Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

The first known multi-cellular organisms appear 1.2 billion years ago, and as Gluadys has pointed out, the unicellular life didn't remain unchanged. You seem to be trying to suggest that mutation and natural selection could not produce the variety seen in the Cambrian over 70 million generations. It certainly could. It's important to remember that generations are far more important than years so far as mutation and selection are concerned.Here, not only do you fail to offer positive evidence for intelligent design, but you're not even offering evidence against evolutionary theory.Why not try the mammalian blood-clotting system? as evidence for design.

G'day Lucy,Have you never heard of Lamarck?

Lucy, there is no such thing as a default position in science.If evolution theory were to be completely dismissed, it wouldnt do anything towards proving ID.Proponents of ID have to provide evidence of design, evidence beyond personal incredulity.You probably know Behe and his Irreducible complexity. He did actually try to find a method of proving ID. He failed, since IC was somewhat already covered by evolutionary theory, but he had the idea. Its things like that you have do to prove ID.The fact that there is no evidence towards ID, dosent lend any credibility towards evolution, evolutionary theories have their own evidence to support the theories.

I wasn't aware that there was so much contradictory evidence. As far as I know there are differing interpretations of the same evidence and one interpretation works better than the other. Which contradictions are you talking about? Hopefully one day you'll realize how absurd and against the evidence the whole concept of macroevolution is as well. That's not what I hear - most people gave up the old model because they were induced to believe that 'science' had evidence for an old earth that was incontrovertible. At that point a lot of them started to compromise in order to fit in with that supposed fact. Many never ever believed in evolution however and never needed to throughout their professional careers.Certain university courses have a tendency to turn people into atheists via brainwashing into their philisophical worldview and announcing as fact that which is not. Like lining up dead fossils in series that can never actually be verified and announcing their perfect fit even if nobody can actually see much less prove the connection or relation at all? Or like finding human or ape remains and insisting that they are human/ape intermediates for this or that obscure reason until they realize that they have been using artistic licence to the extreme and none of what they imagined was true after all.It's amazing what you can find if you believe that something happened...remember Piltdown man? and Nebraska man? and archeoraptor?...just a few off the top of my head that sucked an incredible number of supposedly intelligent people in. As far as I can see it's just never ending self deception when you decide that something is true.Of course you'll say the same for me but I wonder who is actually right...When you have life, you need organization and for organization, you need intelligence.Life doesn't just come from arranging the parts either or you would be able to raise the dead since they have all the correct proteins and other components already in place.

Well, you've already drawn six responses to this post, and here's another. At times I'm just thunderstruck at the sheer degree of perversity of some ideas of creationists, and this one is definitely one of the most perverse. You can get away with this sort of thing in your own enclaves and with fellow travelers like Lucy, but in the real world where people want the straight story you have to say things that are actually true.In this case you're doing a, "Oh, yeah? Well, you do it too!" The problem is, quite obviously we don't. Neither explaining nor researching evolution involves disproving creation; in fact, creation never receives a second thought, not even a first thought, and only comes up when opposing the efforts of creationists. The only place you can find technical papers about evolution that mention creation is at creationism conferences. Even the technical papers of Michael Behe, the founder of the intelligent design movement, do not mention creation.The fact of the matter is that here in yet another thread about the evidence of intelligent design, its proponents can only offer evidence against evolution. This is so obvious a non-starter that most evolutionists cannot fathom why creationists keep trotting it out. The foundation of all of modern science is observational evidence from the natural world, and if evolution ever proves to be an insufficient explanation for the origin of species then science will seek out other natural explanations.The creationist belief that disproof of evolution will cause the scientific world to embrace supernaturalism, or even just accept mechanisms for which there is no evidence, can only be based upon massive self-deception. Just as in the laundry business where it's, "No tickee, no shirtee," in the science business it's, "No evidence, no theory." Intelligent design is just creationism under a new name, as was made so clear at trial in Dover where it was proven that Of Pandas and People had been transformed from a book on creationism into a book on intelligent design by simply replacing the word "creation" with the phrase "intelligent design".In order for the possibility that someone or something other than evolution is causing species change over time to be accepted as a scientific possibility then there should be evidence. As many have already told you, the hallmark of successful theories is successful predictions. Here are some predictions of intelligent design that if found to be true would constitute support for the intelligent design idea, at which time it could finally be accepted as a legitmate hypothesis and would enter into the running in the race to becoming a legitimate theory:

1. Genes should be found that have no apparent predecessors.
   ​
2. In species change happening today, we should find evidence of genetic changes that are completely unrelated to natural mutational mechanisms.
   ​
3. In the fossil record, new innovations should appear suddenly and wholly formed and with no more primitive antecedents.
   ​
4. In the fossil record, new innovations should appear in groups that are completely unrelated.
   ​
5. More generally, we should evidence of processes with no possible naturalistic explanation.

--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Not true, look at a snowflake.Bereretta, please present some POSITVIE evidence FOR ID. So far, all you've done is critisize Evolution. And becuase it would be off topic to react to those criticisms in this thread, I'm not. However a new thread about the "Icons" would certainly atract my attention.

The problem is this -perhaps it could but on the other hand perhaps it could not. It's no good looking at what is present in the fossils and saying 'well there it happened, therefore it must have been possible'. You don't know that it happened by evolution.The probability of Darwinist evolution depnds apon the quantity of favorable micromutations required to create complex organs and organisms, the frequency with which such favorable micromutations occur just where and when they are needed, the efficacy of NS in preserving the slight improvements with sifficient consistency to permit the benefits to accumulate and the time allowed by the fossil record for all of this to have happened.Unless we make calculations taking all of this into account, we have no way of knowing whether it is probable or improbable."Whether one finds the gradualist scenarios for the development of complex systems plausibleinvolves an element of subjective judgement. It is a matter of objective fact, however, that these scenarios are speculation." (Phillip Johnson -Darwin on Trial)This absence of historical or experimental confirmation is presumably what Gould had in mind when he wrote that "These tales, in the just-so tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything." So is this science?I understand that generations are much more important than years but that doesn't mean that there were enough generations available just because you believe that it happened.That's philosophy, not proven fact.

Your message is just another recitation of the same old creationist arguments against evolution that have been rebutted time and again. This thread represents an attempt to break out of this pattern. It is supposed to be about the positive evidence for ID.It isn't rocket science to understand that "evidence against evolution" and "evidence for ID" are not synonymous. Please, no more evidence against evolution. There are already tons of threads for that, and if you want to propose a new one then go ahead and I'll promote it as quickly as I can, but in this thread please, please, please stop presenting your evidence against evolution. It's off-topic.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix misspeak.

.Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.Edited by Huntard, : percy corrected himself

Don't play dumb Beretta. You know perfectly well what kinds of evidence I am talking about. This isn't about evidence for or against evolution, it's about evidence for Intelligent Design, a concept that you seem either incapable of grasping or determined to ignore.I'm not playing this game. Stick to the OP, the one that you wrote; provide positive evidence for ID (or Biblical creationism, since you use the two phrases as synonyms) or explain why your previous efforts count as positive evidence. If you want that day to come you'll have to do better than one-liners like the above. You'll actually need some evidence. Yes, they were shown evidence. You can call it philosophical bias if you like, but you have done nothing to provide any evidence for ID that I could even criticise. No good evidence, no bad evidence, no evidence at all in fact. Whining about other people's supposed biases is, as has been made abundantly clear to you already, not evidence for ID, creationism or anything else. You know, hard as this may be for you to accept, this isn't about atheism. Plenty of people manage to get along just fine believing in God and evolution. You are attempting to create a false dichotomy.Of course, if you think universities are teaching falsehoods, you know what you can do. Pick a lie. Start a thread. Show us all how exactly where we have been brainwashed. Easy eh? *sigh...* This paragraph isn't really worth responding to, since it consists merely of a repetition of your usual whine about wrongly interpreted evidence, a claim that you have never backed up. I'm not playing this silly game. Evidence for ID please, not whining about evolution. Demonstrably false: see here Organised enough for you? Well spotted, but seeing as how the ability to raise the dead isn't actually a prediction of the ToE, it's not something I'm going to loose any sleep over.Bottom line, you have presented nothing that could qualify as positive evidence in favour of ID. This is because you haven't got any. You haven't got any, because there just isn't any. But hey, prove me wrong. Just answer the question that you ignored before; I'm waiting...

---

Mutate and Survive

Here's your problem, Beretta. Because you have no direct positive evidence for I.D., you try and present indirect evidence. In order to do this, you have to show that the life forms we observe, natural phenomena, cannot be produced by nature. That doesn't mean just showing that they cannot be produced by the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, it means all possible natural mechanisms.That is a seemingly impossible task.If there's any validity in a hypothesis, it develops into a theory by means of positive evidence, not by disproving all other possibilities. You often put forward this philosophy argument, as if looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena requires a grand philosophy, when it doesn't. Your implications are that non-natural explanations should in some way be given equal consideration.Sane people will look for natural, material explanations when faced with a mystery, like "why did my car break down". Only delusional madmen would give "the gremlins might be responsible" equal consideration. There are no non-natural explanations for anything that are backed by evidence, and there's no evidence for the existence of the "non-natural".However, if you want to start to build up evidence for I.D., demonstrating the existence of the non-natural or supernatural might be a good starting point.I can picture you in a "laboratory" a bit like those of the old alchemists, with a stuffed crocodile hanging to the ceiling, and essential equipment like crystal balls and Ouija boards. Being in Africa, you could consult your local witch-doctor. Get some positive results for the existence of the supernatural, then you're starting down the right road to presenting a case for the equal status of I.D. with evolutionary theory.Until then, the natural world is known to exist, so the best natural explanation for the origin of species is by far the best explanation, no philosophy required.

The default position in science is an open admission of ignorance. This more often then not lends itself to being politic evidence of ID in the eyes of the desperate. Makes it kind of hard to be open.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

KindlyWhen I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

quote:

---

it was a fraction of the time one would expect for such diversity by mutation and selection.

---

Given the extraordinary depth of ignorance you've demonstrated regarding the ToE, what you would expect is hardly significant.If you object, prove me wrong. Show me your calculations regarding mutation frequency and population sizes, together with evidence supporting those calculations.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

But not in this thread! I suggest, Subbie, that you start a new thread for this.

All intelligent. You are. Blue green algae was supposed to be the first life form over 3500000000 years ago, It's still around in exactly the same form today, if thats not unicellular forms hanging around for billions of years, what is? Yes, an evolutionist. Evolution is not science, it fits in somewhere between finger painting and story telling. [i][b]Evidence[/i][/b], a word bantered around by you group. Evidence is for jurors. Real science deals with cold hard facts. See, that word again. There is evidence everywhere for creation, its
just that atheists interpret the evidence from a position of no
God (you can't say you don't) and creationist from the contrary position. But of course it's alright for evolutionists to assume the same
inexplicaple assumtions, say like abiogenises.. or wait.. that's right,
thats not biology, thats chemistry!

1. Genes should be found that have no apparent predecessors.

Based of course, on the assumption that they do.

2. In species change happening today, we should find evidence of genetic changes that are completely unrelated to natural mutational mechanisms.

We should see hundred and even thousands of new species appearing every year;we find the opposite.

3. In the fossil record, new innovations should appear suddenly and wholly formed and with no more primitive antecedents.

Like the construction of temples.

4. In the fossil record, new innovations should appear in groups that are completely unrelated.

Humans

5. More generally, we should evidence of processes with no possible naturalistic explanation.

The creation of the universe.No matter how you use your box of broken science tools and tricks, science itself can
never explain the mystery of the universe and us.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal