Intelligent Design explains many follies

Wow! We are getting into some interesting stuff here. To pursue it would probably take us off-topic, but a new thread could be opened if people want to discuss it further.Adaptation, imperfection, competition - these are the underpinnings of traditional neo-Darwinism. They are what Dawkins emphasizes. They are also what Gould and Eldredge thought they were criticizing in their "Punctuated equilibria" paper, and what Gould and Lewontin were criticizing in their "spandrels" paper.If ToE were a slam dunk - if it were completely obvious that the neo-Darwinist theory accounted for biological diversity - we wouldn't be having this evo vs. creo debate. Most conservative Christians would simply accept some alternative understanding of the Genesis story. Sure, there might still be a few die-hard creationists, but not enough to be a cause for concern.It is pretty easy to say that the debate is due to a small group of unrepresentative extremist fundamentalists. But that's a serious misunderstanding of the problem. The fact is, that those fundamentalists manage to get the ears of politicians, and those politicians see enough support for the idea that they believe it will help them in their election bids. That could not happen if the case for evolution were a slam dunk.Many people find the adaptation, imperfection, competition account to be implausible. Many mathematician find it implausible. Fred Hoyle went into details on why he found it implausible in his "Mathematics of Evolution". I find it implausible.I don't doubt that evolution occurred, and is occurring. If you look at the details of the biology, there is plenty there to explain it. But the biology is complex, so most people settle for the traditional neo-Darwinist account, and that is what the critics of evolution find implausible.Maybe I should try to find time to write up my alternative theory. However, my sense is that most evolutionists don't welcome this kind of discussion. They are satisfied with the status quo, and resist change.

We need to distinguish between "the universe has evolved" and biological evolution. These are two different meanings of evolve, the first the natural language meaning of change over time and the second the technical meaning from the biological theory. That's not a point, it is a question.The principle objection to ID is that it is not science, and thus does not belong in the science class. Many also object that the proponents of ID are mostly creationists who are trying to do a sneaky end-run around the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution. Evolution is both theory and fact. However what is meant by "evolution" when speaking of it as theory is different from what is meant by that word when speaking of it as fact. Evolution, as theory, is a scientific framework and a system of empirical principles for studying biological systems (including speciation). Evolution as fact is what has actually been observed or inferred from evidence, on biological change. To a scientist, it is no reason at all. People used to say things such as "nature abhors a vacuum" and "what goes up must come down". Science has long since rejected these as false reasoning, because they do not get at the mechanisms. ID as reason is just like the anger of the gods as reason for a volcano (or a hurricane). It has no scientific merit. The trouble is that you are probably thinking of "theory" as "unproven guess". But that is not what the word means at all when talking about scientific theories.

Agreed. However, if the mathematical model were adequate, then you should not need to be a biologist to be able to use it.If you want to further discuss this subtopic, please take that to Criticizing neo-Darwinism. That way we can avoid going off-topic for an ID thread.

Maybe it gives you a "feel good" reason. But it doesn't actually explain anything. Sorry to bring you the bad news, but those "other elements of scientific study" cannot be completely proved either. Thats the nature of science. The Theory of Evolution is, primarily, a theory of how species that exist continue to function and to deal with change.

A gross oversimplification. Christianity isn't really a way of worshipping God. Rather it is a method whereby the priestly class induces feelings of guilt as a way of controlling people.I figure if you are going to tell scientists what their science is all about, then we should be able to tell you what your religion is all about. This message has been edited by nwr, 03-22-2006 04:52 PM

Science studies a lot more than cause and effect. Sure it does. Evolutionary biologists spend a lot of time studying cellular processes involved in reproduction, the processes that cause evolution. Don't take my comment on that too seriously. I was just teasing you about your attempt to dictate to scientists what science is.