) ID and creationism can only be taken on faith, and thus do not belong in the science classroom; and
d) Creationists aren't as evolved as us.

Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 9 September 2005 3:51:28 PM
___________________________________________________________

Why should secular state teach in government-funded schools particular religion’s issues?

If parents want to this should be arranged on their behalf and expense (maybe, partly covered by the state arguably) with a particular segregations as the SUNDAY TRAYINING.

And if somebody still yet understands my plain messages’ gist it is because of estimating everything from very personal environment where some never heard any accent but own one. Surely, in this case it’s hard to imagine that either non-Catholics or even non-Christians attend government schools especially.

Various mutations or genetic chances can happen within a set of genes found in a species which could be considered as evolution, but there is a robust design that is best suited for survival that appears as the most stable of the species. In the human species we would consider it an original with athletic and energetic strength, virulent and assertive love for life, intelligent in mind, wise in application of ability and compassion for fellow man, with deep spiritual awareness etc.

For us to retain the human species at optimum we have become careless imagining whatever we do our offspring will adjust to evolve as normal; cloning, embryonic stem cell implantation, abortion of firstborn children, homosexuality etc will affect what we are as a species in the future.

However accidental mutations or human planning of design are not the ultimate in best design of the species. Random mutations do not give us new species, it merely gives us an emphasis or detraction on an existing gene pool.

A “robust design” is a figure of imagination of those privileged to inherit employment in Australia (read: in a UK sphere of its active interferece) to be paid for tales of genes and like-stuff in advance making the rest of undercaste people being idiots incapable to do something but sex-services and simple lackey duties.

MichaelK,
My definition of "robust design" of the species envisages the optimum specimen of that gene pool.

Not sure what you mean by: Quote, "A “robust design” is a figure of imagination of those privileged to inherit employment in Australia (read: in a UK sphere of its active interferece) to be paid for tales of genes and like-stuff in advance making the rest of undercaste people being idiots incapable to do something but sex-services and simple lackey duties."

1. What relavence to genetics does priviledged to inherit employment in Australia Mean?
2. What is active interferece mean? [My dictionary does not contain this word]
3. What are tales of genes?
4. Are the UK developing a low intelligence social underclass to perform as sex and menial duties slaves?

OK got it figured.

ID should be taught alongside biology.

Alchemy alongside chemistry.

And, Lord of the Rings alongside the bible.

And Klingon alongside French!

Rather random post:

Spendo:

-The findings of your link do not prove evolutionary theory, they just don’t contradict it.

E.g. Some species from similar geographical locations have similar characteristics, etc. This link does not “absolutely verify evolutionary theory”.

-You believe the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution? Hmm interesting.

-My earlier claims of “devolving” merely alluded to the evidence for common ancestry (as even your link points to), which you also believe. Other forms of evolution are not present enough for me to comment on.

Deuc:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html I couldn’t find anything by John Safarti on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but I found this from someone else, if other people are interested in reading it.

“Whole bunch of fossils that show progressive deviation from earlier forms along with the development of new and more complex features?” I’d like to see that actually, do you have somewhere you could refer me to? I’d want to know A) that the earlier forms actually are earlier forms, and they’re not just called that because they’re simpler, and B) that the later forms really do show progressive deviation- not just one giant leap step.

Bacteria: “In most cases, changes in bacteria simply involve natural selection—changes in a population when the least fit organisms die off, and the ones that already have resistant factors survive and multiply. (Sometimes these factors are transferred from other organisms that already have them, but in either case, nothing new has arisen.) Creationists are firm believers in natural selection. This is not evolution in the sense that most people use the word—the rise of new, complex organisms, the sort of change which in principle could be capable of changing one-celled creatures into pelicans, pomegranates and people. (See AiG’s articles on natural selection.)”

Spendocrat:
You have established nothing.

Trinity:
Philo has shown that “accidental mutations or human planning of design are not the ultimate in best design of the species. Random mutations do not give us new species, it merely gives us an emphasis or detraction on an existing gene pool.”

I don't 'believe' that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, it's not a matter of belief. It's an undeniable fact. The Big Bang is a theory regarding the origins of the universe. Evolution only refers to the development of life after our particular planet was born. Two different theories. Unrelated. Ahhh, forget it.

This is going round in circles. As I said earlier, I don't expect to convince you. Why debate the finer points of these theories with someone who can't even grasp the fact that evolution is a science? I'd have more luck debating flat-earth theorists (and man, those guys are stubborn).

One last time, I don't *need* to establish these things, they've already been established. I'm merely pointing to them (they're everywhere, throw a rock) and saying: "What are you BLIND??" in the most diplomatic way I can.

I know this news is hard to accept. But life on this planet was an accident. There is no deeper meaning or purpose. We are just different combinations on molecules and chemical reactions with shoes. Get used to it, get over it, move on. Or be left behind.

I'm taking a break from this forum, need to get my blood pressure back down.

I.e. you've already made up your mind and expect me to do likewise. Yes I suppose that would lead to circles.

I hope your blood pressure comes down.

For now, good bye. Perhaps I shall see you in another forum sometime.

Bravo, Xena-EXACTLY!

<My definition of "robust design" of the species envisages the optimum specimen of that gene pool.> - what was first:

-an egg or a bird?
-a fingerprint or a finger?
-a map or a landscape?
-a specific gene or a blank chemical altered and reflecting the alterations till new mutation to occur?
-a-god-on-Earth-royal or a dirty aggressive murderer-feudal being selected centuries ago for personal dangerous facets to lead a bulk of likes, and whose genes today are etalon of the BEST in the universe-whether exist in an African/Asian/European descent?

Myth: Intelligent design theory is the same as creationism
Fact: Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

Myth: All credible scientists support the theory of evolution
Fact: There is a growing list of over 400 scientists who have signed a ‘scientific dissent from Darwinism’. (see here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443). Prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.

Intelligent design theory is also supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State Univeristy, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, among others.

YngNLuvnIt,
"I'd like to see that actually, do you have somewhere you could refer me to?"
So you are willing to concede that you would not be able to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation?

My quick search found plenty of sites with lists of fossils etc., but they are mostly scientific reference sites and aren't geared towards demonstrating basic facts. I could find articles that say it, or have simple diagrams showing it, but nothing specific. Your best bet is the local museum or zoo, although talkorigins might have something.

"I'd want to know A) that the earlier forms actually are earlier forms, and they're not just called that because they're simpler,"
No I referred to them as earlier forms because they are older.

"B) that the later forms really do show progressive deviation- not just one giant leap step."
There's not really much I need to say except "they do". But I think this is probably just the transitional fossils point again, ie. trying to argue that the forest isn't a forest because of the space between trees.

Re: bacteria, I'm well aware that modern creationists attempt to separate the macro and micro realisations of evolution, but this was not always so. If creationists want to argue against macro-evolution only then they are free to do so, but it is up to them to use the correct terms.

I'd be incredibly surprised if philo actually knew when mutated *genes* occurred, most likely he saw outward physical mutations from the line breeding. He seems to confuse mutation with genetic drift.

Spendocrat, it's good not to let the issue move away from evolution, but that's not limited to the big bang: evolution is separate from abiogenesis.

Myth: ID is a theory, an effort to empirically detect design.
Fact: ID is promoted primarily by creationists as a more palatable attack on evolution.

Myth: All credible scientists support the theory of evolution.
Fact: Almost all credible scientists in the relevant field support it.
Fact: A list of 4000 scientists supporting it whose names start with K could be easily made.

Deuc,
During my time working with Dr Ghotel on developing a totally female species of tomatoes at HAC for selective breeding, by exposing the seed to radio active isotopes. We intended to knock out the male chromosome from the plant, so we could introduce selected male fertilisation from specific plants. The normal tomato plant has both male and female chromosomes and is able to fertilise itself. Our programme was to select breed tomatoes with specific features.

I know what mutations are, I have seen grose distortions of plants. One plant 300 mm high with distorted leaves and one only large tomato 80mm round at the top of the plant as a result of radiation exposure with no seeds.

"I know what mutations are, I have seen grose distortions of plants."
This seems to re-affirm my first point more than anything else, ie. that you mostly see the more obvious physical mutations which are more likely to be disadvantageous than neutral or beneficial (whose effects may be inconspicuous), especially in those conditions.

Now.. we have established :

1/ There is more hot air being generated here than from LawYang's steam turbines
2/ Evolution (as in origins) takes as much faith to believe (more I'd say) than any other spin on things.
3/ The chances of academically persuading either side of the merits of the other are similar to those of a snowflake in hell not melting.

So, we now understand why Paul didn't give a 17th chapter in Romans devoted to 'origins'. His starting point in Romans 1 was

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Now, here is a man who dragged young and old people off to prison, to execution, to torture..... who went on a journey to execute arrest warrants on "deluded Christians" on a road to Damascus..... 'converted'. "err. who are u, Lord ?".. "I am Jesus who you are persecuting"...

From a 'Sadaam' to 'Savior' overnight. His new theme is: (from his own hand by the way)
Romans 15
5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My my..what a change...strange how the debate here pales into insignificance as I consider this :)

Hardly, Boaz.

>>[we have established] "[t]here is more hot air being generated here than from LawYang's steam turbines"<<

Last time I checked it was called Loy Yang. A small quibble, but significantly indicative of your attention to detail.

>>[we have established] "[e]volution (as in origins) takes as much faith to believe (more I'd say) than any other spin on things."

Evolution is "spin" Boaz? "Spin"? If evolution is "spin", and is based upon a substantial number of scientific observations made over many decades, how would you categorize intelligent design, which is a recently-postulated theory, based on precisely zero evidence? Comparing the two side-by-side, I know which position takes less "faith" to believe.

>>[we have established] "[t]he chances of academically persuading either side of the merits of the other are similar to those of a snowflake in hell not melting."

The mistake in this sentence is the use of the word "academically". If the debate were to be conducted on purely "academic" grounds, with a set of clear rules as to what form of evidence is acceptable, I doubt that there would be a discussion at all. The fact that there may be one or more "academics" taking part in the discussion does not invalidate this - to date, they have provided no more useful contributions than their "non-academic" brethren.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, what is your source for comparing Paul to Sadaam Hussain? From what I was told all those years ago, he was a pretty ordinary kind of bloke. Of course, if you want to put some "spin" on it, you would need to accentuate the before-and-after, like those ads for slimming regimes, wouldn't you?

Enquiring minds await your response.

<MichaelK,
My definition of "robust design" of the species envisages the optimum specimen of that gene pool.

Not sure what you mean by: Quote, "A “robust design” is a figure of imagination of those privileged to inherit employment in Australia (read: in a UK sphere of its active interferece) to be paid for tales of genes and like-stuff in advance making the rest of undercaste people being idiots incapable to do something but sex-services and simple lackey duties."

1. What relavence to genetics does priviledged to inherit employment in Australia Mean?
2. What is active interferece mean? [My dictionary does not contain this word]
3. What are tales of genes?
4. Are the UK developing a low intelligence social underclass to perform as sex and menial duties slaves?

Posted by Philo, Sunday, 11 September 2005 7:51:50 PM>

Dear Philo,

Were your questions answered? Eventually, YES.

"YngNLuvnIt,
'I'd like to see that actually, do you have somewhere you could refer me to?'
So you are willing to concede that you would not be able to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation?"

By this you seem to imply that I entered this forum wanting to prove something (a reasonable alternative explanation). I didn't, but as I've said, I don't think evolution is a proven theory of the origin of the species. I wanted to draw attention to that, especially to those who had already taken it as an assumed fact (and thus had already pre-set their minds on what should be taught in the school syllabus).

I wanted you to give me something specific to analyse, but you didn't (but that's OK, I can understand why that was an issue- finding something basic, etc.).

It has been said that these "progressive fossils" show giant leaps in them, i.e. gaps, which, as I said, doesn't ncessarily mean they are NOT transitional, it just means there is little to show that they are.

Another thing- people argue that evolution is falsifiable but hasn't yet proven false, therefore its most likely true. Does anyone else see a problem with that logic?

My thoughts.

But anyway, I guess I'll see most of you guys in article # 167... bye!

Yng – You misunderstand the definition of falsifiable. I’ll do my best to explain it. Here we go.

A falsifiable theory is one that can be properly tested.

That’s the most basic definition. Now, let’s take evolution, and say: ‘Ok, if evolution is true, then the earliest fossils of man would have to be found in Africa, because according to evolutionary theory, that’s where man’s closest ape relative resides.’ If these fossils were found elsewhere, there’d be a huge problem for evolution. Lo, there they are in Africa!

Another example would be if we were to say: ‘Ok, if evolution were true, modern species would not be found throughout the fossil record from top to bottom (which they should be if all species were formed at one time at the very beginning of life on this planet). Instead, what we would discover is less and less evidence of modern species as we go deeper and deeper into the fossil and geological record.’ Guess what? We do! This is pattern both predicted by evolutionary theory and completely consistent with evolutionary theory. In fact, this is the only pattern evolutionary theory allows for. And there it is.

There are countless tests just like this (albeit more complicated) on evolution, and it always comes up trumps. The chances of this being a coincidence are astronomically small.

See, being falsifiable is about making predictions based on the theory and then testing those predictions on the real world. If the theory is false, the real world comparison would demonstrate that (hence ‘falsifiable’). But if the test does not contradict the prediction, then you’ve got yourself a strong theory. The more verified tests, the stronger the theory. Only one strong contradiction is needed to debunk the theory. Yet this has never happened to evolution, despite countless tests for over a century.

One can be compelled to believe a theory (like ID) simply because it can’t be proven false. This is not enough for science. One must be able to test the theory against existing data, which will either verify or contradict said theory. Make sense?

Yes but the same thing could be said for the Resurrection of Christ- many things you would expect to find to verify that story check out (even if it does remain doubtful in many minds). The biggest thing is that we currently don't see resurrections of the dead and therefore find it hard to believe- well, I don't see animals progressively evolving either (timing issue, you see) and so I equally find evolution hard to believe.

Finding "early human fossils in north Africa" doesn't mean humans evolved from primates in north Africa. Are you serious? Sure, it checks out, but its certainly not a test to "falsify" evolution.

Secondly, as far as I hear, there are many dramas with the accurate testing of fossils, the dates keep changing. Also, as you've said yourself, the fossil record is sadly incomplete (I know, I used that against evolutionary theory before and am now using it for an opposing theory, which is probably wrong, but I guess if it can be used for/against one, it can be used for/against another).

Spendocrat, I graduated from high school last year, with a pretty high enter, and am studying biomedical science next year (I'm currently on a gap year). You sound as though you are already tertiary-educated. May I ask what you have studied? I don't mean to be nosy, but I am curious.

"By this you seem to imply that I entered this forum wanting to prove something (a reasonable alternative explanation)."
Not going to answer my question then?

I make no assumptions about your presence here. You responded to my request for an alternative with a query about the evidence, and I wanted to know whether your silence on the issue was because you have no such explanation. I still want to know that. It's an open question for those that are trying to poke holes in evolution, via science or otherwise. Evolution explains and is verified by that large body of evidence, and any competing theory would need to provide a better explanation for it. In so far as scientific theories can be proven, the general structure of evolution has been. That is a fact, and even though the evolutionary descendency of species on this planet is only a scientific fact, the evidence for and credibility of the theory is so extensive that it would be absurd not to include it in general science classes.

Frankly, I'm glad the fossil record is incomplete. Can you imagine the mess that there would be if every single creature fossilised when it died and those fossils were indestructible?

I would give you the point about the human fossils, (it would disprove evolution in general) but that doesn't cover the other things spendocrat listed. "I've heard there are some problems with X" doesn't cut it.

And I would love to see how to test whether Jesus was resurrected against existing data. Can't see exactly what possible carry on effects could only have occurred from his being resurrected though...

Deuc - what could be a better carry on effect than a giant bunny rabbit that delivers chocolate easter eggs in the night?!

Yng - the Afica test on it's own means little, but couple it with the vast body of other evidence and it gets hard to ignore. I used that particular example because it was simple and I only have 350 words. talkorigins.org has plenty more.

The debates among scientists in regards to fossils are mostly about smaller details, the kind which have no effect on the overall principles of evolution. For example, they may be about the date but no one would disagree on the era. Scientists are always debating the finer points on HOW evolution works, but none dispute evolution itself (and yes I know SOME do, but like I said, the amount of them is negligible and really not worth considering).

Creationists capitalise on this disputes and say: "See! They can't agree themselves!" Views are taken out of context with the intent of making evolution look much more questionable than it actually is. It's an old story.

Finally, just because there are some fossils missing from the fossil record doesn't mean the OTHER fossils don't exist. How do you explain the ones that do exist? We've explained why some are missing. Now you explain Lucy, with her obvious human and ape features. Pointing to what doesn't exist and ignoring what does is a pretty silly way to try and make a point.

And in answer to your question, I only just made it through high school (don't laugh, Einstein was a dropout). I pretty much just learn in my spare time. 'Armchair Physicist' I believe is the term :)

It is interesting to note that survival of species by evolution only seems to have happened by genes being added to create a more complex form, or new species. That is: there is an upward spiral culminating in man at the top of the evolutionary tree all by the accidental addition of mutating genes.

If mutations were the energy that drives evolution then there should be equal evidence of dropping off genes to create lesser complex species or reversions of a species. This is not the case we observe today, where dropping of genes by mutations causes deformations that cannot support a holistic survival of a species. A worm can survive as well as a chicken, one less complex than the other, so why not a reversal of the evolution of species?

From the evidence presented here by atheistic evolutionists implies that the mental desire to achieve something evolved a new gene, similarly if the desire is not there the gene could be lost. E.g. the power of an eagle’s eye developed because she had to search from heights for her food. Therefore if food was close at hand the eyesight would deteriorate. Are well feed eagles kept in cages loosing their keen eyesight?

If survival can occur by addition of genes; then survival can occur by dropping of genes. Therefore these lesser species should be evident. This does not seem to be the case. Therefore can we conclude there is design driven by direction latent within the original DNA? That it is not accidental, but design on a Predetermined template of what is a stable species?

"From the evidence presented here by atheistic evolutionists implies that the mental desire to achieve something evolved a new gene, similarly if the desire is not there the gene could be lost."
Alright, screw this. No more responding to Philo's points, he clearly has no idea what he is talking about and is not willing to learn. There is nothing in posts from anyone here that suggests evolution is a result of desire on the part of a species, and I have already tried to correct Philo on this matter in my post dated 6 September 2005 11:23:47 PM.

But I will reply to some things raised: firstly that we are by no means the culmination of evolution. What worked for us didn't work for others, that doesn't make them any less evolved. Next, it is not possible to "reverse evolution", something may evolve back into a previous form but that is still a "forward" process. It is simply not true that the loss of a gene will always cause deformations. (But note that Philo both claims that dropping of genes causes serious problems, and asks why it doesn't happen more often.) The loss of a trait does not equate with less genetic complexity and the lower degree of complexity would normally need to be beneficial to the survival of the species.

All knowing one, supreme teacher on evolution, I but a peasant and gardener am.

Therefore I have not adapted to reading books on science theory and hibernating as a student. To date I assumed that man has the most advanced genome of any living species and is the most recent species of evolution.

Quote, "No more responding to Philo's points, he clearly has no idea what he is talking about and is not willing to learn."

From evolutionary theory I've heard they talk about the continual adaptation to achieve and develop new ability. Eg. A fish that kept trying to reach tidal sandbars for food adapted to survive out of water to gradually become a land based salamander. The driving force is the creature’s own desire to achieve. Quote, "There is nothing ...here that suggests evolution is a result of desire on the part of a species, and I have already tried to correct Philo."

Quote, "But ... we are by no means the culmination of evolution."
Well humans are not the culmination of gene developments to date? Then what is I ask?

Your observations are based upon perfected templates of designed species. Quote, "What worked for us didn't work for others, that doesn't make them any less evolved. Next, it is not possible to "reverse evolution", something may evolve back into a previous form but that is still a "forward" process."

Like What? I ask is going backward also going forward? This science theory stuff seems defies natural physics! It is either refining itself by adaptation to new experiences; or loosing refinement by lack of the experiences. Either the adaptation is a forward movement i.e. an intelligent design within the DNA, or the changes have no link to a forward movement and can also be random and regressive.

My proposition was we should also see the reversal of species to less complex organisms if random evolution happens accidentally.

Quote, "The loss of a trait does not equate with less genetic complexity and the lower degree of complexity would normally need to be beneficial to the survival of the species."

Philo
Try to understand. Individual animals do NOT adapt to their environment. The animals themselves do not change just because their environemnt changes. It is merely that with an environmental change certain animals are better suited to survive than others & this alters the species. Allow me to illustrate. Let's suppose that originally there were short-necked, short-legged giraffes. Food is plentiful so any baby giraffe born with a long neck has no evolutionary advantage. But the environment changes. Food becomes scarce. No it's an advantage to be able to reach up to the leaves on the trees. Long-legged, long- necked giraffes have an advantage in this world. PLEASE NOTE: they have NOT changed to suite their environment. Remember, there were long-legged, long-necked giraffes being born before the environmental change but they possessed no advantage over the other giraffes. Now they do. They prosper because of that advantage. They survive to propagate & now the species changes. The species has changed to better suit the environment.
The type of change that you seem to be suggesting Philo is individual adaptation to the environment. An idea originating with a gentleman named Lamark. Please note that NO modern scientist holds this idea.
Now if a change in environment gives one type of animal an advantage then a change back to the original environment would reverse the advantage. Does that mean that the animals are de-volving? No. Because the whole idea of evolution is the species becoming better adapted to their environment. Since the environemnt has now changed back to its original condition the animals best adapted are the original versions. This is NOT a backward step. Why? Becuase the species is still adapting to their environmant. Get the idea?

Wow… I have really enjoyed reading this thread. Love a good debate.

My little bit:
Science is about seeing a problem or mystery, coming up with an idea to explain it, investigating and then presenting as a theory, which is repeatedly tested to try to prove it false. The more it stands up to testing, the more convincing it is. But it is never ‘proven’. That’s what science is all about – because a scientist can never cover every conceivable variation to prove every conceivable circumstance, which is required to ‘prove’ a theory as ‘fact’. Science simply states that the theory seems to be true because it holds with all the tests so far. If a test came along that disproved a theory, it would either cause the theory to be modified or discarded.

Now how does ID do this? Lets look.
The problem: Where did life on Earth come from?
Idea: Intelligent Designer
Test: uummmm….. where do I look… Bible? and….. Irreducible Complexity (tested how again?)… and…. Bible…. and…. etc., etc.

Evolution’s version-
The problem: Where did life on Earth come from?
Idea: Evolution
Test: Fossils, Observable instances of change (Galapagos), laboratory fiddling, comparisons of DNA in various species, etc, etc.

Seems to me that one holds a little more water than the other, as a scientific concept.

Why the two can’t be joined (for those who actually believe in a God):
And so-eth, God-eth created the universe-eth. And then-eth play-eth with the universe-eth, evolving-eth life and all it’s myriad-eth forms…-eth.

Really, it’s a strange argument – as far as concepts go. Nevertheless, to call ID science? No, not in the same ballpark. Who suggested Philosophy though? Now that seems to fit quite well.

Philo,
Your sarcasm only makes you seem let informed than you really are. You know that’s not how scientists see evolution working. Is it that you just don’t have any evidence to support your position?

Philo, in an effort to mock us, has just become a joke. At least Yng and others are willing to listen, and maybe even learn something.

Philo: 99.9% of the entire scientific world is completely behind evolution. Do you honestly, seriously think they could all be making a mistake? That all the successful research, analysis, results, progress, evidence, testing could be one big cosmic coincidence?

Look at how the theory is actually proposed. Then look at the evidence (the fossil record, gene analysis, geology, micro-biology, on and on) that verifies it. If you still dispute it once you have really genuinely learned what evolution actually is, fine, come back and chat. Until then, stop embarressing yourself. We're trying to have a real grown up discussion here.

<Individual animals do NOT adapt to their environment. … The species has changed to better suit the environment.>

Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:10:48 PM
__________________________________________________________

My Spell and Grammar Check allows neither ID nor Creation shadows in this illogical message at all. As well as in a number of other submissions of ID/creativity supporters. I would better watch porno.

Sorry for not-English English

Umm MichaelK
I'm not an ID proponent or a creationist. Merely a run of the mill evolutionist. Hows about y'all. :)
if you're confused about how a species can be better suited to its environment without the environment CAUSING individuals to adapt please reread my previous post. Especially the example I gave about the giraffe.
Best of luck understanding my long winded post.
Bosk

Fossils:

ONE explanation:

"Just how real is fossil succession?
The irony of the position taken by Cuvierists, neo-Cuvierists, and standard evolutionary-uniformitarians is the fact that fossil succession is a reality only to a limited extent. As we shall see, the Flood-related mechanisms discussed above need not have been overly efficient to account for only the limited degree of fossil succession that does exist. Successive episodes of time, however conceived, also are completely unnecessary to explain the limited degree of fossil succession."

"When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period."

"Creationists, including myself[author of the article], have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

Re: dating
"One might imagine that direct methods [radiometric dating] of measuring time would make obsolete all of the previous means of estimating age, but these new "absolute" measurements are used more as a supplement to traditional methods [index fossils] than as a substitute. Geologists put more faith in the principles of superposition [strata are younger upwards] and faunal succession [evolution] than they do in numbers that come out of a machine. If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, "good" dates are those that agree with the field data [fossils in the strata]’5 [brackets mine and quotes his]."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0816gc.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=fossils+dating&loadpage=query.html&charset=iso-8859-1

P.S. re: Lucy

Very basic summary: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp
More specialised, in-depth view:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/apewoman.asp

N.B. I'm sort of getting over quoting from aig but they have a good search engine and have heard about pretty much everything most people bring up here anyway. I just wanted to reiterate: I'm pushing against the absolute acceptance of evolution as a science, not necessarily for creationism, or any other alternate theory. I do however respect aig's work and find many of their articles sufficient to keep my mind open.

"Creationists, including myself[author of the article], have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession"
Yes, but none are satisfactory, when tested. Of course creationists have provided other explanations! That's what they do. It doesn't make them right.

"the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date..."
This is little more than fabrication. No professional geologist would be this dismissive (well, maybe one or two, but you wouldn't put them in charge) about results. You're talking of the kind of rigorous testing that takes incredible work and delicacy. Only a creationist would suggest they 'assume' anything from the results, and it reveals how thinly disguised their attack on science is.

Nice try.

Bosk,
Are you saying individual species do not adapt to the changes in their environment? But surviving species were best adapted for any changed environment and remaind after the change. Then this is the chicken or the egg sanario. The species remaining must have been in existence before the change occurred otherwise they would not have survived. Concluding it was not adaptation to changes in the environment that evolved the species it was their pre-determined design that is the reason they survived the environment changes. Then the power that drives survival is what remains after environmental changes. Evolution then is the study of history that reports on the survivors and is not itself the powerhouse of change. The design of the survivor was found in the pre-existing DNA of the species, not in the unstable environment. The environment itself did not cause the changes in DNA to form their pre-existing design. Therefore they were created with design.

Since evolution without stable species is a moving picture of survival there is no moral reason to fight for the survival of species that are becoming extinct. Only people believing in Creations original design have a moral case to protect species that are under threat of extinction.

Quote Bosk, “Individual animals do NOT adapt to their environment. The animals themselves do not change just because their environment changes. It is merely that with an environmental change certain animals are better suited to survive than others & this alters the species.”

How has change in DNA occurred?

Quote Bosk, “ Let's suppose that originally there were short-necked, short-legged giraffes. Food is plentiful so any baby giraffe born with a long neck has no evolutionary advantage. But the environment changes. Food becomes scarce. No it's an advantage to be able to reach up to the leaves on the trees. Long-legged, long- necked giraffes have an advantage in this world. PLEASE NOTE: they have NOT changed to suite their environment. Remember, there were long-legged, long-necked giraffes being born before the environmental change but they possessed no advantage over the other giraffes. Now they do. They prosper because of that advantage. They survive to propagate & now the species changes. The species has changed to better suit the environment.”

So we “theorise” to support fact, there were already short-necked giraffes in existence along with hippopotamus in the adjacent mud holes and zebras grazing the nearby savannah. But the giraffes were starving because they couldn’t reach their food so they all died off because of a million year drought except those with long necks who could reach high up the trees. But the zebras and hippopotamus grazed happily nearby undaunted by the million year drought that caused only giraffes with long necks to survive, and the lions hyenas etc fed on the carcases of the short necked giraffes during that long dry. All this speculative imagination developed a fact of history? When was the long drought that killed off the short-necked giraffes while they were isolated from their zebra and hippo contemporaries? It assumes trees survived those millions of years while savannah grasses were extinct. So the long necked giraffes were a stable species before the need to reach to the treetops for food. Therefore they were best designed to survive!

WHERE ARE THE SHORT NECKED GIRRAFES TODAY? They should be grazing among the zebras on the savannah while the ones isolated that were created with a long neck survived nearby by eating trees in the local million-year drought? Taken from “Stories in the desert”; Sounds like too much sun and isolation in my opinion.

Philo
Here's a quote of mine directly before the one you posted. "Allow me to illustrate." You do know the difference between an illustration & theorizing don't you? I was merely trying to illustrate evolution in action. NOT trying to say this say this is what happened with short necked giraffes. Really philo! Read my posts with more care. Tsk.
Best of luck everyone but, I suspect, fundamentalist creationists will never admit the necessity of change to their views in this area. In part I agree with a neuroscientist who argued that stubborn adherence to a belief is part of a survival mechanism. It protects a world view & thereby helps avoid danger. The only problem is if that world view [in this case creationism or ID] needs abandoning there will be a complete reluctance to do so. Why? Because it would require far too many changes to their faith & world view in general. I find that completely understandable that creationists & ID proponents should feel this way but it is sad.
However, to those of you wishing to continue the good fight keep this in mind. I was just as stubborn a christian fundamentalist as any of the creationist supporters here. But I changed my beliefs, so it is possibl, but not easy.

Bosk - cheers for you help, I'll give it a go..

Philo. I’m not sure why I’m bothering, but I’m gonna go through the problems you have with the giraffe example.

‘How has change with DNA occurred?’
Well, the mummy giraffe and the daddy giraffe love each other very much, they get very close, and a short while later a baby giraffe is born! With new, different DNA! A combination of mummy DNA and daddy DNA!

Yeah, the giraffes had an advantage being able to reach up the tops of trees. How did the zebras or whatever survive? Because they had OTHER advantages! We’re talking about lots of different factors here, the tall trees was just ONE example. This sort of variation happens within a very complex natural world.

It’s not ‘speculative imagination’. It was, as Bosk has just said, just a creative, simple example to help you understand the process. I think you’re taking it a tad too literally. Yes, obviously there’s a story behind giraffes long necks, but that wasn't it. It was an ultra, ultra simplified version expressed for the sole purpose of giving you an idea of how it works. Bosk never presented it as fact.

‘Where are the short necked giraffes today?’
Sigh. Now, why do you think they should be around, exactly, Philo? Because they CAN be around? I can think of lots of ideas for creatures that would survive in today’s world, it doesn’t mean they SHOULD be here. Evolution doesn’t move to fill every possible scenario. It follows a path of adaptation over a length of time far too long for your feeble brain to imagine. The idea that short necked giraffes should be here because they can survive is completely ridiculous, in fact so ridiculous it’s almost the perfect example of how little you know about how evolution works. Either take the time to learn it properly, or stop acting like a fool.

Yng – sorry for being a little blunt yesterday, I appreciate your comments because at least you’re putting in the effort to understand.

Evolution- a theoretical history built upon deduction from paleontology data. It records the sequence of surviving species from environmental change. This theory is suitable for a history class not research science. Today evolutionists don't identify environment as a causal factor of change to the DNA, as it is external. However environment governs what survives its changes so the survivors must be designed with features within the DNA that allows it to survive adverse external change.

According to Bosk, environmental forces aren’t causal of chromosomal changes. Changes are inherent in the DNA creating feature of design that inadvertently allowed it's survival in changed environment.

The purpose of pure science is research into why and how things happen that we can intelligently apply.

What’s the actual powerhouse for species change? It’s the study of features of intelligent design inherent and latent in the DNA that creates the change and allows the species to survive changes in environment. Pure science studies the features causal of chromosomal changes. In other words biological science searches the physical features of intelligent principles of design that are latent in the DNA that cause chromosomal change.

If there had been no environmental change then all previous species expressed from the DNA could possibly be in existence today. The fact is we live in a changing planet that is affected by many internal and external tectonic forces.

Chromosomal changes have allowed survival of species with intelligent design features that need to be understood so we can copy the intelligence even as humans have done by creatively copying. However the intelligence in design is not developed by any desire in the mind of the species but under-girds surviving designed species.

The discovery of the camera was a historical event; taught as history, the principles of its physics [intelligent design] the how and why of its function, is science.

I’m a supporter of scientific research into the features of intelligent design - the why and how in the micro; so that we better understand and use the building blocks that create the features and design of our living universe

Greg_m, Speaking about ID and the Flying Spagetti Monster,I seem to recall an article from New Scientist recently. This article discussed a move by someone writing a protest letter to the Kansas Board of Education agusing that if ID is included in biology classes then Pastafarianism should also be included. The outcome as far as I can remember was the directive by the Kansas Board of Education that ID not be taught in biology classes. If IDers don't take issue with FSM then maybe ID would still be in the curriculum. ID is all about creationism in a different form. There is and never will be any evidence for it because it is faith-driven.

No worries spendo, I've somehow managed to exist apart from my computer screen for the last few days:)

1) Fossils that have been around for a long time are like human fossils in Africa. Fits in with current evolutionary theory, but don’t prove it.

2) Even if they did, there are SO MANY factors going into the dating of fossils. Surely 95% of the scientific community hasn't purposely fabricated their data (I wouldn't say its too far off the mark to say that at least some of them would have- maybe 5%? IDK). But, let me give you an example:

You're a mechanic. I bring to you a really beat up car. Its one of the oldest, nastiest cars you've ever seen- there is wear and tear everywhere. The door’s missing on one side. You look inside at the engine and can barely believe it, it looks that bad. Rust like you’ve never seen. Also, its a model that stopped being made at mass quantity in the 1970's.

I then turn to you and tell you its only a year old. You tell me that’s ridiculous. The wear and tear are obviously a few decades worth, and besides, the model fits in with the type made [only] in the late 60's, early 70's.

But, I explain to you "no, I had this model of car specially designed because I grew up in a car like this, it has sentimental value for me [whatever... insert reason this particular model was made in 2004 here]. I took it home last year but then decided to on a year's trip around Australia. I went in and out of the outback in this car, and suffered for it. On the trip, there were sandstorms, lightning and thunder storms (think St. Kilda Sunday market pictures of Ayres Rock with lightning, etc.), flooding, drought, everything you can imagine. I guess this isn’t really an off-road vehicle. By the time I got it home it was a total mess."

If I wasn’t there to tell you that, the thought would never cross your mind, and if somebody else suggested it, you would think them ridiculous.

Remember my immunology prof. friend? I once asked her about the accuracy of dating things. She told me that SO MANY factors go into the dating- its not just a linear equation you can put a few dates in. At any time, one of those factors could increase or decrease the rate of decay.

Many evolutionary scientists assume decay is constant but decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times. This doesn’t mean that they have out of the lab, only that its possible that they may have. Creationists for example believe in a world-wide devastating flood.

E.g. of increased decay in the lab:

“This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold… raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp
Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp
More and more wrong dates
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp

O for the brash wisdom of youth! With all due respect, might one suggest that Yng has much to learn about science, including its methods and theories. Hopefully this will be remedied when s/he completes that degree.

Having taught hundreds of admirably certain, but woefully ignorant, graduates from our secondary systems for more than a decade now, might I suggest that Yng expands his/her background reading beyond the dubious offerings available at "Answers in Genesis"? For a prospective undergraduate who wishes to understand something about evolutionary processes, I'd recommend anything by Stephen Jay Gould for starters.

Tip: Citing creationist web sites as reference material is unlikely to enhance knowledge (or indeed results) among undergraduate Biomed students. Use refereed journals and publications from authoritative publishers instead.

All the best,
Prof. Duck

I was actually about to suggest the same thing. Yng, your can't possibly think that the critisms on that website you always cite aren't countered. You need to take in some reading from the other side of the debate. Creationist theories get debunked all the time, it's just that most creationist organisations ignore it, and continute to write these articles you link to. So citing an article that shows 'flaws' in how we figured out how old the earth is, well, it's not enough.

Like I keep saying, creationists are always *trying* to poke holes in evolutionary theory, but the fact is, they haven't successfully done it yet. There has not been one legitimate challenge in the history of the theory. That's the fact, and no amount of website links will change that.

As for the car analogy, it's an interesting way of looking at things, I'll give you that. But when you break it down you're essentially saying 'God intentionally made the world look old' which as I've already explained, is not a falsifiable theory and therefore not worth consideration.

Carbon dating and such may seem like it's not very exact (hey, you could be off by a million years!), but in fact it's quite precise (hey, you can figure out the age to within a million years!). Every time a mistake is made in dating fossils/rocks whatever, the process is refined and improved. When a mistake is made on figuring out the age of a few rocks, that should under no circumstances be equated to 'The whole process is flawed!!' It's just not the case.

Spendo and Quack, you make reasonable points re 'it is refuted' but as I discovered re Behe's work, there are also refutations to the refutations. And ooooo don't they squirm when you can show the deliberate selection and emphasis and selective deletions often giving a rather less than objective picture of the issue.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall watching u guys debate Duane Gish for example. You need to get out more :) and see the pavement littered with knowledgable corpses which have tried it. Yes, of course, thats a bit 'mine is bigger than yours' ish..but never mind, puts a bit of color in the discussion.

I hope you folk will read the reference on Feminist Initiative (different thread) put by Timkins, most illuminating.

Mahatma, hope you will also look at and respond to the link I gave re steel axes,(babies thread)...

Oh.. on the 'girls' thingy, I did a survey of women in my own church,and those I met on my walk, none of them are offended by 'girls' terminology, Kalweb even specifically supports it in another thread, and my reasoning was spot on, "girls has a younger feel about it' One older lady (who was walking her dogs ) said "Its sure better than 'old bag'. And another expressed exasperation about 'today.. sigh.. they will put u in JAIL for saying this and that'

So, if any female academic ever tried to take me to task over referring to women as 'girls' she would get the serve of a lifetime nose to nose on that issue. (passionate -but not rude :) she would then receive a lecture on the evils of feminism and the social benefits on patriarchy :)

Not sure Duane Gish is a great example for you to bring up at this point Boaz, except as an illustration of the interminable frustration experienced by ordinary folk when listening to a silver-tongued intellectual hustler with a reputation to protect.

Whatever you choose to believe about the subject matter, there are many, many questions that linger over the man's style of debate, the level of intellectual honesty he employs, and the manner in which he refutes the arguments put to him.

A man is often measured by the company he keeps, Boaz, rightly or wrongly.

Yeah, good idea, but this is the thing: in my effort to claim evolution is not absolute fact, I don’t look to those who say “evolution didn’t happen but I don’t know what did”, I look to those that pose something. So Creationists pose something, right? A mix of philosophy, religion and a little science to back it up is what they claim.

So I like these guys, I like their sites, because if nothing else (even if they have nothing to offer about their own theories), they’ve served to debunk a lot of commonly held myths over the years.

OK, so online, all the Creation sites recommend AIG- particularly TJ (technical journal) their scientific journal. The majority of the links I sent in my last post were from TJ. Other such journals are found at http://creationresearch.org/, www.creationism.org, etc. These are peer reviewed, its just that the peers are Creationists with Ph.D’s, not evolutionists with such.

“You're essentially saying 'God intentionally made the world look old'”. No, in my analogy, the car wasn’t purposely made to look old, it just looked old because it had been beaten up by nature. The year the model finished being made was irrelevant; that detail didn’t really add much (I was trying to say, the mechanic looked to his preconceived reference of time, the scientist to his, but it didn’t come out right). But the Earth looks old because of so many different things that have happened to it (the point of what I was saying). What is falsifiable is not “God caused a world-wide flood” but “there were natural disasters in the past that wore parts of the Earth down”. Not an unreasonable claim, I would think.

You didn’t read the article about the factor of billions of years, did you? Something can be off by a factor of 10^9, not just by a subtraction of 10^6.

I have never claimed that a few mistakes makes the whole thing flawed. But you claim that despite a few mistakes, the whole thing is not flawed.

Creationist and evolutionary theories both get debunked all the time. Creationists and evolutionists are both trying to poke holes in each others theories. Both sides continually fail and then say “ahh well, its science, it changes as we discover new things, you know”. But that’s exactly what I mean. We can’t take one as the absolute and the other as false.

The thing about science is that its never absolute, you never actually know for sure what your observations mean. You can make inferences but you never know. That annoys me. This is what I find frustrating about science: it approximates a “how” answer but never a “why” answer. Why is there the survival of the species? Natural selection: organisms change to better adapt to their environments, for their survival, etc. As a human I have a mind, and a lot of what I do is based out of what I think in my head. Is there a thinking mechanism in science (hmm maybe this is returning to the original point of Hiram’s article)? Science doesn’t include a why (this isn’t a debate by the way, its something that’s come up in my mind as a result of thinking over this). But why do you think we survive?

I have been taught evolution my entire life through the school system. I want to look at something different. I refuse to take at face value something which seems (but not necessarily is) so meaningless. It’s like someone forced to watch mainstream media every day. They secretly start buying “Green Left” and “Socialist Agenda” newspapers, etc. and reading them in their spare time. Both sides report similar things, from different points of view, but at least in the middle of channel 9 and Green Left there is some sort of (perhaps slightly askew) balance. Next year, I will be forced to continue to look, at an in-depth level, into evolution. So I think its beneficial that I look at other stuff on the side, despite the cries of those who’ve already made their minds up.

YNG I like your open minded approach. (tick)

Have a REALLy close read of Genesis 1:1-2 .. u might be surprised at what you find.

1. "In the beginning, (when) God created the heavens and the earth."

2. "The earth was without form and void"

according to SAS, the 'when' is implied by the hebrew. (the one useful thing he has contributed)...

Its worth reflecting on those 2 verses, and suddenly "zaaaap" it might come :)

keep up the enthusiastic work.

Yng, you have some good questions and I admire your scepticism. I just wish you could apply that same scepticism to the creationist propaganda you keep reading.

You’re absolutely right, though. Science doesn't ask ‘why’. I guess this is because ‘why’ is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. And that’s one of the main problems here, is the wires are getting crossed between science, philosophy, religion. When I’m debating on this topic, I am sticking strictly to science. But others are jumping between science, religion, all sorts of different fields that don’t exactly mix.

I have no problem with religion. But when people (Creationists, now ID proponents) try to promote their views by questioning hard science, hard data, hard FACTS, and confusing the public and using the media as a tool and trying to damage science in kids classrooms (!), one feels compelled to say something. And it’s obvious this movement is driven almost entirely by religious motives. If the theory of gravity contradicted bible teachings, make no mistake, they would be out there fighting that theory tooth and nail, and probably just as convincingly.

There are quibbles with details of evolution, so of course it is never absolute. But as a WHOLE, the theory is, for all practical purposes, unbreakable. Technically of course, it isn’t ‘fact’, but it is recognisable by science as such, and they have pretty high standards about this sort of thing.

It’s good that you are questioning what you have learned, and not just taking what’s presented to you at face value. That’s a valuable skill, and you have an analytical mind, and I respect that. I only hope that you won’t let your faith get in the way of good, sound science.

Radioisotope dating: yeah there have been some odd cases and errors, key word being "some", these are to be expected. Scientists should check every form of dating, and every method is not going to be available all the time. The car example demonstrates this pretty well, one car out of thousands doesn't fit the pattern, but in the end an explanation can be given.

About the "billion-fold" increase: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar01.html Basically, it only applies to a minority of those radio-isotopes which decay producing beta radiation and among them there would normally be no real effect unless almost all the atoms were almost fully stripped.

"Thus, in the process of raising the entire planet earth to the temperature necessary to make 75+ the expected charge state for Rhenium so that it could then quickly decay into Osmium, before the earth cooled, God therefore also must have made the earth gravitationally unbound. The whole planet would simply have exploded into a cloud of plasma which would even yet be expanding into space."

As with the flood explanation, complicated miracles without evidential basis are required in order to explain the deficiencies in creationist explanations. Occam's razor etc.

"These are peer reviewed, its just that the peers are Creationists with Ph.D's, not evolutionists with such."
The whole point of peer review is to open the piece up to criticism by those competent in the field, not to those who agree with you. For the most part, "evolutionists" don't bother trying to poke holes in creationist "theories", they try to poke holes in other scientists' works, develop their own scientific theories and test them.

"That annoys me. This is what I find frustrating about science: it approximates a 'how' answer but never a 'why' answer. "
But you assume that there is a "why" answer. As spendocrat said that is a philosophical question, although I will make the point that almost all of the creationist effort involves attempting to counter the scientific "how" in order to protect their own "why". Ideological groups not interested in finding the truth aren't known for good (or honest) science.

YngNLuvnIt stated that creationsits documents are peer-reviewed by creationist with PhD's. If creationists wanted to get their articles accepted as science (as they state) they should submit them to scientific journals for peer review. They might as well get their families to review the articles for all the credibility that these journals have in the scientific community.

Also in another posting YngNLuvnIt wrote about the whys of evolution, e.g. "Natural selection: organisms change to better adapt to their environments, for their survival, etc". This shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. Natural selection is the change in a population over time because of changes in the environment and the ability of organisms to resist those changes and reproduce. Thus passing on any advantages that the organisms may have to their offspring. Can I suggest that you read Gould, Dawkins or Mayr or any secondary school biology textbook to get a better understanding of the processes

Hey, go easy on Yng, ip's (see age-old debate on gender neutral word substitute for 'he or she') the smartist anti-evolutionist here. Unlike the rest, Yng has actually paid attention to what we've said, sat back and reformulated ip's argument accordingly. Yng has raised interesting and thoughtful (some less than others) questions and explained ip's position and feelings regarding the topic quite convincingly.

Having said that of course, one can't deny the futility in questioning something as solid as evolution. Still, I learned at least that not ALL creationists are stubborn, ignorant, sneaky, dogmatic, irrational fools. Most, but not all.

spendocrat,
Your faith in evolution has excluded you from sound unbiased research.
To establish a theory you must accept a paradigm, and your paradigm is a belief that evolution is sound science. Yet you deride YngNLuvnIt, for his faith but fall into the same ditch.

Quote, "I only hope that you won’t let your faith get in the way of good, sound science. There are quibbles with details of evolution, so of course it is never absolute. But as a WHOLE, the theory is, for all practical purposes, unbreakable."

Are you so dogmatic and self-assured? Sound like a brainwashed predetermined position. If YngNLuvnIt wishes to enter a field of science he has an open mind excellent for research. Faith does not restrict advancement in science it explores it. I worked for 12 years under one of Australia’s leading industrial chemists. He was a prolific author of school science textbooks. His Christian faith enhanced his wonderment of the chemical world

Science = repeatable testable

Can you 'test repeatedly' the evolution of one species into another ?

Answer "no"

Has anyone ever witnessed the transformation of one species onto another ?

Don't think so.

hence.. it is not science but faith and pure conjecture.

cheers to all.

Get a chuckle out of this:

http://www.venganza.org/

BD
Here are the answers to your statements.
1) Science = repeatable testable [correct]

Can you 'test repeatedly' the evolution of one species into another ?

Answer "no" [Wrong! We can through prediction. Eg. If evolution is true then we should find "A" or "B". We find A & B therefore evolution is true. Creationism or ID cannot do this therefore creationism or ID are not science but evolution is.]

Has anyone ever witnessed the transformation of one species onto another ?

Don't think so. [Wrong again! We can observe evolution in action at the microscopic level. Microscopic organisms changing from one type of organism to another. How do creationists get away from this truth? They use Goebels' dictum - when in doubt, redefine. They just declare that's not evolution because we say so. In fact the truth is that anything that can be pointed to as an example of evolution would be redifined. Why? Because they don't WANT to believe evolution is true therefore to them it isn't true.]

Has any of this changed your mind in the slightest? I've no doubt that I was just wasting my time. Your mind is made up & you have no intention of examining the evidence against your position.

Want to prove me wrong? Contact an evolutionary scientist through the web & pose your problems to him. We both know you won't however.
Bye all.

To all creationists
Let's examine other characteristics of science vs. creationism.

Science = ruthless peer review. Does ceationism do this? No!

Science invites criticism [see point concerning peer review]. creationism & ID see any criticism as part of a conspiracy against it.

Science is impersonal [ie. the furtherance of a hypothesis does not depend on personalities.] Creationism on the other hand is cultic & depnds heavily on personalities [eg Behe, Gish among many others].

Science makes limited claims of usefulness. Creationism on the other hand makes claims of almost universal usefulness.

Science provides benefits for humanity. Creationism & ID provide mainly egotistical benefits. {Disagree? Name one material benefit that would accrue from the adoption of creationism?]

Science is falsifiable [ie given enough evidence any theory can be proven wrong]. Creationism & ID are non-falsifiable [name one piece of evidence that you would accept as proving creationism wrong. just one that's all I ask].

Science possesses the ability to predict [eg if my theory is true then I will find "A" or "B". I find "A" & "B" therefore my theory is true.] Creationism cannot do this - ever!

Science makes use of Occam's razor. Creationism & ID on the other hand possess cherished ideas which it's believers are not willing to part with.

As taken from p.8 "Telling Lies for God" by Ian Plimer.

Conclusion = creationism & ID do NOT meet the criteria needed to qualify as science. Therefore Creationism & ID are not science.

Brovo Bosk, bravo! (standing ovation...)

* Sounds of multiple hands clapping from the Flying Spagetti Monster of Creation! *

Bosk,
I note you changed the argument from evolution v creationism to science v creationism. a completely deceptive move. Creationist are not anti-scientific. The professor friend in my Church an advocate of creationism was extensively involved in the NASA space programme, developing computors. He was involved in building the first computor in Australia. You should also realise many Christians believe in evolution as part of intelligent design. You are arguing against the involvement of intelligence in creation. Your attitude reflects a predetermined bias.

AIG vs. Scientific American, good summary of this forum: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#intro

Spendo, thanks for your support. Obviously my mind isn’t “made up & [I] have [no]… intentions of examining the evidence against my position.” (Bosk). But I still don’t think evolution = hard science, data and FACTS. Oh well, next year I can’t wait to pose questions to evolutionary scientists.

Clarifications:
-I’m female.

-“This movement is driven almost entirely by religious motives.” Irrelevant, evolution was first driven by the Church and rejected by the secular world.

-Deuc: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp which I’ve mentioned talks about Rh-Os.

-World-wide flooding is not a miracle. If it all happened at once, we might consider it unlikely without divine intervention, but hey, THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS IMPROBABLE (1/ 10^273) without divine interference, but a large body of scientists don’t reject that! Re: experimental evidence for flooding, we do find “millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, all over the world”.

Creationist journals:
-Creationist scientists DO publish in Creation journals AND secular journals, but editors are EXTREMELY biased, and anything with an openly Creationist conclusion is not likely to be published in a secular journal. Creationists (e.g. my immun. assistant prof friend at JHU) DO publish articles that have NOTHING to do with the origin of the species in evolutionist journals, but their OTHER articles are NOT accepted outside of Creationist journals. I would very much welcome the two journals to cross over and to be reviewed by one another, but with such incredibly strong bias on each side, I don’t really expect it.

“We have also pointed out the materialistic bias behind evolutionary theory, but I don’t often notice them being denigrated for their faith positions. A few evolutionists are honest enough to own up to their biases, e.g. Lewontin and Todd.” (AIG)

Bosk: “They just declare that's not evolution because we say so.” Evolutionists do the same type of thing. E.g. many creationists are scientists by any normal criterion- have earned Dr titles and have published in secular scientific journals- but evolutionists sometimes deny this with a sweeping statement “no creationists are scientists”.

-Minuet:
Your website and theonion one about “intelligent falling” are amusing but frustrating, because equivalent to one side calling the other names without taking time to find out what they actually believe (and why). Read some of the AIG TJ links I sent. You’ll be surprised to find that actual science is used, and if the Bible is quoted in those articles, its usually only so that scientists can reinforce to their Christian friends not how something is true but why it is important to believe it.

-Bosk: You say you can repeatedly TEST evolution through prediction. Interesting, sounds very clairvoyant. What exactly do you mean by that?
“If evolution is true then we should find "A" or "B". We find A & B therefore evolution is true”.
Reason: “Bravo!”
So neither of you understand the principles of LOGIC? It’s like saying:
“Cats are animals that have legs. This animal has legs therefore it is a cat.”
“Ahh no, it’s a dog.”
“What? Pssh, you are so anti-science!”

-You missed the whole macro vs. micro debate, i.e. losing vs. gaining genetic information, and the discussion re: anti-biotic resistant bacteria. NEXT!

-“Creationism & ID see any criticism as part of a conspiracy against it.” Actually, creationists quite often critique each others theories. Their quote is “Scripture is true but not exhaustive”. They pose theories, much like secular scientists, to ‘fill the gaps’, then use real science to test them, but when further developments show those theories to be untrue, they are rejected.

-Re: Ockham’s Razor:
“In science, we often apply a principle called ‘Ockham’s Razor’ when linking facts with theories. Applied to my own work it basically states that ‘the simplest explanation for geological facts must be the correct explanation’. Despite the tendency of most geologists to apply millions of years to the data, I have found that in reality the data ‘fits’ far more easily into a young Earth/Flood model for Earth history (thus fulfilling Ockham’s requirement). (Emil Silverstru).

-The holocaust, treatment of Aborigines and recent US high school shootings have all been justified by “science”. Beneficial, huh?

"Deuc: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp which I've mentioned talks about Rh-Os."
Yes. I know. That section of my post was in reply to that. My link details why the process talked about in your link could not produce a significant difference in age measurements.

"World-wide flooding is not a miracle. If it all happened at once, we might consider it unlikely without divine intervention,"
No we would consider it utterly in-f*cking-possible, because there's not enough water, and if there had been then there is no way for the world to not have been significantly flooded beforehand, or for it to have disappeared, without divine intervention.

"THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS IMPROBABLE (1/ 10^273) without divine interference,"
We're in absolutely no position to determine the probability of that, because we don't know enough about it. Probability itself doesn't make much sense until the big-bang because it relies on the existence of time. (Although similarly we don't know enough about that.)

"Re: experimental evidence for flooding, we do find 'millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, all over the world'."
Um, OK, here's the thing. Experimental evidence comes from experiments, ie. tests done to check if a hypothesis is correct. And evidence is something that can be used to support or indicate the correctness of a claim. "[D]ead things, buried in rock layers," is neither.

"but editors are EXTREMELY biased, and anything with an openly Creationist conclusion is not likely to be published in a secular journal."
Damn their bias towards evidence! No, really, a credible journal won't (shouldn't) publish anything with *any* conclusion that isn't supported by sound arguments and evidence. Which means that things with creationist conclusions, rather than supported criticisms of current theories, will not get published because they make an unsupported (unsupportable?) conclusion.

Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." (from dictionary.com)
Ie. the exact opposite of what should be in a scientific journal.

About Occam's razor, um, no. "God did this, this and this" assumes (many many) unnecessary things unlike "natural processes".

This post was harsh, but you seem to have let go.

Yng,
I would disagree with your example. To use an obvious fallacy to reduce a logical argument is over simplistic and I believe you are intelligent enough to know this.

Bosk made the simple point that theoretical testing applies to the past through application of known conditions to a set of known past circumstances and seeing whether the current results match the expected results. This does not rely on clairvoyance as you take the results as you find them: if the results do not match the theory, the theory is wrong. Again, this is what good science is.

I think it simple to say that the proposition ‘God created the world’ cannot be applied to science. As I have stated all along, I do not agree or disagree with creation. In fact, I think both creation and evolution can walk peacefully hand in hand – in the world of philosophy and ideology but not in science.

The concept of creation is not so much about the physical world as conjecture on the meaning of it’s existence and purpose. Like the origins of the Laws of Thermal Dynamics. We don’t simply claim ‘God created them’ and not take it further. We explore and test them, coming up with a theory. Why not the same for creation? Because the creation (i.e. a divine being placed us here) has no impact on the physical world. It’s existence does not affect your cat, dog or the dolphins. Knowledge of creation does not assist in understanding the dynamics of cellular mutation. It is a philosophical position to assist a sentient being in deciding it’s nature, purpose and best way to exist, through accompanying values, etc.

Does this help in seeing the difference in believing in creation and teaching it in a class of science?

Yng

quote Bosk: You say you can repeatedly TEST evolution through prediction. Interesting, sounds very clairvoyant. What exactly do you mean by that?
“If evolution is true then we should find "A" or "B". We find A & B therefore evolution is true”.
Reason: “Bravo!”
So neither of you understand the principles of LOGIC? It’s like saying:
“Cats are animals that have legs. This animal has legs therefore it is a cat.”
“Ahh no, it’s a dog.”
“What? Pssh, you are so anti-science!”

Actually Yng I have a degree in logic. So I think I'm fairly conversant in it.

To answer your question 1) in logic when a statement is made such as If we find "B" then "A" must be true. It follows from this that if you agree with the premise then you MUST agree with the conclusion since the conclusion follows from the premise.
In logic this would be phrased as: If & only if "A" is true then "B" is true. "A" is true, therefore "B" is true.

Now the theory of evolution states that if, & only if, it is true then we should find certain things. Do we find them? Yes we do. Therefore our conclusion must be that the theory of evolution is true since our conclusion followed from our premise!

Your example of a cat & dog however is somewhat misleading. The conclusion in your argument did NOT follow from the premise & therefore was invalid. The arguments that I have given above however are quite valid. Feel free to check them with your lecturers.

This is the type of prediction that science deals in. It has NOTHING to do with mysticism & everything to do with a premise based on a hypothesis & then checked out to see if it is true or false. But please don't take My word. ANY evolutionary scientist will tell you exactly the same thing.

Yng
Allow me to respond to your other points.
-“Creationism & ID see any criticism as part of a conspiracy against it.” Actually, creationists quite often critique each others theories. Their quote is “Scripture is true but not exhaustive”. They pose theories, much like secular scientists, to ‘fill the gaps’, then use real science to test them, but when further developments show those theories to be untrue, they are rejected.

Really? Then let me ask you this? What evidence would you accept as proving that creationism is FALSE? I think you'll find that NO creationist will be able to answer that question. Ask yourself why? If their hypothesis is based solely on the facts then they should have no problem in stating if we find "A" or "B" then creation could not have occured.

-Re: Ockham’s Razor:
Any reply I could make to your point concerning occam's razor is more than ably covered by Deuc & Spendocrat.

Next the beficiality of science.

-The holocaust, treatment of Aborigines and recent US high school shootings have all been justified by “science”. Beneficial, huh?

I find these remarks strange. Science did NOT justify the holocaust, racism did. Ditto the treatment of Aboriginals. Science was used to increase the efficiency of the holocaust. Science was also used to save the lives of many of its victims when the camps were liberated & to help treat those same survivors' psychological problems. Wasn't that a benefit? Doesn't that show that science is morally neutral? In point of fact it is the uses to which it is put that are good or evil not science itself.
None of which however destroys my point about the benefits which come from science when it is used in the service of humanity. In comparison I need merely point out that there are NO benefits apart from a benefit to the ego that come from adoption of creationism.

Bosk,
Quote, "I need merely point out that there are NO benefits apart from a benefit to the ego that come from adoption of creationism." Really! Your constant defense of atheism we would have thought was an attempt to retain your intellectual position and your ego!

Philo
quote "Really! Your constant defense of atheism we would have thought was an attempt to retain your intellectual position and your ego!"

two points 1) I am not an atheist. I never said I was. But you already knew that. As a point of fact I am a believer just not a fundamentalist.

2) what can I say to your deliberate misrepresentation of My views except...I forgive you & turn the other cheek. Care to strike me again philo

Flood:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

Rh-Os: IDK enough to argue for/against it, but in terms of viability, how’s this for the Big Bang?

“Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

“But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

“But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

“Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’”

Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

“Experimental evidence comes from experiments, ie. tests done to check if a hypothesis is correct. And evidence is something that can be used to support or indicate the correctness of a claim.”
How is what I mentioned re: flood any different to “experiments” conducted re: evolutionary theory as origin of the species.

“Damn their bias towards evidence! No, really, a credible journal won't (shouldn't) publish anything with *any* conclusion that isn't supported by sound arguments and evidence.” Blah, u evolutionists still don’t seem to get this. Creationists do publish science in scientific journals. But where they argue about how that has worked itself into the history of the universe- and really, by the use of your words “current theory”, u show that we don’t KNOW a whole lot about it- their views are not accepted. When evolutionists do the same, even if their paradigm

is just the current fashionable thing to believe in, its accepted as a part of science.

Where have I ever said faith should be considered science? Never. Science trusts in man, faith trusts in [God?]. but can one be used to explore the other? Sure, in the right context. I have never said we should start quoting Scripture in Science journals or teaching the Bible in chemistry class.

“Theoretical testing applies to the past through application of KNOWN CONDITIONS to a set of KNOWN PAST CIRCUMSTANCES and seeing whether the current results match the expected results”
Known past circumstances? Really?

“The results do not match the theory, the theory is wrong.” That doesn’t mean if they do, its right.

“If & only if "A" is true then "B" is true”. You did NOT say that in your post.

You basically said “if C, I will find “a” or “b”, which leaves much room for “if D, if E, if F, etc.” You should have said “if and only if”.

So what is the “C” that is the “if and only if” of evolution?

In the same way I will ask the Christians: “if we find "A" or "B" then creation could not have occurred…” what are those A’s and B’s?

Reason, you’ve elucidated on part of the whole Creation thing, not all of it, but I respect your views.

“benefits which come from science when it is used in the service of humanity” I think Boaz would respond to the “when used in the service of humanity” bit more than I would… e.g. what induces basically selfish people to do that? At least those with a [species-centric?] view of the world fostered by Creationists beliefs would see some value in serving humanity (whether that eventuates into action or not is another story).

But so often the idea that some humans are more evolved than others has been used to justify racism, which is what I meant.

Fundamentalism = sticking to the fundamentals of one’s beliefs. I’m curious, what has led to u rejecting part of commonly held Christian beliefs

YngNLuvnIt,
There is a court case happening in the USA at this moment; action brought by several parents rejecting ID. My professor friend from University Western Sydney gave me a link today on the case. As soon as I have checked it out I will post here. It is to be defended by leading professors in their field upholding ID

I posted this link to an interesting podcast on the other ID thread, but it's equally relevant here.

"The Skeptic Tank - Intelligent Design plus some Bad Astronomy - Richard Saunders, Eugenie C Scott, Phil Plait"

http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/

Cheers :)

YngNLuvnIt, I don't care that there is a semi-science based religious explanation for how "the flood" could have occurred, you said world-wide flooding is not a miracle and that's bull. You cannot produce an alternative explanation for the fossil record without resorting to miracles, furthermore you can't do it without referring to numerous unnecessary actions by a deity.

The Big Bang is not relevant. Evolution does not depend on either the natural development of the universe we see today or the natural production of life.

But I will take issue with a few things. If hydrogen clouds were too hot to be contained by gravity, I think we have to ask ourselves... what's keeping the super hot great big flaming ball of mostly hydrogen and helium otherwise known as "the sun" together? Under gravitational pressure far greater than what exists in our atmosphere hydrogen is going to be enough to assist covalent bonding, at least until there is too much compression for that. We don't know enough about star formation yet, but again it has nothing to do with evolution.

"How is what I mentioned re: flood any different"
It's not, but at least evolution is falsifiable. (OK, the same is true for the flood since it has been falsified.)

"But where they argue about how that has worked itself into the history of the universe- -their views are not accepted."
Because like you here, they have been unable to provide good evidence or sound logic to support those arguments. Where they make other arguments they may sometimes be able.

"by the use of your words 'current theory', u show that we don't KNOW a whole lot about it"
People get stuff wrong and we don't know everything, hence it could change. It says little about the volume of knowledge& evidence.

"When evolutionists do the same,"
Sure, journals publish wrong stuff all the time and people get attracted to new ideas, doesn't mean they should. It's reasonable to have a (rebuttable) presumption against commonly refuted types of arguments (eg. cold fusion)

One of your quotes said something about faith positions.

Yng
just a few points. I'm glad you now admit that the current form of my argument is valid [actually both were but that's neither here nor there]. Since I used the logical form of the argument to show how science can demonstrate the reality of evolution & since you now accept that my argument is valid then my conclusion that evolution can be demonstrated must also be valid since it follows from my premises. QED

Now a quote from you "Blah, u evolutionists still don’t seem to get this. Creationists do publish science in scientific journals." Ok. Let's get together our own scientific journal. We'll call it the flat earth journal. We will reject any evidence that goes against our paradigm of a flat earth but apart from that we will carefully examine how & why the earth is flat. Would that be a reasonable scientific enterprise? Of course not because our basic premise ie that the earth is flat will not be examined. We can even phrase it to be non-falsifiable.

Creationist journals operate in like manner. They will examine no evidence which challenges their original paradigm but they will look at how god created things. That is hardly science yng.
But you yourself have done exactly this on this thread. You've REFUSED to answer what evidence you would accept as falsifying creationism. If your views are truely scientific Yng then you should have no trouble with this question. So answer it please.

As far as the evidence for evolution & against creation it really is too vast to be gone into here. However if you truely are interested in finding the truth & not merely being a defender of the faith then try reading "telling lies for god" by Ian Plimer. That might open your eyes.

I would also like to ask you a series of questions concerning Noah's ark. feel up to the challenge?
Best to all

I realise now that I have not approached this forum correctly.

I set out to say that evolution is not absolute fact (which it is not). I then sought to either undermind evolution or argue in favour of an alternate form of belief, especially one which implies a deity, but I did not give any room to consider that deity in my exploration of that belief. The thought process behind this was that the presupposition "there is a God who has been involved in the scientific functioning of the planet" (as opposed to "there is not a God who was involved in the scientific funcitoning of the planet) is not an appropriate basis of belief from which to study science.

Before we go any further in exploring Creation/ID/Evolution/whatever , I think it would be a good idea for everybody to read this article (see below). I apologise for the AIG link once again to those who r anti-. Regardless of your opinion of what is said, I think its true that, failing to recognise what is said, proponents of alternate theories will merely continue to go round and round in circles, which is not good for anybody.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

re: the challenge- I am, but I'm travelling to Thailand next monday for a month where i will have very little time/availability(?) for internet access. if i am to get involved in a dialogue about the flood, and it takes longer than a week (which is likely with the 24 hour, 2* 350 word limit), I won't be able to contribute to it appropriately.

Are there any flood-believers out there who would wish to aruge for it? If not, I recommend u do some research into websites that believe and promote it, e.g. aig, etc. They have a "contact us" page where u can ask them to defend their beliefs one on one and a search engine that searches responses they have already written out on key subjects.

Peace, yo.

Yng

It is vital that we clarify the confusion and misrepresentation over this issue. Particularly, we must dispel the myth that this debate is ‘science vs religion’. It’s not that at all, it’s about the worldview(s) through which the facts are interpreted.

Those pushing the secular/atheist agenda have been trying to change the rules of the game by redefining science to exclude even the possibility of creation. One US scientist illustrated this recently when he wrote in a letter to Nature:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’*

The idea of censoring students from even considering whether intelligence might have been involved in life’s origins would be astonishing to the creationist founders of modern science, like the great Isaac Newton. Science is supposed to be about the best, most logical explanation, trying to get to the truth of the matter—regardless of where the truth might lead. Those who want to deny intelligent causes from discussion are simply demonstrating their religious/philosophical bias.

So, don’t let them get away with the nonsense that IDers/creationists are trying to introduce ‘religion’ into science—today’s science is already saturated with naturalism/secularism/humanism religion. Their predetermined world view is there is no Creator designer

Guess who’s back.

Philo, there is no bias against religion, there is only bias towards evidence. Evolution is not irrefutable fact in itself, of course, but rather it is built on irrefutable facts. Creationism/ID is not dismissed because it is quasi-religious, it is dismissed because it is not supported by the facts. This has been demonstrated time and time again for the past one hundred years.

Scientists are only biased towards the truth. If creationism or ID theory was supported by facts and therefore looked to be true, there is no reason why scientists would be ‘biased’ against it, because all scientists are interested in is the truth. Therefore the claim that scientists are prejudiced towards creationism is bunk, because scientists are not in the habit of ignoring facts. If they were, they wouldn’t get very far.

You’re right, this isn’t science vs religion. This is science vs ignorance. For whatever reason people choose not to accept evolution, they are choosing to ignore the facts and ignore the reality of the situation. Why do I get the feeling that if ID hadn’t been dreamt up, you would be 100% behind a different theory that challenged evolution?

The fact is, evolution can’t be challenged, the evidence is just too strong. But people will keep trying no matter what, because that’s what people do.

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s sit back and watch the court cases in America. Whatever side you’re on, it’s gonna be interesting.

Whatever functioning this planet does, it doesn't do it in a scientific manner.

Mention the Bible all you like, but if you're going to use it to support your arguments then you will also have to demonstrate that it is inerrant and was meant to be taken literally. But if you could do that then there would be no need for this discussion. You're entitled to argue using subjective evidence, but it's not convincing to most people, it's not logically persuasive and it definitely isn't science.

"failing to recognise what is said, proponents of alternate theories will merely continue to go round and round in circles,"
Again, not a theory. There are too many points in that article for me to cover them all, so I will leave aside the belittling of Christians who accept evolution, its other false statements & characterisations, and its implausible "real-life" situations. The false claim that evolutionists presuppose that no god was involved in creation is simply an attempt at drawing equivalency to the fixed positions of creationists. Likewise for "evolutionist": those that accept evolution generally do not do so dogmatically and instead accept it because of how well it is supported. That article is a good example of why creationism is not science: it has already developed a position and will bend anything else to make it fit.

Often there is only one reasonable interpretation open on the facts. If we could only see stars within 6-10,000 light years and there was only radioactive decay equivalent to a similar amount of time, then absent contrary evidence it would not be reasonable to conclude that the Earth was older. Scientific facts would suggest that the Earth and life on it did not develop naturally. It is not reasonable to interpret known facts in such a way as to conclude that the Earth is that young, regardless of whether such a belief is otherwise reasonable. Alternatives involving miracles are easy to posit but without sound arguments and objective evidence to support them they are worthless; you can't conclude something by interpreting facts that don't exist.

Let me state my present leaning on the history of life.
1. The basic chemistry of matter has billions of years of existence
2. There have been previous living creations on the Earth over thousands of millenia.
3. There is variations within species that some could conclude as evolution.
4. There was some catastrophic event on the Earth about 6 - 10 thousand years ago that created extended darkness and a chaotic watery Earth. This wiped out most of a previous creation (all primitive cultures speak of a giant flood of water).

Possibly caused by an astoroid because the Chaldean account speaks of the fountains of water under and above the Earth breaking up. Some scientists have suggested a 1.200 mm - 3.000 mm ice crust about 9 klms above the Earth that created a hothouse effect was destroyed at that time. The colour spectrum of light through water was no longer a circle in the sky but a bow. Light shined directly on the Earth and now exposed man to higher levels of radiation shortening his life span. The same protein in the skin that protects us from radiation burn is the same protein that shortens human life. The ancients had extensive knowledge of the stars including the fact they emmitting sounds and this could have been gained by the amplification such created environment.

Ok Philo, let’s talk flood.

So where did the flood water come from, and where did it go?

The theory you reference was Walt Brown's model, which proposed that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain. The main problem with this theory is there is no evidence for it – zero. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be...blah blah anyway the point is there's no evidence so let's move on.

A few (of many) questions regarding the flood:

How are the polar ice caps possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, etc. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

Looking forward to your answers.

Ref: http://www.talkorigins.org

PS: I won’t comment on that last part of your post because it’s so absurd, I can’t tell if you’re having a laugh or not. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.

What has floods got to do with evolution? Nothing; except that they have changed environments. In case you hadn't heard - Australia is largely a desert, howewver there is more water below its surface than there is above its surface. The record of floods are extensive. I live on a sand basin 40 Klms from the coast, that was once a sea-bed
Below that sea bed I have dug up petrified tree fossils. Trees do not normally petrify in a sandy sea bed. Similar tree fossils were found in sand deposits in nearby Penrith Quarries.

What suddenly buried the seam of coal that runs along the East coast of Australia? More like an asteroid to me, which would have also caused a giant flood wave. There are large rocks on a headland on the South Coast of NSW 400 feet above their source 100 feet below sea level several klms away. How did they get there except by the force of water?