Intelligent design

[Southtown]

No. Intelligent Design isn't 'reasonable'. And Intelligent Design proponents keep on falling into the trap of false analogies.

It's unreasonable to say that life came from life? Really?

 

The ID critics are the ones assuming life came from non-life without a shred of supporting evidence.

 

Period.

[paultrr]

That's a very good point. But also, I think that in the future we may come up with other methods to calculate the age of the Earth. It may be 10000 years old, or 4.5 million years old. Whatever...

 

But yeah, I agree, we can't be totally sure about it, we can just say according to this or according to that... etc.

 

Yeap. :evil:

 

 

Well, I gotta re-read all of that then.

 

Thanks for the answers.

 

The problem on both sides when it comes to a lot of those caculations is everything tends to assume that all those rates and such remain constant throughout earth's history. The common name for that type of view is called Uniformitarinism. Not many years ago at one time before the buzz word ID came into play and there was either the literal seven day creationist view, Theistic evolution, and straight evolution to decide between it was the Seven day guys pointing out the error with Uniformity thought to begin with. ID as I tend to see it in all their articles tends to be simular to the Theiestic evolution approach, except now its not the gaps anyone mentions( we scientists sometimes used to call that one the God of the gaps approach.) anymore. Its the means by which life evolves or changes. Given that the thrust of the argument with the ID camp in anything major they have published as source work has not tended to actually argue the ages of anything. The argument is over how life first got started and what is the mechanism by which life adapts in major ways. At that point ID is not really that anti-evolution as some would first think. It also does not actually lend itself at all to anything the original literal seven day creationists believe in even though I see some out there in their leaders seem to think it does.

 

Where it does vary from traditional science is in its acceptance of a First cause intelligent designer for the universe(God if you wish). Strictly speaking science on its own is rather agnositic. It sees no evidence for or against God. Athiesm on the other hand goes the added step and sees that no evidence is evidence there is no God, so to speak. Most of us agnositics say given the limits on our knowledge one cannot make that added step. If science was treated by everyone the way it should be where one does not go beyond the evidence we have then science is not really an enemy in the traditional sence of the word to faith. But in the same note it is also not designed to support faith either. Science deals with nature and nothing outside of nature. By that limit alone science is not designed to prove or disprove God. In science we tend to deal with theories a lot. We depend upon observation/experiment to support or not support any given theory. As long as their are gaps in our knowledge one cannot have a theory in science as absolutely proven like one can prove something out in say math. For example Einstein's special theory of relativity is assumed by the evidence to be true. But its also known that it may only be a partial picture at present.

 

We scientists present evolution as a theory. We offer the evidence we do have along with the theory. But it is still a theory when you boil it all down. The exact model gets modified somewhat over time and what we have today has varied some what from the original idea offered by Darwin himself.

 

I'd keep all of that in mind when you want to speculate off track a bit about ages of this and that and so forth.

[clapstyx]

The age old argument.

 

As at the time the Bible was written..when it was cocluded that the world was only 6000 years old (I guess it was only 4000 then) what was the longest period of time we as a species were able to conceptualise. Ie had we come up with the term "millions" when it was written ? ie was 6000 years the longest perod of time represented by our language and so the "beginning" must have been then because that was as far as we could possibly go back ? When was the concept of "millions" (or for that matter "Billions") of years invented. Was it just a sub division of the time period with the greatest possible period of time imaginable at that time being 6000 years ? Will we oneday decide that the actual earliest moment was 7 quadrazillions and think "what idiots were thay back in the 20th century to be trying to measure the age of universal life in terms of billions of years"

 

The other issue I would like to clarify is how many people believe the Earth is the first place in the universe to have organic life..and how many believe it is the last place in the universe where it still exists..the vacuum of space having potentially broken through the atmosphere in the other locations. Is the Earth the last place in the Universe where life still exists..the final test of an experiment being conducted by God and the Devil to resolve an age old argument about which universal power is stronger "Positive or Negative". The Devil would argue that destruction is easier so it is more conducive to the concept of perfect harmony and God would argue that pure harmony means all things in concert. The Devil would argue that the singular nothing is the most perfect representation of infinity and God would argue that eternal life is. And so the argument went until they agreed to test the theory that nature prefers life over death. That seemed to be a fair deal, so God being the generous soul he is sent his only son in a kind of high stakes game of poker thinking that would be the end of the matter. Still neither of them was completely satisfied that the most truthful argument had been created. "Ok" says the Devil "I'll tell you what..since you offered more than you had to I will give you a second chance to prove me wrong" "Hmm" says God "well to be fair he's going to have to go back as a mortal so there is no mistake this time" And so they agree that if God can send back his son as a mortal man intelligent enough to solve a problem that is believed to be impossible..without causing any conflict or destruction..creating harmony and saving life" that yes God does indeed have the argument based on the most pure form of truth. So God sayeth to his son "would you be prepared?" and his son remembering the unpleasentness of the last experience is at first reluctant but replies "I will go if you send my love down there to find" and God says "What?" "I will do it for love" and God smiles.."hmm I taught you well" and as Jesus grabs a Paul Reed Smith from under his bed he says "Man Ive been sitting around here for nearly 2000 years listening to you crap on about the concept of perfect harmony and the virtues of pursuing perfection at every opportunity..and thats all well and good..but I havent been laid in a very long time" And God laughs at his impetuousness. Then Jesus thinks to himself "If I am going I want to be able to lay out my arrival in advance of my coming out" God and the Devil look puzzled because it seems there is a new player amoungst them. "Yeah" says Jesus "if I am to have a sprting chance in all this I want a 40th Anniversary Marshall pre amped to a Soldano with a two rock head and a guitar lesson from Clapton" "Clapton!! " they say in unison "Yep I am not playing a save the world concert until I get a guitar lessson" and God says "That might be heavy cross to bear" and Jesus says "Yikes..yeah well I dont want any more of that bullshit..just make it so I get a guitar lesson from someone that has half an idea of what they are about" and the Devil says "What about Keith Richards ?" and Jesus says "Ok tell him to remove 2 more of the strings of his old Telecaster then show me how he plays it that way and we will see who can create the greatest degree of harmony under those conditions..so long as I am allowed to record the guitar lesson as a fundraising movie for the environment" and God says "But what if you cant prove you are Jesus Christ to everyones satisfaction?" "Man" says Jesus "after I have pulled off a gig like that its not gonna matter. "Oooh" says the Devil "this sounds like its all over and done with" "Fair enough says Jesus lets make it fair. You can design the person I have to go back and start with" "Ok" says the Devil "How about you have to go back as an accountant with a guitar phobia" "Oh **** you make it hard" "Ok if thats whats going to settle this argument once and for all but I want to see a tree growing on the moon before I die" "What!!" "Let that be the test for humanity..if they can get a tree to grow unaided on the moon by 2060 they will be entitled to enter the gates of Heaven" "hmm..whats your logic there" says God. "If they can understand ecosystem logic well enough to grow a tree on the moon then they will understand enough about natural harmony to create eternal life for themselves" "I dont think any man is capable of pulling that off" says the Devil flabberghasted at the thought that someone would even try. "Yes" says God "but they do need a common goal focus that will see them through the ages, an ideal that they can all agree upon and so create the first moment of global harmony" "Right on" says Jesus. "youve been scheming this idea for a while havent you" says God Jesus laughs "Yeah well theres not much else to do is there..I mean I look down there and it looks like they have lost the plot ..so I thought bugger it I may as well start on the surround sound movie version sequel to the Da Vinci Code"

 

The point is you may as well teach that as history its about as believable as Intelligent Design!

[paultrr]

It's unreasonable to say that life came from life? Really?

 

The ID critics are the ones assuming life came from non-life without a shred of supporting evidence.

 

Period.

 

If one actually looks at all this. The assumption life comes from life is based upon man's own way of looking at things mixed with faith. The assumption that life could come from non-life all is based upon one step building upon another. The part we use for evidence here comes from preserved records found in the earth and around us. But there is a point going back in time we we take all we do have and make a major assumption that since this points this way then perhaps it gets simply enough eventually where non-life materials eventually modify into living. Both approaches require assumption. As with any assumption its possible you have the case of it making an *** out of you and me. But that holds for both sides in this argument.

 

However, if I have say 75% of a puzzle pointing towards one thing I myself find it natural to follow logically towards that certain assumption. When I find a pattern, that while showing order, does not in itself offer any evidence of say the God of the Bible was behind it all I think it is not very logical or smart to assume the God of the Bible did it. That's rather like while knowing say Harry always screws things up that every case where something is screwed up must be Harry's fault.

[Edge]

I think that science is and shall be always secular. No god involved in it. Unless there comes a way to prove god's existence, but until then, it should be secular.

[TRoutMac]

I think maybe we have dismissed Intelligent Design as a load of hogwash too early.

 

Ya think?

 

The intelligent design is only valid as a concept if those that believe the argument can prove that mans existing problems are by design and that the "Designer" is (or in a psot proof situation) has designed the solution for them that leaves us as people more well designed and capable of long term survival than we are in this exact present moment.

 

Clapstyx, I really don't mean to offend you, but I get the impression that you don't really understand what Intelligent Design is. You seem to be talking about something entirely different than what proponents of Intelligent Design theory such as myself are talking about.

 

There is one thing that is unclear about ID..do those that believe in ID believe in the second coming?

 

Case in point. Intelligent Design theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Coming. You may as well have asked whether we like pizza. Intelligent Design theory takes no position on the Second Coming, since the Second Coming is a religious, theological issue, not a scientific one.

 

Do the ID people have a concept of Heaven and if so what was the fundamental parameter of its design..what was the ideal that the designer sought to represent?

 

Again, totally irrelevant to Intelligent Design theory. And yes, I do like pizza.

[Southtown]

The assumption life comes from life is based upon man's own way of looking at things mixed with faith.

We see life come from life every day, dude.

[Edge]

TRoutMac, according to ID, is Pizza a natural process or a designed process? :eek:

 

Just kidding.

 

Anyway, here's an analogy which may be good for macroevolution. Think of it, some sciences as thermodynamics divide into other sciences as statitiscal thermodynamics and classic thermodynamics.

 

The same happens with physics, it divides into classic physics and modern physics.

 

Again, they get divided into this thanks to new discoveries as the exact behavior of molecular activity and relativism, respectively.

 

I think in this sense macroevolution can be true. I'm not saying it definitely is, but well, it's an analogy. What do you think? :evil:

 

Also, math. Math is also a science which we have been improved. Example, in the past there were another types of math types and systems. However, as the zero concept and the multiplicacion concept and exponential concept we got the nowadays math. Which is believed to be exact. And I guess this is true.

 

This can be proof of how ID can make microevolutionary processes to some things to take them to perfection. Again, this is another analogy. What's your take on it? :eek:

 

And yes, I made a thread about math in this forum here.

 

LOLZ!!

[Boerseun]

Sheesh.

 

Shows you what happens when you turn your back here for ten minutes.

 

TRoutMac, Brad, and the rest of the "Intelligent Design" troupe:

 

This thread is pointless, and in my mind the whole Evolution vs. ID debate is pointless. Why, you ask? Let the mullet inform you:

 

Evolution is a process, and does not pretend to be anything else.

ID proclaims to be the answer for the Original Cause. It's no process.

 

Therefore, trying to measure the two against each other (as in this and countless other discussions) is rather like trying to compare your fridge's beer-chilling function (a process of compression and decompression driven by a little pump) to the metal press at the manufacturing plant where your fridge came from.

 

They operate in vastly different realms. Therefore, this discussion is pointless.

 

Science says: "We can describe the process of how one species can morph into another. We've got the genetical evidence. How it started, is open for discussion, but it seems as if in a soup of organic compounds can, under the right circumstances, certain molecules can serve as templates to manufacture identical replicas. This is not the final answer, but it seems pretty likely. If you've got any other ideas, please, come forward with them so that we can test them."

 

ID says: "Species don't morph into another. Species were all statically made, as they appear today, by some supernatural being. This being was able to hang around for millions of years as the blue-green algae in the oceans started producing enough oxygen for the current set of animals to survive. It is obvious that the process wasn't a once-off, but that this Being introduced new sets of custom-made animals and plants as the conditions changed. This explains the increase in complexity as you go higher in the strata in the fossil record. The lower you go, the simpler the animal and plant fossils appear. This, therefore, excludes the possibility of the Designer being an alien, seeing as this process would've taken millions upon millions of years. In other words, the Being was a supernatural God-like kinda guy, with lotsa time on his hands. Regardless of what we as ID'ers tells you about ID having nothing to do with religion. Hogwash. We are Creationists, under a thin veneer of scientific jargon. This is also the final answer. If you've got any new ideas about the origin of species, you're wrong. Go away."

 

ID and Science is batting in two completely different leagues. Get over it.

 

But you're more than welcome to make up your own mind, of course.

[goku]

help! help! i've been...........mulleted :eek:

i'd like to know why he gets to be the mullet while i have to be the cow :eek:

:eek:

 

not any more :evil:

[TRoutMac]

I think in this sense macroevolution can be true. I'm not saying it definitely is, but well, it's an analogy. What do you think?

 

Edge, I reject macro-evolution entirely. I think it's been shown very clearly why macro-evolution is, well, impossible. And I think it's been shown, even by the evolutionists, that there's no direct evidence to support it; only evidence to support micro-evolution. As long as macro-evolution can mean one organism slowly (or even quickly, as the PE crowd would suggest) "evolving" a new feature for a new purpose, thus becoming a new species, I can only conclude that it is complete and utter nonsense.

 

Regarding math, as Questor has pointed out, and quite correctly, we do not find chaos in the universe. We find order. And mathematics is but one piece of evidence of this. That there are mathematical constants may not prove Intelligent Design, but it can easily be seen to point in that direction. We have certainly refined our use of mathematics, but we haven't changed any mathematical principles… they've always been there (since the beginning of time, whenever that was).

 

Regarding a few other recent posts by paultrr, clapstyx and a few others: It appears that there's an awful lot of misunderstanding of the basic tenets of Intelligent Design theory and what the theory does or does not imply.

 

Intelligent Design can exist as a theory whether the Earth is old or young. Age of the Earth is irrelevant. If the Earth was "proven" to be old, I.D. would be just as valid as if it were "proven" to be young. This is why Intelligent Design proponents don't make a big hairy deal about the age of the Earth. As far as the theory itself goes, they don't care. It doesn't matter. This doesn't mean we're not interested in finding out how old the Earth is, it just means the age of the Earth isn't relevant to Intelligent Design theory.

 

What I see with some arguments is that evolutionists try to translate the I.D. argument back into their evolutionary world view. They try to "hijack" the I.D. argument. Sorry, that doesn't work. Macro-evolution is wholly incompatible with Intelligent Design theory… you cannot get the two together. I think the confusion stems from the fact that evolutionists use evidence for micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution, so when they hear an IDer like Michael Behe say something which seems to support evolution, they don't realize he's talking about micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Behe clearly believes, for example, that natural selection is an obstacle to macro-evolution. And I think he's exactly right.

 

Intelligent Design, however, doesn't make the duration of the design process an issue. That the designer could have designed these organisms over a large span of time is just as possible as if it happened in 6 days. Again, that issue is outside of the Intelligent Design hypothesis… it's irrelevant.

 

All Intelligent Design theory basically says is that "these things were designed by an intelligence" and that's the hypothesis the supporters of I.D. are finding evidence for. It doesn't say when, doesn't say how, doesn't say who, doesn't say how long.

 

The best way for the ID bashers out there to ensure the abandonment of macro-evolution and the rise of Intelligent Design as the new scientific paradigm regarding origin of life issues, is to keep doing what you're doing: Being dishonest, distorting I.D.'s claims, misrepresenting states' decisions to teach weaknesses in evolution, denying that I.D. is science, calling it "God of the Gaps" theory, calling it "creationism in disguise", and generally acting deathly afraid of any criticism of evolutionary theory. The only hope you folks have at impeding the advance of I.D. is to deal with it honestly, and to deal with your own theory honestly, too.

 

Reminds me of Princess Leia in the very first "Star Wars" to Governor Tuck aboard the Death Star: "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

[Southtown]

Science says: "We can describe the process of how one species can morph into another. We've got the genetical evidence. How it started, is open for discussion, but it seems as if in a soup of organic compounds can, under the right circumstances, certain molecules can serve as templates to manufacture identical replicas. This is not the final answer, but it seems pretty likely. If you've got any other ideas, please, come forward with them so that we can test them."

When do molecules gain a survival instinct? And when is that instinct usurped by procreation? The experiments are without context, except for the conjecture that abiogenesis is already true. And "it is", all scientists know that it "has to be true", or it's all for naught.

 

Until evolutionists realize the importance of differentiating between precognitive genetic capabilies and mutation, they are spinning their wheels. I'm sure it's quite fun to pretend that complexity and confusion mean you're smart. Hopefully, the sheer depth and frequency of brain exercises by modern biologists' molecular repetition experiments, will eventually yield some beneficial adaptation of intelligence...

 

If we look above the level of species or genus, we see clear distinctions between life types. The differences only become blurry when we try to divide these large, diverse groups into smaller, more rigid definitions like "specie", because there's not really an objective way to seperate them beyond the level of family. The complexity was contrived to make taxonomy support common descent, but it has only compromised the integrity of the classification process.

 

The goal should not be to infinitely divide these groups of life types, but to join them, and find distinctions between life types general enough to be objective, and then study diversity patterns within each type. Only this method will help us understand the diversity within and interaction among life types, and hence the apparent lack of missing links between supposed ancestoral cousins. Follow proper procedure, and the phylogenic tree should build itself.

 

Blurring the distinction between life types by infinitely minute classification of traits does not serve the classification process. And it is needlessly difficult to explore adaptation as it pertains to diversity. Indeed, the end of such scrutiny, to ultimately realize that every organism is unique, is merely common sense.

 

Diversity within families comes from adaptation, and should not be assumed to stem from mutation/selection before case study proves it conclusively. We see life types changing to suit their environment without genetic modification. This ability to adapt that all life types possess means a capacity for change is present before it is needed. How does evolution seek to explain or assimilate adaptation? It can't, that's why you don't hear it referred to very often.

 

Modern science is a dog on a treadmill with a t-bone in front of its face. The "rubber needs to meet the road" so-to-speak.

 

ID says: "Species don't morph into another. Species were all statically made, as they appear today, by some supernatural being. This being was able to hang around for millions of years as the blue-green algae in the oceans started producing enough oxygen for the current set of animals to survive. It is obvious that the process wasn't a once-off, but that this Being introduced new sets of custom-made animals and plants as the conditions changed. This explains the increase in complexity as you go higher in the strata in the fossil record. The lower you go, the simpler the animal and plant fossils appear. This, therefore, excludes the possibility of the Designer being an alien, seeing as this process would've taken millions upon millions of years. In other words, the Being was a supernatural God-like kinda guy, with lotsa time on his hands. Regardless of what we as ID'ers tells you about ID having nothing to do with religion. Hogwash. We are Creationists, under a thin veneer of scientific jargon. This is also the final answer. If you've got any new ideas about the origin of species, you're wrong. Go away."

Condescending strawman arguments are not the way to earn brownie points for your logic, neither is putting words in peoples' mouths.

 

I think the point of ID is that high school students should be having this argument, plain and simple. And what better way to teach them the intricate methodologies and/or limitations of science and/or religion? Open forum is the antithesis of dogma, isn't it? And they should be learning as much as possible, correct?

[Southtown]

Design, however, doesn't make the duration of the design process an issue. That the designer could have designed these organisms over a large span of time is just as possible as if it happened in 6 days. Again, that issue is outside of the Intelligent Design hypothesis… it's irrelevant.

I wouldn't agree with ID then. Assuming it's made clear that design is the only possible explanation, why would we then not seek to understand the how, why, and when ?

[Edge]

I wouldn't agree with ID then. Assuming it's made clear that design is the only possible explanation, why would we then not seek to understand the how, why, and when ?

And then introduce religious and theological beliefs in a scientific theory?

 

No wonder why people think that ID is "creationism in disguise".

[TRoutMac]

I wouldn't agree with ID then. Assuming it's made clear that design is the only possible explanation, why would we then not seek to understand the how, why, and when ?

 

First of all, would you prefer that ID include in its hypothesis claims which cannot be tested or verified? (the age of the Earth)

 

This illustrates how Intelligent Design theorists are more respectful of the limitations of science than evolutionists are. That design theorists have excluded the age issue (and the how and why) from their hypothesis only allows them to look more objectively at the evidence they find.

 

Evolutionists have a huge problem with the age issue because, for one thing, in order for their theory to be accurate, the Earth must be very old. That dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, that we have such long, almost unfathomable spans of time is central to the success of evolutionary theory. Secondly, they've hitched their scientific wagon to an estimate of age which cannot be tested, verified or falsified. Real smart, I'd say. Not only have they built a house of cards, but they've built it on sand.

 

Intelligent Design avoids this mistake by not hitching its wagon to any particular claim of age. It's not that we wouldn't love to know, and it's not that design theorists don't have their opinions as to the age of the Earth. It's just that it's not germane to the hypothesis they're dealing with at present, and I.D. can tolerate any age claim, anyway.

 

And besides which, who says that research into when won't continue anyway? The how and the why, however, are hopeless endeavors scientifically. First, to include "how and why" into the ID hypothesis would presuppose ID. That is, you cannot research why the designer acted until you have determined that there is a designer. Again, ID proponents are respecting science by following a very systematic, logical progression. Second, if we're really dealing with an Intelligent Designer, and that Designer remains unobservable, how is it we're supposed to determine WHY? Of course, if the designer is God of the Bible, then it could be said that the "why" is supplied in the text of the Bible, and only a very cursory account of the "how". But even then, you'd have to prove that the Bible was inspired by this designer, and that would be impossible.

 

So again, we're back to the same problem. Science cannot and will not be able to identify the designer. But it can determine that there is a designer.

[TRoutMac]

No wonder why people think that ID is "creationism in disguise".

 

While there is an important distinction between creationism and Intelligent Design theory (namely, that creationism does identify the designer and relies heavily on the Bible) it is nevertheless true that Intelligent Design theory may intersect to some extent with the Biblical account of creation. That's not to use the Bible as support for Intelligent Design. Rather, Intelligent Design can provide scientific support for the Biblical account. (excluding, of course, the how, why and when questions which are not part of the ID hypothesis).

 

But if the idea that the Biblical account of creation might be supported to some extent by the science of Intelligent Design leads you to reject Intelligent Design, then you are not being objective and you are not drawing conclusions based on the merits of the evidence, but rather on your own personal subjective beliefs (or disbeliefs).

 

And in truth, that's exactly what's going on here. That's exactly why, and (it's the only reason) there's so much rejection of Intelligent Design. People are afraid to lend any scientific support whatsoever to the Biblical account, even if it's rather narrow in its scope. As a Christian, I can't really understand why people are so afraid of this… but they are.

[Edge]

Edge, I reject macro-evolution entirely.

You fell free to reject macro-evolution; yet, if someone rejects Intelligent Design you call that person biased and not objective. Even if you are doing the same thing.

 

I think it's been shown very clearly why macro-evolution is, well, impossible.

Are you sure about this? It may seem impossible; however, it still can be possible.

 

And I think it's been shown, even by the evolutionists, that there's no direct evidence to support it; only evidence to support micro-evolution. As long as macro-evolution can mean one organism slowly (or even quickly, as the PE crowd would suggest) "evolving" a new feature for a new purpose, thus becoming a new species, I can only conclude that it is complete and utter nonsense.

Okay, your conclusion, respected. Now, why do scientists still accept evolution? They are not convinced that macro-evolution is utter nonsense like you say. Many of them think it's possible and yet, they may have good hypothesis on how is this possible.

 

Also, here's the problem I see with the Intelligent Design crowd: They want scientists to just go and trash Evolution (macro-evolution to be exact). They forget that Evolution itself has been an accepted theory by more than 100 years. Do you expect scientists to abandon macroevolution just like that? They still need better understanding of the Intelligent Design proposal and check if there aren't false or fallacious claims in the theory. And finally to see of macro-evolution is indeed impossible or almost impossible.

 

In conclusion, scientists are very conservative, they won't trash a theory that has been going around more than 100 years just like that. That's something the Intelligent Design crowd needs to understand. Just to go and tell all scientists "you are all wrong, Intelligent Design is the answer, etc." and expect them to adopt your theories at that exact moment is not exactly the best way to be taken seriously.

 

If something happens that challengues relativism, it will be analized very closely to see what's wrong. They won't trash Einstein's theory just like that.

 

Regarding math, as Questor has pointed out, and quite correctly, we do not find chaos in the universe. We find order. And mathematics is but one piece of evidence of this. That there are mathematical constants may not prove Intelligent Design, but it can easily be seen to point in that direction. We have certainly refined our use of mathematics, but we haven't changed any mathematical principles… they've always been there (since the beginning of time, whenever that was).

Is true that there is order in the universe. Yet, the only thing I know and believe to be constant is the speed of light. Not even the "solar constant" is really constant. That's why we get some weather changes sometimes.

 

Regarding a few other recent posts by paultrr, clapstyx and a few others: It appears that there's an awful lot of misunderstanding of the basic tenets of Intelligent Design theory and what the theory does or does not imply.

Funny. I have seen people saying that Intelligent Design people are the ones who misunderstand Evolution.

 

That's why there's a lot of confusion in this debates. People misunderstanding each other.

 

Intelligent Design can exist as a theory whether the Earth is old or young. Age of the Earth is irrelevant. If the Earth was "proven" to be old, I.D. would be just as valid as if it were "proven" to be young. This is why Intelligent Design proponents don't make a big hairy deal about the age of the Earth. As far as the theory itself goes, they don't care. It doesn't matter. This doesn't mean we're not interested in finding out how old the Earth is, it just means the age of the Earth isn't relevant to Intelligent Design theory.

Intelligent Design is very generalized theory. I don't see why if we were designed then Evolution can't happen. Is something that I still wonder. Intelligent Design = We were designated. Evolution = Development of life through Earth.

 

They are not exactly contradicting themselves in a strict sense.

 

What I see with some arguments is that evolutionists try to translate the I.D. argument back into their evolutionary world view. They try to "hijack" the I.D. argument. Sorry, that doesn't work. Macro-evolution is wholly incompatible with Intelligent Design theory… you cannot get the two together. I think the confusion stems from the fact that evolutionists use evidence for micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution, so when they hear an IDer like Michael Behe say something which seems to support evolution, they don't realize he's talking about micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Behe clearly believes, for example, that natural selection is an obstacle to macro-evolution. And I think he's exactly right.

Natural selection is part of the Evolution theory, why would a theory go against itself?

 

I'll look for it on google. I have many doubts around this.

 

Intelligent Design, however, doesn't make the duration of the design process an issue. That the designer could have designed these organisms over a large span of time is just as possible as if it happened in 6 days. Again, that issue is outside of the Intelligent Design hypothesis… it's irrelevant.

 

All Intelligent Design theory basically says is that "these things were designed by an intelligence" and that's the hypothesis the supporters of I.D. are finding evidence for. It doesn't say when, doesn't say how, doesn't say who, doesn't say how long.

That's what they should do. Prove themselves right instead of proving evolution wrong.

 

The best way for the ID bashers out there to ensure the abandonment of macro-evolution and the rise of Intelligent Design as the new scientific paradigm regarding origin of life issues, is to keep doing what you're doing: Being dishonest, distorting I.D.'s claims, misrepresenting states' decisions to teach weaknesses in evolution, denying that I.D. is science, calling it "God of the Gaps" theory, calling it "creationism in disguise", and generally acting deathly afraid of any criticism of evolutionary theory. The only hope you folks have at impeding the advance of I.D. is to deal with it honestly, and to deal with your own theory honestly, too.

True. However, it seems to be that some Intelligent Design people are also afraid of Evolution.

 

It's not new that Evolution is "under attack", it has been challengued several times in the past. Specially by those with religious beliefs.

 

That only shows that many people have been afraid and hate Evolution. Yet, it is still around as the best explanation. With doubts, true.

 

Reminds me of Princess Leia in the very first "Star Wars" to Governor Tuck aboard the Death Star: "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Intelligent Design just seems to say: "If Evolution ain't right, we are". This is very general and it can be fallacious on a strict sense of science.

 

While there is an important distinction between creationism and Intelligent Design theory (namely, that creationism does identify the designer and relies heavily on the Bible) it is nevertheless true that Intelligent Design theory may intersect to some extent with the Biblical account of creation. That's not to use the Bible as support for Intelligent Design. Rather, Intelligent Design can provide scientific support for the Biblical account. (excluding, of course, the how, why and when questions which are not part of the ID hypothesis).

Did you read Southtown's post?

 

He wants Intelligent Design to now try to explain how, when and why. Whenever this will be tried to be explained, people will just go and say "The Bible. It says everything." This is introducing religion in the theory and that's why many people are against it.

 

But if the idea that the Biblical account of creation might be supported to some extent by the science of Intelligent Design leads you to reject Intelligent Design, then you are not being objective and you are not drawing conclusions based on the merits of the evidence, but rather on your own personal subjective beliefs (or disbeliefs).

Many people that reject evolution (I'm not saying that you, but there are many people that do this) do it because it does not match with the Bible. At least according to them. This is not objective either.

 

And in truth, that's exactly what's going on here. That's exactly why, and (it's the only reason) there's so much rejection of Intelligent Design. People are afraid to lend any scientific support whatsoever to the Biblical account, even if it's rather narrow in its scope. As a Christian, I can't really understand why people are so afraid of this… but they are.

Not exactly. They are afraid that this movement will be a step in order to introduce religion in science classes.