Intelligent Design Creationism

quote:

---

Those who wish to see proof that the heliocentric model of our solar system is false need only look up and witness the Sun moving through the sky during the day. Similar common-sense arguments are put forward to support the inference of intelligent agency against what creationists see as the reigning scientific orthodoxy. Those who wish to make the inference are following a limited amount of observable evidence where they want it to lead. Intelligent design creationism is just such a selective, subjective methodology, and it speaks for itself.

---

Couldn't have said it better myself.Another analogy that came to me the other day was the "Face" on Mars. Using the design inference, we would have to come to the conclusion that an intelligence put this structure on Mars. However, using a naturalistic viewpoint, the "Face" can be explained as combination of chance erosion and shadows that the human brain construes as a human face. To this list, we could add numerous other natural features that look like human faces. And again, using the design inference, we should ignore natural mechanisms and claim that each of these "naturally occuring faces" was actually carved out by an intelligence. For the ID movement, the fact that design in nature can be ascribed to natural mechanisms is not important. What is important is upholding a religious position without regard to the actual practice of science.

quote:

---

Is it possible that there really is Intelligent Design, but that it is at the very finest level? Is it possible that the design was not of Humans, or Stars, or slime mold but at the very most basic building blocks?

---

Since the ID movement is nothing more than a philosophical stance, perhaps this is the direction they need to take. Claiming that the physical laws (quantum mechanics, relativity, chemistry, etc.) are a product of intelligent intervention has, in my opinion, as much validity as any other theory on first cause. Notice I say Intelligence, not diety. Given that there is a chance that some civilization was able to advance technology for a span of 10 million years, the ability to create a predefined universe may not be impossible. Not long ago I reread Greg Bear's novels Eon and Infinity (or is it Eternity, I can never remember). These books deal with manipulating both space and time, and how these technologies could lead to either the destruction of our own universe, or the creation of multiple universes. Great reads, by the way. However, the physical laws in effect today are enough to account for our reality, including the diversity of species and the presence of the heavenly bodies.

quote:

---

As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

​

It is very clear for anyone willing to read about ID that it is an inference drawn via positive evidence. Why would anyone cling to naturalism when there isn't any evidence to support a purely naturalistic origin for life?

---

For anyone willing to familiarize themselves with the theory of evolution they would know that interdependent components is evolvable through trial and error selection via mutation. The positive evidence needed for ID is the production of an IC system in "one fell swoop" (to use Behe's phrasology). Behe claims that his IC systems came about this way, but only because his imagination and ideology won't let him admit otherwise.Can evolution create designs in organisms? Yes.Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No.Case closed.

quote:

---

LM:
For anyone willing to familiarize themselves with the theory of evolution they would know that interdependent components is evolvable through trial and error selection via mutation.

​

John Paul:
Is this "trial & error" recorded in the fossil record?

---

Being that 90% of all species to ever exist are extinct, I would say yes. You can also see incremental changes in morphology, such as the mammalian middle ear and the legs of horses. We can also see the incremental increase in brain size among homo species over time.

quote:

---

The reality is that all of our current knowledge pertaining to information rich and irreducibly complex systems always points to intelligent agency. ALWAYS! If you want to refute Behe and ID just show us that purely natural processes can account for life.

---

I thought that this was the argument we are debating about, that not all information is here because of an outside intelligence.First of all, IC systems can evolve through the pathways of coaption and subtraction. That is, unrelated parts can slowly be improved, step by step, until they are a cohesive unit. Or in the case of subtraction, the bridging step between non-IC and IC is due to the removal of "scaffolding". As an analogy, without scaffolding it is impossible to build certain types of buildings. If we see a tall building without any scaffolding around it, should we assume that the impossible has been accomplished? Of course not, since the scaffolding has long since been removed. Evolution has shown that design and information within biological systems can be attributed to a blind algorithm called random mutation and natural selection.

quote:

---

You can't even do that with the flagellum, vision, blood clotting, cilia etc.

---

Au contraire, mon frere.Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.Vision: incremental improvements from photosensitive spot to lensed eye, of which all steps can be seen in extant species.Blood clotting: Duplication of serine protease genes that coapt into a clotting cascade, and the cascade is different in quite a few mammals which is what we would expect from the branching tree that is evolution.Cilia: can't say on this one right now, but if you want to discuss this one further I can study up.

quote:

---

LM:
Can evolution create designs in organisms? Yes.

​

John Paul:
Nice assertion. Any evidence for that? I am not looking for a refinement of an existing design...

---

Yes. Lactose metabolism pathway in E. coli due to mutation and selection. Insertion of random sequences in a viral genome that interupted infection proficiency. Upon mutation and selection the infectivity was restored. Species of bacteria that need vancomycin in order to multiply.And what is this "I am not looking for a refinement of an existing design?" That is exactly what evolution does. You might was well outlaw mutation and selection as mechanisms for evolution. What is a bird's wing? A refinement of a reptillian arm. What is the flagellum? A refinement of the type III secretory pathway. What are the extra two bones within the mammalian ear? Refined jaw bones. What is the amphibian arm? Refined fish fin.

quote:

---

LM:
Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No.

​

John Paul:
Neither ID or Creation state that happens. Go figure...

---

If an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology, why are you using morphology as evidence for an intelligent designer?

quote:

---

Nice try but that is FAR from reality. No where in the fossil record do we find a partial wing (for example).

---

No where in the parts of the fossil record we have looked at so far. We have not looked through the entire fossil record yet. Also, much of it has been destroyed through tectonic plate subduction. Maybe you should go out on a limb and tell me we will NEVER find a half wing. Of course, I have yet to meet a creationist that will put forth a potential falsification of special creation.Also, what we find with Archaeopteryx is a full wing and fully developed feathers. What we also find is about 15 characteristics only found in reptiles and not found in any extant bird. This makes it a transitional fossil. Why don't we find half birds, half mammals? Maybe you could answer that one.

quote:

---

Mammalian middle ear? You do realize there is more to being a mammal than the middle ear. All we could be seeing is a better hearing reptile.

---

Silly rabbit, hand waving is for Rodeo Queens. What we get is a better hearing mammal with a common ancestory with reptiles. Name one reptile with a single dentary bone (jaw bone). Can't, can you. Again, we see creationists denying that transitionals exist while crying out that the transitionals are missing. And yes, there is more to a mammal than the middle ear. For the rest of the evidence for reptile-mammal transitionals, go here. From the same site comes this quote "This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete."[qutoe]Assertion not substantiated with evidence. Scaffolding has been rebutted.[/quote]You accuse me of empty rheotric. Black kettle meet black pot. Even Behe himself admitted that such pathways (ie coaption and scaffolding) could lead to IC systems, but then he back tracks and claims that such pathways are improbable. Again, IC rests on Behe's incredulity.

quote:

---

LM:
Evolution has shown that design and information within biological systems can be attributed to a blind algorithm called random mutation and natural selection.

​

John Paul:
LoL! IF it has it has done so with rhetoric and not evidence.

---

Evidence: Development of information and design of binding sites by mutation and selection. Such an algorithm, once put into motion, will always produce new information and design.

quote:

---

LM:
Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.

​

John Paul:
Too bad phylogenetic analysis shows IF ANYTHING the type III evolved from the flagellum. Also only what 10 proteins are homologuous? That nleaves quite a bit unaccounted for.

---

So it's not an IC system. If you take away everything but 10 parts, it has a new function. The rest of the proteins are not specific to the flagellum alone. Actin, for example, is also used in other places in the cell. Sorry, but the flagellum is hardly a mystery to evolutionary scientists.

quote:

---

LM:
Vision: incremental improvements from photosensitive spot to lensed eye, of which all steps can be seen in extant species.

​

John Paul:
OK where did the photo-sensitive spot come from? And just because different eyes exist in different species does NOT mean the vision system evolved or could evolve.

---

Photosensitive proteins are not that uncommon. All you need is for a specific dermal cell to express a mutated protein that happens to have photosensitive characteristics. Even single celled organisms have photosensitive spots. The fact that we see every step of the evolutionary pathway in extant organisms adds considerable credence to the theory of evolution and the eye.

quote:

---

LM:
Blood clotting: Duplication of serine protease genes that coapt into a clotting cascade, and the cascade is different in quite a few mammals which is what we would expect from the branching tree that is evolution.

​

John Paul:
Refuted by Behe.

---

Link please. Might make for a decent thread on its own, if you are interested.

quote:

---

LM:
Cilia: can't say on this one right now, but if you want to discuss this one further I can study up.

​

John Paul:
It looks like you have quite the work left with the other three.

---

If I put in all of the work, it would be a long post indeed. Perhaps you can pick your favorite one from the four above and start a new thread?

quote:

---

LM:
If an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology, why are you using morphology as evidence for an intelligent designer?

​

John Paul:
Can any evoltionist read? I NEVER said an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology. I said, tried to imply, that the IDer doesn't come down and change the morphology.

---

Perhaps you could enlighten me instead of telling me I am wrong each time. It is not up to me to clarify your position.1. Does an Intelligent Designer affect morphology? (yes/no)2. If yes, how does the intelligent designer affect morphology? What are the mechanisms?I hope these questions are broad enough to encompass your position. If not, please give a description.

quote:

---

Using computer simulations as evidence for real-world biology is a stretch. especially simulations that have been refuted, as has Tom's EV.

---

Actually, the bigger stretch is inferring design in biological systems by referring to non-reproducing, man made designs. The algorithm of random change and selection causes an increase in information and causes design. It doesn't matter if this algorithm is applied to digits on a screen or applied to genetic structures. What matters is the selection process which filters the changes, much like a seive can separate out soil particles into different sizes. Information is not solely a product of intelligence, as is shown by the un-intelligent production of information through Schneider's computer model.

quote:

---

LoL! I am laughing because Stephen Jones opens his book Darwin's Ghost using an analogy of manufactured goods. Go figure...

---

Not the same thing. Analogies can be used to CLARIFY a position, but an analogy can not be used as support for a position. This is the problem that IDists have, using an analogy to non-reproducing systems as the sole, evidenciary support for their theory. Within evolution, we have actual studies on living, reproducing populations as evidence. Analogies are only used to communicate the relationships that are evidenced in nature.

quote:

---

And you are pretty certain it wasn't chipmunks or space aliens that built stonehenge or the sphinx aren't you? Yeah come on and admit it.

---

If we used the same argument as Behe, we could argue that stone age technology was inadequate for stacking large, multi-ton stones with such precision. Therefore, it had to be a non-human intelligence that made stonehenge.

quote:

---

I am mildly amused when people who claim to be christians support ID, as I don't think they have thought through all the ramifications.

---

Especially when you bring up the fact that Behe supports common ancestory. His only beef is with the mechanism of change, not with common ancestory of any species, including humans.

quote:

---

The examples of IC in Behe's book have not been disproved.

---

All Behe "proved" is that these IC systems exist. He offered nothing in the way of positive evidence that these systems came about by an intelligent designer. It takes more work than simply stating "IC systems ergo ID." Behe makes the claim that these systems came about in one fell swoop. He has yet to show positive evidence of this beyond his incredulity towards evolutionary mechanisms. Incredulidty is not a valid argument, positive evidence is.

quote:

---

You evos are locked into "step by tiny step", those IC systems defy the step by tiny step dogma. There is no way around it.

---

Indirect evoluionary pathways are viable pathways. Behe only rejects them because they do no pass his "incredulity filter". Evolution is not limited to non-IC systems. Rather, Behe claims that evolution is limited by his imagination.

quote:

---

IC systems defy your foundational premise.

---

How so? Indirect evolutionary pathways are able to produce IC systems. Behe just ignores them because he feels, with no evidence, that they are "improbable". Also, he is always under the illusion that only one mutation can cause the wanted change. He is obsessed with showing the improbability of just one mutation when in fact there are possibly many such mutations in the same gene that will cause the same result. He also claims that neutral mutations that later become advantageous are not part of Darwinian mechanisms. He makes one such equivocation about indirect pathways creating the blood clotting cascade. One person posited that several mutations that were neutral at the time may have become advantageous after another gene mutated. He claimed that this is non-Darwinian because the neutral mutations were not selected for. Behe's shortsightedness, his inability to show positive evidence for "one-fell swoop" production of IC systems, his reluctance to accept observed production of macroscopic IC systems in step by step fashion, and his reluctance to accept indirect evolutionary pathways due only to his incredulity has really damaged his position. He is now bordering on Crackpotville, much like the skeptics who claim that the moon landings were faked.The foundational premise is that DNA changes over time. If DNA changes, then so do the proteins coded by the DNA. If the proteins change, then what the proteins do and what they bind to also change. There is nothing in the premise that disallows IC systems. IC systems are only impossible to create through step by step mechanisms if steps are disallowed, such as those seen in indirect pathways, and if the final product observed today is considered to be the complete history of the IC system. For example, denying the existence of scaffolding would disallow the construction of an arch or a skyscraper. Behe hides his dishonesty behind an appeal to christianity. Without this appeal, creationists would have thrown out his ideas long ago. If Behe claimed that only aliens are capable of producing IC systems, would you still be supporting his views?

quote:

---

Darwin and Huxley were admitted racists but this undeniable fact is conveniently winked at.

---

Given that the Aryan Nation Church (a bible based, anti-evolutionist movement) did quite well in Northern Idaho speaks against evolution being the root cause of racism. Needless to say, racists live in both camps of this debate. Racism is part of the human psyche, and some give into it regardless of their philosophical viewpoint.

quote:

---

Evolution: the precious theory of the philosophy behind fascism, Marxism, and the Holocaust.

---

Notice that you had to turn a scientific theory into a philosophy to make the mud stick. Science does not deal with the metaphysical while philosophy (fascism, marxism, etc) does. They have no bearing on each other. In fact, capatilism has a stronger dose of Darwinian mechansisms than marxism does, being that the strongest companies will outcompete the weaker companies. Capatilism is the epitome of Darwinism, where the strong survive. Since most agree that Capitalism is the way to go, by your argument that makes evolution right.But alas, we are again way off topic. Hehe, I couldn't stop myself. I will step off of the off-topic soap box and wait for the next on-topic post.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-21-2004 05:02 PM

quote:

---

I notice you had to conveniently ignore the slander which produced my factual statement.

---

Perhaps I am being selective, but slander is slander no matter what caused you to do it. You will notice that I freely admit that there are racists in both camps of the evolution debate. I just happen to believe that someone can say something true while still being wrong about other things. A truthful statement is a truthful statement no matter what a person does or believes outside of that statement.

quote:

---

Imagine a "christian" who rejects Romans ?

---

2,000 years ago, you could have claimed "Imagine a Christian who rejects the Gospel of Thomas".

quote:

---

What Arach is really saying is that the Bible MUST pass his/her politically correct litmus test OR it aint inspired.

---

This probably needs to be in a separate thread, but isn't that exactly what the Church did when it decided what was cannon and what wasn't? Didn't Revelations make in by the hair of it's chinny, chin, chin?

quote:

---

The source of ALL ID philosophy is the Bible,

---

So it would be fair to call ID non-scientific?

quote:

---

You know nerves are struck when Romans is "refuted" with non sequitors about women and gays.

---

Does Roman's say that God's creation did not come about through evolution? Since evolution is consistent with the evidence found in the creation, then this would mean that evolution is a theory that best sees God in his creation. If evolution is devoid of Godsense, then evolution would not be reflected in the evidence found in the creation.

quote:

---

That "only thing" is the alleged evolution. There are no transitionals from one species to another.

---

Even in observed speciations we often lack a transitional species. Take the apple maggot fly. At one time, it was only found in one type of tree. After the speciation event, it is now found in two different species of trees with different mating times. We don't have an intermediate for these two species even though it happened in the last 100 years. Also, take passenger pigeons. Billions in the air at once but yet zero fossils. Finally, we do have fine grade morphologocal changes in marine deposits showing small changes over time in shell structure. The end points of this transition could be considered to be macroevolution, but the intermediate steps are microevolutinary in scale.

quote:

---

The only reason these theorists believe all kinds come from same origins is because Genesis is not an option.

---

Nope, because ignoring the evidence is not an option. Unlike creationists, real scientists don't have the option of ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit into their theory. Unless you can point to dinosaurs in precambrian sediments it will be a hard row to hoe for most creationists.

quote:

---

But, of course, modern evos reject Darwin's racism, I only remind them of evolutions origin when they "refute" the Bible via Arach's subjective secular rants.

---

The origin of the theory was not racism, but observations of fossil and extant species. Racism has nothing to do with the theory, only with the rhetoric that panicky creationists put forth. They can't attack evolution on a scientific basis so they have to attack it's proponents. Copernicus could have been a child raping, women murdering, public urinator but his theories about the movement of the celestial bodies is still accurate. No matter what people used those theories for (refuting the Bible as translated by the Catholic Church) it doesn't make them false. If you want to blame someone for corrupting your translation of Gensis, blame God for making the evidence so convincing.

quote:

---

Everyone abides by philosophy.

---

But not everyone's philosophy is consistent with reality. The only way to check a philosophy is by holding it up to the real world. A literal translation of Genesis fails this test.

quote:

---

You are really trying to assert the Bible to not be evidence-based, unlike the claim of science.

---

Yes I am. Would you show me the extra-biblical evidence that would lead to the conclusion of a world wide flood? Would you show me the evidence in the Bible that points to IC systems in biology? Creationists assume the conclusion and insert only the evidence that supports it while ignoring the evidence that falsifies it. In this way, the creationist movement is very dogmatic. The Bible MUST be true, even if the evidence says otherwise. The assertion of IC systems being the fingerprint of God is the same. It HAS to be this way, otherwise you have nothing to stand on because you have pinned your faith on this point. However, the logic of IC=God is a great leap, especially given that indirect evolutionary pathways can create IC systems.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does Roman's say that God's creation did not come about through evolution?

---

​

Yes it does.

​

And I define "evolution" by its emotive and reportive definition.

---

Could you define the "emotiv and reportive" definitions? No where in evolutionary theories does it say that evolution proves the non-existence of God. Only you and fellow creationists are saying this. You are telling God how he MUST have created instead of listening to the creation. You have lost your God-sense in that you ignore what the creation says. When you construct theories that ignore creation, you are ignoring God.

quote:

---

Loudmouth, you are an atheist - yes or no ?

---

Agnostic. I don't deny, but I am very doubtful. I am arguing from the standpoint of the theology found in the Bible. I am arguing that even your viewpoints are not the same as what is found in the Bible, and among fellow christian philosophers. I am not looking for Biblical acceptance, only adherence to Biblical theology.

quote:

---

Evolution within animal kind/species is a fact - but that is all. Quadrupeds did not evolve from bi-peds or birds or vice-versa.

---

Tetrapods evolved from tetrapods. It just so happens that those first four feet also served as fins. Birds evolved from bi-peds, upright reptiles. It is strange that you argue against a theory that you know so little about. Also, the changes we see within your yet to be defined kinds is not different than the changes that cause macro-evolution, it is only a matter of time. It is like saying "the water in a puddle is totally different than water found in a lake." The water is the same, only the scale is different.

quote:

---

Humans did not evolve.

---

God's creation says otherwise.

quote:

---

Genesis says God created.

---

But it fails to say how.

quote:

---

The hard evidence for claims of human evolution equates by volume to a box of bones of contention - hardly the amount of evidence needed to make such a definitive proclamation for the history of all humanity.

---

If the box were a cargo container, you might be close to the truth. Well over a hundred hominid transitional fossils have been discovered, and human evolution by the fossil record alone is not in contention. It is only creationists that contend the accuracy of the hominid fossils, and only then because of religious reasons, not scientific ones. When asked what a transitional fossil SHOULD look like they are strangely silent on the matter. On top of the well understood fossil record, there are also DNA similarities that support ape/human common ancestory. Why would our DNA match up with the fossil record? Oh that's right, because evolution matches the evidence.

quote:

---

Human evolution is asserted BECAUSE the alternative is not an option.

---

Do you have evidence that would falsify the evidence already in hand? Do you have evidence that humans have been here since day one (or day six as it were). I sure haven't seen any. Even Behe admits that apes and humans share common ancestory. The evidence really is that strong.

quote:

---

The reason it is not an option is because Romans says God's wrath incapacitates the ability to comprehend Him.

---

The reason evolution is not an option to you is because you defy the evidence that God left in his creation. He has stripped you of your Godsense and you are unable to see the HOW of his creation. You are unable to comprehend evolution because of this.

quote:

---

Continued defiance toward the percieved encroachments of a Creator triggers the manifestation of the penalty.

---

Then we should not be able to accurately predict new finds in the creation, both in the dirt and in the DNA. However, evolution has made quite profound and accurate predictions, and the creation continually fills those predictions.

quote:

---

ToE has many brilliant God-senseless persons taking the truths of micro-evolution and insisting the process to be nature-wide - all because of the incapacitation.

---

No, because that is where the creation has led us. You have decided that the creation should be a certain way in defiance of God. You are telling God how it should be instead of observing how it is.

quote:

---

Emotively and reportively, evolution means the God of Genesis was not involved.

---

Quite the opposite. God's natural laws were always in effect. The fact that your Godsense has been removed does not allow you to observe it.

quote:

---

Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, and purposeless are all adjectives that have the dual silent meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.

---

You forgot natural selection. Selection by the natural laws that God put into place. Selection is the opposite of random. Only you have taken God out of evolution by defining exactly how he should be involved. Why not let the creation tell you how God was involved?

quote:

---

Then, I ask, how do these observations, if true, evidence-against God ? Only when this question is asked does the fast as light response come "we never said it does" - but the emotive and reportive meaning remains.

---

The don't evidence against God, they only evidence against the way that you have described God's involvement. The way to see God's involvement is through looking at the creation, just as it is written in Romans.

quote:

---

Evos have figured out a way to have their cake and eat it too.

---

We figured out what the cake was by observation, not by telling the cake what it should look like.

quote:

---

How did birds get in the air ? How did the cuckoo bird evolve ?

---

By creating pockets of high pressure under the wings and low pressure over the wings. Simple aerodynamic principles, no magic involved.

quote:

---

How did migrations of thousands of miles to the exact same locations evolve ?

---

Through the development of specialized navigational skills that use topography, position of the sun/moon, and gauging the electromagnetic forces formed in the earth. Those that had better success in reaching safe breeding grounds had better success in reproducing and finding a mate. Those that did not were less successful.

quote:

---

These are gaping holes - also known as the fingerprints of God declared in Romans 1.

---

The gaps in our knowledge of the natural world have always been filled by using the scientific method. If looking for the involvement of supernatural influence was the norm, then not using scientific methods would be more successful. The obvious success of science, and the utter failure of creationism in discovering new things about the natural world proves that creationists have been stripped of their Godsense. Creationists are not able to discover anything about creation because they refuse to listen to it.

quote:

---

The evo explanations are pure comedy.

---

They don't beat a shrinking sun or lunar dust. You would think that if creationism was true that they wouldn't have to support their political movement with lies.