Foundations of ID

quote:

---

Could you explain more why there is that distinction. I'll have to do some other reading too I guess.

---

If you trust my judgment, I can probably clear that up for you right here. Photon entanglement involves a phenomenon where several photons are considered together as having the same properties and being the same unit. Physicists study two proton, three proton, four proton entanglements, etc.But the double-slit experiment only considers a massive amount of photons, as in a beam of light, or single photons coming through the slits one at a time. My point is, no entanglements need be considered in that experiment to complicate it.

quote:

---

Well, since science works with natural evidence it has to be viewed theologically doesn't it? Most folks seem to consider the Christian God to be omniscient don't they? That suggests to me that He/She/It is an observer of all events for all times.

---

No, I don't think science CAN be viewed theologically and kept pure, can it? If a chemist looks at a strange chemical reaction in a beaker, shrugs his shoulders and says, I guess God did it, we probably wouldn't get very far in scientific inquiry.Therefore, ID theorists, just as anyone else, recognize that metaphysics must be kept out of our test tubes.However, that doesn't mean one isn't entitled to have religious beliefs. Heck, most of the greatest scientists of all time had them, Newton, Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Pasteur and even Einstein appeared to favor Pantheism.I don't see how omniscience of a deity then ties into that, but I see you ask further questions on it below and I'll expand on this.

quote:

---

I thought that this was a "foundation of ID" that you were putting forward. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is an "intelligent designer"?

---

Yes, it is a foundation of ID I'm putting forward. I'm suggesting that the implementation of design was quantum mechanics being manipulated by a Supreme Observer. Remember that I posted a quote from John Gribbin that stated this observer must exhibit true intelligence and that a cat would not work? Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler, also ties that observer into a mathematical entity called an Omega Point. It's all math and quantum mechanics, but I feel that many people (unknowingly) extrapolate other qualities such as omniscience to this phenomenon and who am I to say they are wrong? I mean common sense tells me that the Omega Point may be omniscient because how else could it know what to observe in order to collapse it into a solid and what not to, and be able to do it across the entire universe at the same time?

quote:

---

If the designer is omnisicient what does that suggest about the observations of all quantum events?

---

Nothing to me other than it would be able to observe them all.

quote:

---

As I noted when I started: Most Christians I am aware of consider the Christian God to be omniscient. If I can say from what you are telling me about the QM issues that the observer is NOT omnisicient (since it does not collapse all wave functions ) then I can say that the designer is NOT the God that a majority of Christians believe in.
If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility.

​

It seems to me that eliminating omniscience might still give us a God but it is not the God of the majority of Christians. I am inclined to think that without omniscience I also don't get omnipotence but that is too far from the topic at hand.

---

Well, I hope I have cleared that up for you. The fact that the observer knows which energy systems to observe in order to collapse them, and which ones not to observe in order that they stay waves suggests omniscience on its part rather than monoscience or whatever the antonym of that word is, in my opinion.And more specifically to this:

quote:

---

If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility.

---

But you cannot validly state the hands are claws. One cannot deduce a macrostate from a microstate just vise versa. The fact that I can show quantum mechanics to be the observer and the Omega Point to be the manipulator does not then tell me anything else about the macrostate of the observer. Deduction of those other qualities lie outside of science (at this time) and fall into the arena of metaphysics: individual beliefs. And I believe we all have a right to those.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You are the one who is doing the arguing so you look up the evidence. This thread seems to be trying to convince people of ID and I'm just saying that I'm not convinced and this is why. I'm not gonna spend time looking up experimental evidence to prove you wrong.

---

Ok, we will agree that you remain unconvinced and we'll leave it right there. I have presented a ton of references from reputable scientists and can't seem to get you to produce any to show that your assertions hold merit. You seem just not to agree with them. Not much I can do about that, I'm afraid.Finally, since I'm not sure how to convince you of the obvious fact that the keyboard you are typing on right now is matter and made of atoms with tons of electrons in their valence shells, I would guess our conversation is over and I will bid you a good day and thank you for your contributions.Thanks for your postsSorry, I forgot to post the link: "Electrons are matter and must be accounted for (Law of Conservation of Mass); the number of electrons lost must equal the number of electrons gained"This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-29-2005 09:28 PM

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using the interpretation to imply that there is a ultimate intelligent being collapsing the wave functions. I just think the caveat should be included which states, "if the CI is correct," which is by no means certain.

---

I'm suggesting this as a likely possibility based on the evidence and the math we have achieved at this point, yes. But nothing in science is ever certain. Theories never prove anything and caveats are always applicable. I'm not disagreeing with you that I haven't proven anything as this is impossible in science.University of Texas at Austin: "theory (the'-o-ry) A scientifically accepted general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena that is consistent with evidence, data, and experimental results. Theories can be disproved, but it is scientifically impossible to prove a theory correct."Page not found | Texas Memorial Museum

quote:

---

I don't see that as being a downfall. It's no different than proposing some sort of "probability wave" and supposing wave particle complementarity. These are taken as justified since they can explain the results, but there is no direct evidence for either of them, just as there isn't direct evidence for the quantum potential.

---

You obviously have a background in physics. It's true, probability waves have been proposed to explain this dilemma. All I would add at this point is that we know it takes an observer to collapse the wave function and this has been shown experimentally time and time again. Thus, in my opinion, this the best explanation of the phenomenon in question and this is as far as science can take it. Perhaps someday we will know why this happens and discover the 'god' particle and all kinds of other cool things. But until then, this is all we know and it is from this conclusion and mathematics that I draw my designer hypothesis. Seems to work just fine.

quote:

---

I'll try and dig up that book to see what else it has to say about the issue. The last chapter introduces his preferred interpretation which is definately not CI, but I forget the details.

---

Thanks

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Just want to add a quick comment about the fossil record. Its my understanding that ID theorists reject the neo-Darwinian account of macroevolution because a) the fossil record still shows, after two centuries of digging, evidence only of microevolution (variation within biological taxa), but not of macroevolution (variation between biological taxa)

---

Yep. This greatly frustrated Eldredge and Gould who would just openly admit that there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support the gradual evolution proposed by Darwin. Instead, we find in the record long periods of stasis interupted by bursts of sudden speciation as in the Cambrian explosion. So, again, with not a shred of evidence, one mathematical formula or a single lab experiment, they invented punctuated equilibrium as their new "theory."The truth is, the fossil record and it's history of organisms coming into it fully formed and ready to go in their environment and their propensity to stay that way with only minor changes via microevolution happening in their history until they go extinct in the record is STRONG evidence for intelligent design.

quote:

---

b) all proposed mechanisms for Darwinian evolution on the microbiological level fail in explaining how the complexity on the cellular and subcellular level could have arisen by gradual, random mutation and natural selection, and c) the relatively short age of the universe is insufficient to allow for the complexity that now exists.

---

Yep. You nailed that entire post.

quote:

---

Now, even though a picture is a static image and not a moving picture, and indeed, even though I'm never seen actually driving in my car, a reasonable person would conclude that this is a record of a roadtrip to see the sights, starting in the east and going west.

---

Ahhh....Wouldn't it be nice if the fossil record were laid out so perfectly that we could look at time-stamps on rocks and observe pictures of a species traveling down an evolutionary highway stopping at monuments along the way for snap shots?The problem is that there isn't any time-stamped pictures of a single species stopping at these monuments: Species A -----> Transitional 1 -----> Transitional 2 -----> Transitional 3 -----> Transitional 4 -----> Transitional 5 -----> Species B -----> Not ONE!Sad, I know. But the gradual evolution that Darwin predicted from a common ancestor is simply not in there. In fact, anyone who looks at the fossil record objectively and contrasts what's in there with science can only conclude that Darwinism stands refuted on this evidence alone. You see, even if we could find one species we suspect traveled through several transitions and ended in a new species we have a major problem. A sexual species is defined as two organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring and do so naturally. Hmmm.....Well how are we going to go back in time millions of years to do these breeding experiments to even determine what species was what and what species morphed from other species? Houston, we have some uber-headaches.

quote:

---

But creationists and ID'ists, since they don't see any movement when they look at the static record, would have us believe that this is no record at all

---

Do you really think that Gould and Eldredge were IDists or Creationists?

quote:

---

simply a series of unconnected photographs that have nothing to do with each other, and that intelligent aliens or a supernatural power actually teleported myself and my car, as we stood motionless, from monument to monument to monument.

---

Some of those fossils are connected to each other as we can see minor variations in some organisms. But one need not read things into the record that isn't there. When this happens, one leaves the realm of science and enters the arena of religion based on faith. Faith: Belief in something where there is little evidence to support that something.

quote:

---

C'mon, guys. Species appearing suddenly? A record of stasis? Of course that's what the fossil record looks like. The fossils are dead; they don't change. Species appearing suddenly is exactly what you would expect from a static, sampled record of change. How dumb do you think we are?

---

I don't think you're dumb at all. Just propagandized by activist college professors. In fact, I have you pegged as a young college student at MU, one of my old alma maters. Now how is that for insight?The bottom line is that if Darwin's gradualism were legit, we would see little stasis but a slow and steady evolutionary trend from ameboid to homo sapiens. We don't. It's not in there. It didn't happen. Sorry.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Then, instead of a long list of unsubstantiated assertions (entire message #1) having nothing to do with science, why don't you present a falsifiable test for ID?

---

That's a nonsensical request because the term is too vague. ID is not a theory to begin with, so how could it be falsified? Neither is biology, chemistry or geology. Can you falsify botany? How about anatomy?

quote:

---

Let's be very clear about this: calling ID science does not make it so, calling philosophy science does not make it so, calling ID philosophy and therefore science is false logic as it is based on false precepts.

---

Of course not and I didn't; but basing every tenet of ID on hard science and mathematics insures that it is a science based epistemology. In fact, other than Panspermia, it is the only origins field based on science and math.

quote:

---

Saying that philosophy is science because it had some beginnings in philosophy (while ignoring other influences that honed the formulation and practice of science) is also false logic. This is like saying that you are your mother and that bacteria are human, it is conflating end with beginning.

---

I never stated that philosophy is science. I would have no idea how you are reading this into what I wrote.

quote:

---

Why say philosophy here? Because this is the same approach to "problem" science as creationists use, where they have tried labeling science as {faith\belief} ... if we can call science something else then we don't have to deal with the problems presented by {it\them}.

---

You may need to do some reading to discover what science is and how it inter-relates with the philosophy of science.

quote:

---

The only difference between the "shotgun" blast of photons and the single photon by single photon accumulation of an image is the timescale. The same thing is happening with the "shotgun" blast, just so fast that you do not see the behavior of the discrete photons. Feynman demonstrates that this is the behavior of particles, see Feynman Lecture Videos (click) for examples of this (lecture 2 I believe).
Feynman has demonstrated that particles can and do behave exactly as wave elements while actually being particles.

---

Of course they do. Who ever challenged this? You either fail to understand the double-slit experiments, or just don't like what they show. I will let the references I posted stand for themselves. Much of your posting from here on is simply silly as in "and your dog has five legs right?", nonsensical, or unintelligible and what is intelligible is just opinion which you are most welcome to have in my threads, so I will skip that rather than attempt to wade through and separate the seemingly rambling diatribes (no offense meant,just calling them as I see them).

quote:

---

LOL ... pure creatortionista claptrap. And I thought we were discussing ID.
If ID is in any way scientific then it must accept the evidence of all science, for if it fails to accept one then it fails to fully test its concepts against the science involved to show that no natural mechanism can explain the {observation\behavior\precept}
Ignorance and denial do not make evidence go away. The reality is that evolution is the best explanation for the observations, that the observations are consistent with the theories and that many falsification tests have been passed without the core theories being falsified (although lesser ones have been, Lamarckism, as propounded by both Lamarck and Darwin, for example).
Genetics was the latest such make-or-break event: if common descent was not true then there would be no pattern in the genes that would match the patterns of descent derived by other means. Genetics confirms the patterns of common descent.
Meanwhile, the concepts of ID have yet to begin to go ...

---

All of that work and you still fail to list a single tenet unique to Darwinism that can be falsified. Do you just enjoy typing?

quote:

---

If this is in your signature does this mean that you are the author of the website?

---

I contribute to the institute, am a member and officer in it and an instructor/writer. Many of the courses offered there will be based on a book I authored, but I do not solely own the place, no.Thanks for your post. If you care to take one tenet of your concerns at a time and clearly elucidate them. I will be happy to respond.

---

Design Dynamics

Howdy Ooook!

quote:

---

The trouble for your claim is that we do see:
Species A --> Species C --> species F --> species I
To make it even more damaging occasionally fossils representing species D and G spring up as predicted by the ToE!!
But of course any creationist worth his/her salt then points out that we now have a gap between C and D without a transitional.

---

Well gee. Then why do you guys keep this stuff so well hidden? Your own leaders are not even aware that you have evidence to show gradualism between species in the fossil record:Stevie Ray states:"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."And he just goes hogwild:,"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."Yeah, go ahead and accuse me of quote mining, but the truth is there is no way these quotes could mean anything other than they say. You seem to stand by yourself in this "science."

quote:

---

Except of course, that's not what you would predict is it? If selective pressures remain constant, why would anything change to any large degree? This is either deliberate misrepresentation of the ToE or a deep ignorance of it.

---

Again. There is no such thing as a ToE. Theories of science must be taken through the strict scientific method in order to become theories of science. Scientific inquiry starts at the observation level. From there, hypotheses are developed to explain that observation and these hypotheses are then subjected to scientific experimentation in order to empirically determine whether the observation can withstand the scientific inquiry. If a concept withstands the hypothesis stage through experimentation, it then is published in some manner to the scientist's peers. If the peers can reproduce the experiments (and they sometimes add to them) then the hypothesis may become a theory.NOTHING in Darwinism has ever been taken through the scientific method to the theory level and therefore, there is no such thing as a theory of evolution speaking strictly from science.

quote:

---

OK here's a challenge:
Point to a specific jump in the fossil record that you think could not have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. No imaginary bacteria-man steps please; an actual suggested transition in the fossil record between two species that requires a designer to intervene.

---

The Cambrian Explosion.[1] Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.[2] Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119—130 (p.127), 1980.

quote:

---

I actually prefer Feynman's "sum-over-histories" approach to QM. It's a way of doing calculations that gets the results, but makes no attempt conflate the way they are getting the results with some actual physical process.

---

Right...... Yawn....Sorry Justin. I'm growing very weary of our discussions and I'm sure the readers are, as they just seem to be droning on into infinity. I have agreed with you that there are other options, that science should always be questionable and we should always be cognizant of caveats. You have added nothing new to the discussion since then. Thanks for your contributions and have a great life!Our discussion is over unless you have something new to bring to the table.This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-01-2005 05:11 AM

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

You mean, wouldn't it be great if we could determine an upper and lower age for the fossils we find based on the geologic matrix in which we find them? Good thing we can do exactly that.

---

Um....no, that's not quite what I said. I stated: "Wouldn't it be nice if the fossil record were laid out so perfectly that we could look at time-stamps on rocks and observe pictures of a species traveling down an evolutionary highway stopping at monuments along the way for snap-shots?"You don't possess a single piece of evidence that shows one species poofing into another in the fossil record, much less a clear path with stops from point to point at monuments for snap-shots. This is Darwinistic pipe-dreams that you people teach to our children as "facts" of science. The truth is, it is not science by any stretch of the imagination its fairytale that you have no chance to ever show scientifically and have obviously given up even trying to.

quote:

---

Naturally, we can't perform breeding experiments on organisms that are not alive. So we have to infer species from taxonomy, which is generally more accurate than not. Not perfect, of course.

---

LOL...You can't "infer" a species from taxonomy when a sexual species is defined as two organisms that can interbreed and produce offspring that are fertile and viable and do so naturally. This obviously has to be done by breeding experiments. A child can see how ridiculous this is. Probably why you are having so much trouble in getting the message out to the masses, don't you reckon?

quote:

---

But if the argument you're making is that we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing, well, you're going to find that's not a position that people are going to find compelling. I certainly don't.

---

I think that Darwinists know nothing in hard science or math. I've debated PhDs in that area and it usually only goes 20 or 30 posts. Fairly good at promoting their faith, I suppose, and I would need to give credit where credit is due in that area.

quote:

---

Oh, shit! This stuff might actually be hard! Hell, we'd better just give up now and go to church. That's a whole lot easier, now isn't it?

---

Certainly. I don't go to church, but it is your right to do so. Take advantage of it if that is your cup of tea.

quote:

---

Why would I think that? Neither Gould nor Eldridge denied that the fossil record was a record of evolution. You, apparently, do.

---

Hmmm....You might want to read my post to Ooook.

quote:

---

Hey, look. We can show you the dots. If you don't want to connect them, because doing so would conflict with your faith, how is any of that my problem? If you're determined to remain ignorant there's really little I can do to stop you.

---

*Chuckle* You don't have any dots that can be connected other than by a religion full of vim and vigor hoping against all odds and preaching Darwinism to high heaven with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher.WELL GLORY! Shouts Dawkins as the sermon is rendered, give your heart to Darwin begs Gould quietly. The choir hums a slow melody of "amazing evolution" in the background as the flock begins to make their way toward the alter of punk eek. This is a joke. You can't see it? 90% of Americans can.

quote:

---

Abominable. I'm neither a student now, nor am I particularly young, nor have I ever attended MU. I have no training in the sciences beyond what I've absorbed on my own initiative. The only "propaganda" I was ever exposed to was creationist propaganda, when I was a creationist for some time. In between that period and now I was briefly a proponent of ID until I realized how it lacked any scientific foundation to stand on.

---

See, I told you I have insight.

---

Design Dynamics

I just love the logic and science your posts exhibit, my friend. Such as:1) "Philosophies that do not have falsifiable tests are pseudo-science at best, b-grade science fiction at worst."2) "Or I understand it as good as (or better than) you but don't leap to specious unsupported conclusions. While I pointed out how those conclusions of yours are specious and unsupported, it appears you just can't deal with that issue."3) "I'm glad you think ID is what is making your argument all wet. I could say that it displays a certain level of intelligence, but that would be something like an actual diatribe."4) "Actually most of your posting is calling {something} what it isn't. Calling a dog's tail a leg still doesn't make it one, no matter how many times you say it."Hey, you win, Dude as I have no idea how to address this "science." *Cracking up*...Have the last word and our conversation will be over.This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-01-2005 05:11 AM

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

I'm intrigued as how you can start a thread based on an ID/Quantum theory link, and then dismiss Feynman with "Yawn". Unless you have something against getting results?

---

I certainly wasn't dismissing Feynman with a yawn. If you will read my opening post on this subject, I quoted him in it. But Feynman was not an experimenter in this area, so why would we place precedent on his opinions over those like John Wheeler (who was Feynman's PhD advisor) who contributed directly to this experimentally. The truth of the matter is that, although there are many related and unrelated theories running around out there, as best I can tell (he's dead, so I can't ask him) Feynman fully accepted this experiment just as do I:

quote:

---

You will find the same behavior with electrons and, indeed (at least in principle), with every other particle or collection of particles. Calling this experiment the "central mystery" of quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman once remarked that it is "impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way .... In reality, it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics" (Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, vol. 3, p. 1-1). Feynman was emphatic about this, later writing that
any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, "You remember the case of the experiment with two holes? It's the same thing." (Feynman 1965, p. 130)

---

http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic12/quantum.htmIt simply occurred to me that some were trying to discredit the double slit experiments in anyway they could think of when if you will read the page I posted above, considering those named in this thread including Feynman actually seem to agree with me.Finally, Someone asked me if this can be explained mathematically. I believe it can through Schrodinger's Equation although I haven't toyed with it, it appears that others have. Not found

---

Design Dynamics

Thanks so much for your participation, Justin.

Hello Richard:

quote:

---

I cannot presume to be an expert, but as far as biology and the theory of biological evolution is concerned, I can't see how is ID a part of science or a scientific approach. I am saying it not because I am against theleology, but, rather, because I take it that natural sciences have agreed, since approx. 1620 (Bacon's "Novum Organum") to function according to the rules of the scientific method. These rules say that we cannot include anything supernatural in our proceedings, i.e., observations must be limited to the observations of the natural, questions to the questions about the natural, hypotheses to the hypotheses about the natural, etc. Yet, if we are using words like "intelligent design," what "natural" do we really mean? Whose design?

---

I agree that science must function according to the scientific method. This is the reason that the scientific method is one of the first things taught when we teach a course on ID.If you have waded through this admittedly tedious thread, you have discovered I am making the case herein that quantum mechanics did the design under the guidance of Heisenberg's observer defined mathematically by mathematical physicist Frank Tipler of Tulane University as the Omega Point. Nothing supernatural about this, is there?In fact, detractors tend to view Darwinism as the field in science that doesn't follow the scientific method. Therein we find all kinds of "theories" that have never been taken through the method from observation to theory and conclusions being taught as "facts" of science based on no experimental evidence at all and ignoring such elementary principles as there is no such thing as facts in science (witness Eugenie Scott).As a biology minor, I can testify that biologists are woefully trained in this. Had I not been a science major in another discipline, I probably would know nothing about the method at all. Were biologists adequately trained in science, there would be nothing in it called a "theory" of evolution, IMHO.

quote:

---

Alrightyou’re quote mining.

---

I also asked for an alligator for Christmas when I was 13 that I found out later I really didn't want.

quote:

---

As they stand, the quotes speak for themselves but only if you know the context of Gould’s theories about punctuated equilibrium i.e. that evolution is not a straight, linear progression, and that changes are often not caught in the fossil record. Like it or not Gould doesn’t support your position at all. Find me a quote that shows an evolutionary biologist denying common descent or claiming that RM and NS are not the mechanisms for change and I will be surprised. Scrap that, I’ll be astounded!!

---

Sure--I agree. You don't have to send me to quotes by Gould to show he was dissing gradualism in favor of punk eek. I will readily admit this. But this mirrors a higher problem in the philosophy of Darwinism in my opinion. In many other fields of science, when a scientist looks at the major source of evidence in his field and concludes that there is no evidence there to support the current hypothesis (Darwin's gradualism), wouldn't that scientist logically conclude the hypothesis just falsified due to no evidence?Allow me to show you how Darwinian detractors see this and what is about to be presented in Kansas. Gould and Eldredge did not do what would be expected by those that espouse the scientific method. Instead, with no experimentation what-so-ever and not even a scientific observation in their belly, they came up with a new "theory" to explain the fact that the fossil record didn't support their previous one. NOTHING, still today, supports punk eek as empirical evidence, and they have left in their wake a dissed Darwin rolling over in his grave. What does Darwinism have left, activist judges and PhD politicos in the National Academy of Sciences, 93% of which admit they hold either atheist or agnostic religious views?

quote:

---

It really would be good for ID (or the other creeds of creationism) if this statement were true, and no wonder you are trying to make this charge stick. Unfortunately, there are numerous falsifiable predictions that have been made. Just off the top of my head:
When Darwin wrote Origin there were few (if any) true transitional fossils and yet he predicted there would be examples found which shared the characteristics of two separate groups. Lo and behold, we now do have many examples of such fossils.
If the modern synthesis of Theory of Evolution was right, molecular phylogenies would mirror those based on taxonomy. Well blow me down with a feather if that wasn’t what was found.

---

Well, I'm not a creationist although many ID theorists are (unless you view quantum mechanics as a god, in which case I plead nolo contendere). But can you show me one paper that has been produced in the last 100 years that reads in the vein of, "Here is some new evidence for Darwinism?" I would love to read them. You see, you view this as all people do: from your belief system. Since my belief system is at another loci in the spectrum, I view it differently. This causes me to see it in this manner: there is even less evidence for Darwinism today, as much of the evidence has had to be retracted by Darwinists because it has been falsified over the years. No predictions there, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

Developmental pathways should be conserved within the pattern of common descent. This is indeed what we see.

---

Please get more specific on this. I'm not sure what you mean concerning developmental pathways. Have you ever observed a species actually going down these pathways? What are they? Is this a predictable mechanism or even a stochastic one?

quote:

---

Now while no doubt you disagree with these examples — and each of them is probably worth a topic on it’s own — they are all scientific predictions. They can (and have been) tested scientifically, by scientists and verified by other scientists.
Sure sounds like a scientific theory to me!

---

Er...Can you slow down and back up? You didn't give any predictions specific enough to address. Darwin didn't make any predictions that have been fulfilled. Nor did he introduce an observation that has been taken through the scientific method from observation to hypothesis to theory. So, sure sounds like no theories here to me. Couple that with the fact that the scientific method requires falsification with tenets of science if they are to be considered tenets of science and what do we have now? For example, how would we ever falsify common descent?

quote:

---

Let’s compare this to ID shall we?

---

Yes. I'm anxious to do this as the thread may then move forward.

quote:

---

It’s got calculations using numbers seemingly plucked out of thin air.

---

Really. I'm not familiar with this "thin air" math as all the formulas I am aware of are quite solidly based on science. And since I teach this, I would be quite interested in you pointing out the specifics so I can clarify for you.

quote:

---

It’s got obscure definitions of ‘complexity’ and ‘information’ which can’t be applied to the real world.

---

LOL....I'm not laughing at you but about the misconceptions we CANNOT seem to get cleared up. Complexity (and information) is defined specifically and denoted mathematically. There is nothing obscure with this.

quote:

---

It’s Choc-a-bloc with useless analogies

---

Like what? You lost me with this one.

quote:

---

..and it’s even got a strangely unscientific idea that people shouldn’t try to discover the nature and the methods of the designer.

---

Hmmm....You mean after all the effort I have put into quantum mechanics on this thread you still think we are vague on the designer and the implementation? I mean, I don't think I could have gotten much more in detail.

quote:

---

What it doesn’t have is a single testable, falsifiable prediction! Can you think of an example of ID leading to 1) a testable hypothesis and 2) the testing of that hypothesis? Because that’s what science does. If you want ID to be accepted as science then that’s what you have to do, and no amount of pleading to let a ‘young field’ grow will change that fact.

---

Well gee. We only have a ton of them too lengthy to name in only one post as opposed to Darwinism that doesn't have one you can get specific with as it seems above. Here's a couple to get you started:1) ID predicts that that DNA can only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent. This prediction stands in science and can be falsified by simply finding DNA in nature that was not designed by preprogrammed code.2) ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin. This has been shown to be true in vertebrates in this study.I can get you to the original Nature paper if you need it. This tenet could be falsified by showing a genome actually INCREASING in information over five million years rather than decreasing and Avida--Adami don't get it in science.Ahhh....this is already too long, but ask me if you want to get into complex proteins, information entropy, or other predictions of ID.

quote:

---

Drat, should have known you’d have pointed to the largest gap there was and inserted a *cough* ‘designer’ into it. And yet the ‘leap’ from early fossil cells to the variety in the Cambrian period is not quite so sudden as it first appeared. New finds suggest that the ‘explosion’ was not quite as explosive as first thought, lengthening the amount of time these fossils were formed in. On top of that, delicate pre-Cambian fossils have been found that look like they were the ancestors of some of the Cambrian organisms. One of the explanations for the perceived ‘jump’ is that it was due to a lack of fossils, not a lack of organisms — 3 billion years is a lot of time to evolve in. Why wouldn’t that be possible by RM and NS?Let me ask the question in a different way:
You have (I think) stated earlier that you think the fossil record shows evidence for micro-evolution. Using the well documented evolution of horses as an example, which of those proposed steps represent ‘micro’ changes and which are ‘macro’, and therefore require a designer?

---

Can you present any peer-reviewed papers showing this new evidence that has been discovered ala pre-Cambrian forms.And, finally, given any amount of time, organisms just don't start giving birth to other species. Look at the experiments of Redi and Pasteur. Pigs give birth only to pigs no matter how reproductively isolated they are from other pigs. Organisms have limits of change. Never will mankind be able to breed giraffes with wings that can fly, chickens as big as elephants to solve the food shortage in Africa or geese that will lay cylindrical eggs made of gold. Nor will a woman ever magically 'poof' out of an amoeba. Thanks for a challenging post. Keep 'em coming.

---

Design Dynamics

Howdy, Iasion. Thanks for weighing in.

quote:

---

Hmmm...
This is a very odd way of describing it.
Jerry,
do you think the transitionals are NOT species as well?
Do you think there are TWO different TYPES of fossil?
Species and Transitional?
This seems to be a common mis-conception, but totally false.
As others have pointed out, what we DO see is:
Species A -----> Species D -----> Species E -----> Species J ...
In short - we DO see exactly what you said we don't.
Every transitional fossil represents a species,
every species is a transitional form.

---

This is really quite refreshing, innovative thinking that it would behoove Darwinists to come together on, as it removes a chink in the armor.I was, of course, speaking of Darwin's notion of transitions.Tell me. If one species starts giving birth to other species directly, how do you think this happens that wouldn't violate the species definition and known science in which a species only reproduces itself? I mean farmers keep sheep reproductively isolated all the time and they never give birth to anything but other sheep, to my knowledge. This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-03-2005 06:01 PM

---

Design Dynamics