Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

False."Evolutionists" do not do their research with creation in mind. The sciences which deal with the theory of evolution rely on evidence, and devise theories to explain that evidence.There is no scientific evidence for the supernatural; that's why they refer to religion as a belief--it does not rely on evidence.In my six years of graduate school, with half of it spent studying evolution and related fields, the subject of creation never came up. This puts the lie to your statement above.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have so many errors and misinterpretations in your post that it is not even worth responding to.But let me ask, why do the ID proponents keep referring to their particular religion and deities? I thought ID was supposed to be pure science. (Or didn't you get the memo?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That is an absolutely false statement.But, it seems to be the latest talking point promulgated by fundamentalists in an effort to feel better about their religious beliefs.The process goes something like this: "Science does some wonderful things. But evolution contradicts my religious beliefs. Therefore evolution is not a science."Nice work if you can get it. But it is self-delusion of the basest sort. Reminds me of a good line...

Edit to add: Whoops. OK, no more off-topic posts. Sorry.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory is simply an explanation for a given set of facts. The theory must account for all of the facts, and not be contradicted by any of them. And, it must successfully make predictions.The theory of evolution, greatly simplified, explains that line-up of fossils by common descent and change in the genome over time.What would be the ID explanation for that same line-up of fossils? (Remember, your explanation must account for all of the facts, and not be contradicted by any of them. And, it must allow for predictions.) Different fields of science have different forms of evidence. What you can do in a chemistry laboratory is not what you can do as a geologist working with thousands of feet of geological strata.You seem to be following the latest creationist talking point of saying that the theory of evolution is not "real" science because you can't "prove it to a high degree of accuracy." Actually, the theory of evolution is "proved" to a much higher degree of accuracy than the theory of gravitation.But back to the topic: What would be the ID explanation for the facts that are currently explained by the theory of evolution?

What facts can you account for with ID?
​
What facts are still unaccounted for?
​
AWhat predictions can you make?

That is how you do science. Care to give it a try?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think you need to think this out a bit more. It is not quite baked yet; you're maybe half way there. ; - )"That the universe is coherent, orderly and man can understand its mechanisms" is the assumption upon which science is based, and which is so often criticized by creationists for excluding the supernatural from science.It just doesn't seem right to have this as the basis for ID, when ID is clearly both non-scientific and religiously-based (in other words, not based on evidence).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That is a false dichotomy.We did not descend from Neanderthal. We descended from archaic humans. I would agree generally with the 200,000 year figure you had in your post.And there is no scientific evidence for either the ark or a global flood about 4,350 years ago.But neither of these are on topic. What is the evidence for ID? Knocking evolution is not sufficient to support ID, so where is the evidence?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The thread is about evidence for intelligent design. So far none has been presented. Rather, we see a lot of attacks on evolution. The "controversy" is not within science; it is drummed up largely by the Discovery Institute through a large PR effort. When I studied evolution in graduate school, and when I taught it once back several decades ago, we were already aware then that Neanderthal was not a human ancestor.I know of no scientists claiming descent from Neanderthal. There are questions about interbreeding with them, but so far the DNA evidence suggests that it did not happen to any significant extent.In either case, this does not present any evidence for ID. Do you have any to share with us?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Mathematical models are only good when they correctly model the system they are studying. To come up with some huge odds and claim intelligent design or irreducible complexity means nothing if the system is not correctly modeled.Here is a good example. This online lecture examines two well known genetic networks. It comes up with results completely different from the ones creationists like to cite. Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell

This is just one more example of science readily explaining the things IDers produce as evidence for a "designer" (which everyone knows is really the Christian deity being forced to go incognito).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

They are relying on belief, and faith that that belief is correct.That way they don't need the scientific method, evidence, or any of those rigorous tests.They have faith that they are correct and that should be enough to go on, right?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nice assertion. Now I suppose you will be providing evidence to back it up?(This is the Science Forum; evidence is generally provided here and elsewhere in science to back up one's assertions. I realize that if one is coming from a creation "science" background this may seem a bit of an imposition, but that's the way things are done in science.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are still way short on evidence. Your suppositions are hanging in mid air, with no visible means of support.I have highlighted some of the unsupported statements or assertions in your post: In order to do science you have to start with evidence. We are waiting for you to present some.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, you're trying to make the supernatural out of it all. And for the supernatural there is no evidence.And no, your incredulity is not evidence. (See also tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So because you can't understand it, it must be a supernatural being. And if I was to guess, I would guess that supernatural being would greatly resemble the one in the bible.That is quite a stretch for having no actual evidence!And your quotation from the Discovery Institute--How can you quote such a disingenuous bunch of lawyers and PR flacks in a science forum? They are the absolute antithesis of science.Have you read their Wedge Strategy? Here are a couple of choice passages:

quote:

---

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

​

Governing Goals

​

---

Does any of that sound like science to you? Sounds more like they want to impost a theocracy and tell science what it must and must not research.And they are the leading proponents of ID.If they were actually looking for discoveries, they wouldn't be staffed largely by PR flacks and lawyers, now would they? They would have laboratories and a research budget, rather than a PR budget.No, they are seeking to impose their religious views on the rest of us whether we want them or not. Yech!Edited by Coyote, : spellling

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Duplicate post deletedEdited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.