Intelligent Design

[bea321]

I’ve found a great article on the website of the CNRS (the national center of the scientific research if you prefer, it’s the first european organism of research). The article criticizes strongly the theory of ID. And… it’s just brilliant. Here is the article (it’s in french):

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre1.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre2.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre3.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre4.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre5.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre6.html

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/dec...lecointre7.html

I’ve translated just two parts of the article. But read the whole article if you understand french because it’s interesting from the beginning till the end!!!

One part of the article:

The creationnists from the protestant fundamentalism are attached to a literal reading of the biblical genesis. Their speech about the world and his origin has been for a long time built against Science, which limited their respectability. Hence a changing of strategy.

The modern creationnists aren't opposed to Science anymore, but to the contrary they want to get their credibility near to a naive or misinformated audience claiming they are themselves scientists. So they have invented the term "scientific creationnism" in order to fight against science on its own field, to find and promote the scientific proofs of the litteral interpretation of the biblical genesis. Thus, the earth would be 6000 years old and the fossils would be explained by the deluge. Two centuries of geology and paleontology are completely reinterpreted and the evolutionnist biology is denied so that the bible is "scientifically proved".

In the US, they have since 25 years their research institutes that deliver PhD, their researchers who published in their papers, their museums. Science is therefore imitated in all its details. Parallel, they practice a silencious harassment on the educationnal american system that is largely decentralized. Here and there, at the mercy of the social compositions of the school boards, their efforts become apparent, often thwarted by the decisions of justice.

Another interesting part of the article:

As far as the technique of argumentation is concerned, this is always the same old motives. First, a work of epistemologic confusion consists in presenting the Darwin theory of evolution not as a scientific theory, but in turn as an "ideology", a "natural philosophy", finally a metaphysical position that will submit the "facts" to its imperious necessity. In return , the defenders of the "ID" will legitimate the fact that their own "metaphysical current open to rational discussions"(the word is from P. Johnson, one of the main actors of the movement) could also be the object of a "programm of researches" in which by the way some american members of the teaching profession are already involved (Charles Thaxton, Michael Behe...). Secondly, the adepts of this movement (William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Nancy Pearcey, John Wiester…) spend most of their time in an exaggerated criticism of the darwinism that imply precise strategies, non exclusive between themselves.

The strategies of the "intelligent design"

The first one strategy consists in asking bad questions or saying false objections, supported by analogical reasonings. This time, one does it to a nivel of detail that make the largest part of the people embarrassed: the apparent instruction forces the respect;at the same time send people to manipulation through lack of expertise. The process works out: the compasses of the journalists become crazy; they are caught in the trap or only deny timorously. The promoters of the ID make themselves invited in the universities to debate about it.

The second strategy consists in producing what we could call the "shift of scale". One isolates a detail of the Darwin theory of evolution or a mistake of popularization; one says sophisticated objections on the selected detail; in order to present them as major refutations of the whole theory. Lastly, the general strategy of communication, in particular the one promoted by P.Johnson, consists in practicing this exaggeration of the criticism by clarifying the least possible what could takes the place of what ones criticizes, in order to keep this apparent neutrality, apparently far from the religions, and above all of the traditionnal creationnism. Phillip Johnson says to the paper World his strategy: "the key consists rather in promoting some qualities of analysis than defending a preconceived position". Which allows at the same time to appear objective and above all to rook broadly.

The writer and journalist Louis Freedberg writes about P.Johnson:

"//[Phillip Johnson, Discovery Institute] avoids answering to precise questions, included what the intelligent creator could look like :"It could certainly be God, a surnatural creature, but in principle it could also be very intelligent aliens from the space who made the conception" he said...He won't say if he is creationnist or not. "I won't answer this question. It's like if you asked me if I have ever been a member of the communist party".

Indeed, P.Johnson wants to unite all the anti-darwin forces, he wants them to work together rather than to confront each other about their dogmatic positions: "if you try to promote a particular position that is too much detailed, you finish being on the defensive, divided and fighting between yourselves.(...). The notion of intelligent conception isn't a position, it's a metaphysical current open to rational discussions". To affirm oneself in favor of a chapel would ruin his enterprise of extension. So he works on the common denominator of all the religions:the criticism of darwinism and the sophistication of the argument in favor of an intelligence that is at the origin of the adequation form-function in the Nature. Nancy Pearcey, another promoter of the same movement, throws light on the strategy of communication of P. Johnson by quoting him:

"The most fundamental and significative of the affirmations of the darwinism is that life is the product of impersonal forces, that it's an accident. (...). It's a philosophy that catches out most of the American people. If the christians orientate the debate that way, we can't be marginalised".

We find nearly everything in that quote. First, the epistemologic confusion with a darwinism considered as a philosophy. The "impersonal" forces are a methodologic necessity of the sciences, not a philosophical bias. This stubbow and militant ignorance of the independance of sciences makes of this movement an anti-scientific force, we'll come to that later. In addition, the demagogy by the attentive listening of american people. Indeed, if the darwinism is a philosophy, one would nearly come to the point of voting to establish if it should be adopted collectively or not, if however the philosophical debates had something to do with a democratic vote. Irony apart, we see here that there's a real interest for the power, that is confirmed by the final appeal to the mobilization of the christians. The result is that the christians are destined to intervene as christians in the debates that are in the centre of the scientific methodologies. Beyond the default of secularity that that implies, it's an appeal to a new act of predation of the ideology against science. Because the repetition of the same discoursive elements through history (here the analogy of Paley), mobilized around the research of power, is the characteristic of ideology. (...)

Who are they and what are they working for?

Yet the apparent neutrality of P. Johnson doesn't prevent the real motivations of the other members of the movement to arise. Michael Denton, a long-time practicer of the educated desinformation has lately revealed why the Darwin theory of evolution disturbed him so much, by revealing his vision of the world that is utterly teleologic in a book (...). In his opuscule "Evolution by Design", Jonathan Wells exposes a comprehension of the transitions between species that is changed by successive creations (so it's really a creationnism) and affirms that the ultimate goal was to create a good environment so that the earth could welcome the human beings (so it's the strong version of the teleology, of a kind of biological anthropical principle):

"I express the conjecture according to which the human species was foreseen a long time before life on earth appeared, and the History of Life is the record of the realisation of this plan... The primitive organisms probably cobbled the road for the establishment of the stable ecosystems we know. A sterile planet had to become a garden... The first human baby probably was fed by a being very similar to himself, like a primate looking like a man. This creature in his turn had probably been fed by another one, intermediary between herself and a more primitive mammal. In other words, a plan anticipating the apparition of human beings had to include something like the succession of the preistoric forms that we find in the fossil record". (...)"Even if this process looks superficially like the Darwin notion of common lineage, the theory of ID is different by maintening that the predecessors don't need to be biological ancestors but only essential distributors of food and protection".

Jonathan Wells is a member of the "Discovery Institute" since 1996. During the 1970's, he was a member of the "Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church", church that works at the same time for the "unification" of the worldwide christianity and the "unification" of sciences. The sect institutes in particular in 1972 a serial of conferences entitled "International conferences for the unity of sciences" that receive the support of the spiritualist Nobel Prize winner John Eccles and of Ylia Prigogine. Wells was sure that the theory of evolution is false because in conflict with the believes of his sect, in particular the one that says that the human genre was specially created by God. Pushed by Moon, Wells went to the university of Yale and concentrated on everything that could contradict the theory of evolution. Later, at the beginning of the 1990's, he went to Berkeley and obtained diplomas in biology to improve his fight against the evolution theory. In "Why I went for a Second PhD", Jonathan Wells explains how he decided to dedicate his life to fight against the theory of evolution :

"II (the reverend Sun Myung Moon) often criticized the Darwin theory according to which human beings find their origin without the creative and finalized action of God...). The Father words, my studies and my prayers persuaded me to dedicate my life to the destruction of darwinism, like many of my unificationnist colleagues devoted their lives to the destruction of marxism. When the Father chosed me (with a dozen of qualified people from the seminar) to begin a programme of thesis in 1978, I was happy of this opportunity of getting ready for the fight".

Charles Thaxton, one of the initiators of ID, after his PhD in chemistry, wondered if life had realy started in a primitive soup. He remembered that the criticisms about the origins of life started to appear among the scientists (it was in fact discussions about the possibility of a reducing atmosphere like the famous experiment of Urey et Miller foresaw it)

"But I thought continually about the biblical verse that says "be victor of the evil by the good". I felt that the christians had to offer a positive alternative to the theory of evolution".

This alternative to the "evil" was the notion of ID, formalized in a book where DNA is interpreted like some "coded intelligence in a biological structure", implying necessarily then an "intelligent intervention".

So the main promoters of the ID current don't hide that the impulsions of the movement are clearly religious. But if they dissociate themselves from religions by pure strategy, they work yet in identified structures. Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson, are members of the "Center for the revival of Science and Culture" (CRSC), one branch of the "Discovery Institute", conservative Think Tank functioning thanks to private funds, established in Seattle. The CRSC, of which the programme of formation has been realized by P.Johnson himself, spreads the idea that science in general, and in particular the theory of evolution, are responsible for a "materialistic and atheistic philosophy" that would have "disastrous" cultural consequences on our societies and that therefore we should fight. The CRSC promotes a strategy of substitution of today's science by a science incorporating the notion of "intelligent design" and the supernatural causes. It rejects the idea -quite spread in the anglo-saxon world- according to which God would use the evolutive process as a mean of his creation. It says that science, on the contrary, by limiting itself to the natural explications of the physical world, would affirm explicitly the inexistence of God. According to J.Wells:

"The Darwin theory excludes the design and therefore excludes logically God. It's the source of his atheism".

The CRSC even rejects the idea quite spread according to which science only deals with the physical world, while the spiritual sphere would apprehend the esthetic, moral and religious aspects. One could even criticize here this distribution of roles considering that the moral and esthetic aspects of our world aren't neither the concern of science, neither necessarily of the spiritual sphere, reducing to the maximum the field of action of spirituality. But the CRSC rejects this distribution for the reasons diametrically opposed:according to the CRSC, science, on the contrary, has to melt in the spiritual sphere, which extends to the maximum the field of action of this one.

By forcing the link between the Darwin theory of evolution and the atheism and by disqualifying the religions that recognize a proper field and limited to natural sciences, the CRSC hopes to operate a break, to generate a divorce between the ones who recognize the evolutive fact and those who are religious. It says we absolutly have to choose between being a atheistic supporter of Darwin evolution or a religious opposant, which isn't, in the US, an insignificant dichotomy. The CRSC wants to extend the ID to all the aspects of culture, in accordance with the appeal to the revival of science and culture indicated by its name, work whose aim is to "fill the gap spliting the creationnists from the evolutionnist theists". Thanks to the ID, the first ones don't have to cling anymore to a literal interpretation of the Bible to keep God in the discourse about our origins, and the second ones can quietly reject Darwin without risking the ridiculous, helped with the varnish of seriousness that confer some (so-called) new propositions. The members of the CRSC think that the revived science, incorporating the supernatural causes, has to look for and dictate what will be a "natural ethic", a "natural morale", and that this science will be able to discover which behaviors transgress the underlying aims of the intelligent design of the Mankind. So this science should discover which of our behaviors, our manners, our ethics are wanted by God. The function of conservative Think Tank takes then all his significance : abortion and homosexuality transgress the ID of God, in particular by modifications of the functions for why our forms had been initially created. Thanks to these diplomas of universities, the struggle against these "transgressions" adorns itself with a scientific alibi. By giving a so-called scientific seating to the "Good" and to the "Evil", the current of ID lead out onto a kind of religious scientism that, for european scientists, seems paradoxical and even scaring because they are, for the majority of them, used to preserve the neutrality of science by the respect of its necessary laic environment.

Some epistemologic confusions that are characteristic

The contortions of Johnson are very sophisticated and very hard to identify for the general public. That's the reason why we'll examine the epistemological confusions knowingly made by this jurist of profession. Phillip Johnson is known for the next equivalences:

materialism=ideology, the Darwin theory of evolution is materialist, so darwinism=ideology. All the argumentation of Johnson lies on a simple trick but that asks a solid scientific culture to be thwarted, culture that doesn't have a large part of the audience Johnson adresses himself to. By spliting science from the methodologic materialism that bases it and defines it, Johnson passes the materialism off as a bias "ideological" or "metaphysical" or "philosophical";and reproves as usurpers the scientists who are conscious of the materialist condition of science, like Richard Lewontin:

"Yet, supposing that a philosophical preference could validate a theory to which we are attached comes to definite science as a mean for basing one's prejudices. (...) The darwinism is based on a preliminary agreement in favor of materialism and not on a philosophically neutral evaluation of the proofs. Split the philosophy of science and you'll see that the proud edifice will collapse. When people will have understand that, the darwinism of Lewontin will just have to quit the studying programms, to go and mildew in the museum of the history of ideas near the marxism of Lewontin".

The ideological allusion is clear. A variant sets the equality:darwinism=metaphysics in the book of Phillip Johnson entitled "the darwinism in question. Science or metaphysics?". Then, more lately, P. Johnson has passed from the materialism as metaphysics to materialism as philosophy of the nature:

"If the naturalism is true, that is to say if the Nature is the only thing that exists, then something similar to the darwinism is necessarily true, even if we don't manage to prove it". "The darwinism is less a conclusion of observable facts that a deduction of the naturalist philosophy".

According to John Wiester, strong defender of the movement:

"the darwinism, it's some naturalist philosophy that claims to be some science".

Hence the position of Nancy R.Pearcey (another promoter of the movement, and author of :"The soul of science : chistian faith and natural philosophy»), that says a lot about the comprehension that the American people have about the rapports between religion and school:

"Consider these quotations:"You are an animal, like the worm" say some biology books, "evolution happens at random, without plan or aim" say others. But the american public schools are supposed to be neutral as far as religion is concerned, while these quotations are opposed to all the religions. In addition, these affirmations go way further than any empirical constatation, and are more philosophical than scientific".

By presenting the Darwin theory of evolution not as a scientific theory but as a naturalist philosophy or an ideology, they improve their strategy:

1.A scientific theory can be teached in the science lessons of schools, but not a philosophy; therefore one's legitimates the suppression of the Darwin theory of evolution from the lessons of sciences or the demand of weighing up a naturalist philosophy with a spiritual one, or with x other philosophies.

2. They lend credence to the idea that another "metaphysical proposition" than the "natural philosophy" such as theirs can also be debated rationnally and be the object of a programme of research.

Johnson wants to ignore the real status of materialism in sciences and clearly confounds philosophy, metaphysical proposition, ideology, paradigm and theory. He identifies the roles of the paradigm and of the theory in sciences to the one of ideology or of a philosophy that would submit science to their needs. There are, in fact, big differences of nivels and of roles. First, philosophy and ideology lie outside sciences because they have their own aims and means. Ideology submits science to his vital objective of justifying a power, whatever the "cost" is. Paradigm and theory are on the contrary some elements of the science in construction, in a certain way some parts of its building up, even if the reasons why we work inside a paradigm aren't always rationnally justified. One's knows in general why one's work on a theory. One's knows less why one's work in a paradigm. Because the paradigm is the totality of the concrete solutions belonging to a disciplinary matrix. This matrix is the whole of the values, the techniques and of the propositions considered as being valid by a scientific community belonging to a discipline at a given moment. The paradigm is the whole of the solutions of enigma to which the members of a same discipline refer to. J.Wells is strategicly more clever than P.Johnson, because he tries to read some facts by the light of two theories that are so-called in competition (now called theories, now called paradigms) and to see which one of the two is the more coherent (even if technically Wells is unskilled).

Johnson has cleverly inverted the rapports between science and philosophy by subordinating the first one to the second one. Because, in fact, outside the sciences, the methodological materialism doesn't impose on anybody any philosophy, any metaphysical option or ideology. To function, science isn't subordinated to any metaphysical materialism. Besides, some scientifics are irreproachable in their job and have chosen some metaphysical options incompatible with a philosophical materialism for their private life. Moreover, certain philosophers can be inspired by some constraints inherent in the methodological materialism of sciences to comfort a philosophical materialism; but that has nothing to do with science in its functioning.

Finalement, à travers cette inversion et l’intoxication générale produites par Johnson, on comprend l’importance et les enjeux d’une bonne clarification du rôle du matérialisme dans les sciences. Le matérialisme de la théorie darwinienne de l’évolution n’est pas spécifique à cette théorie : c’est le matérialisme de toute démarche scientifique.

Actually, through this inversion and the general intoxication produced by Johnson, we understand the importance and the interest of a good clarification of the role of materialism in sciences. The materialism of the Darwin theory of evolution is not specific to this theory: it's the materialism of every scientifical research.

The theory of "ID": tool of a theocratic will

Why is the movement of ID the concern of anti-science? One's can call anti-science every initiative of characterized scientific deception, of intellectual imposture in sciences (in the meaning of Sokal and Bricmont) or of operation of communication spreading confusion in the nature, the objectives and the field of legitimacy of science. These three reasons are present with different degrees when the methodological independance of sciences is canceled by the ideology. The movement of ID is anti-science for the next reasons:

1. The nature of science is distorted. This movement is affected of an epistemologic nullity:the theory of Darwin is presented now as a naturalist philosophy, now as an ideology, now as "only an hypothesis" or "only a theory", and in this last case it is in order to underline that it shouldn't be presented as "a fact", showing that way an utter incomprehension of the rapports between facts and theories.

2.The objectives of science are distorted. What the main people from this movement wrote show that their deep motivations and their objectives aren't scientific, but religious. Science is used to build some dogmas and to justify their intrusion in the social and political field, as part of the conservative think tanks. For that the actors of the movement claim their own programme of researches.

3. The field of legitimacy of science is distorted. This movement makes science go out of its role by enjoining it to dictate in the moral and political fields what is conformable to the ID. The independance of the methodologic rules intern to science vis-à-vis society is broken. If science takes the liberty of legislating in the moral and political fields, where only some moral determinings should act in principle, then, in return, science has to expect seeing itself dictate from outside what has to be found. Science put in service of ideology becomes an instrument of this one, legislate with it but at the expense of having been totally submitted to it beforewards. The examples are nnumerous. By searching to justify scientifically some laws of racial discrimination, the nazi anthropology tried to prove certain racial inferiorities. By searching a scientific support to the litteral interpretation of the biblical texts, creationnism comes to completely fabricating its datas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, Maxfly, you should read the page 6 (http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/decouv/articles/chap1/lecointre6.html) because the guy refutes in that page a few arguments you had in one of your posts (you understand french, don’t you?).

[Schnazz]

No, this is false. Methane Hydrate couldn't have been formed on a primitive earth in any area where the chemical reactions necessary to create life would take place. Methane Hydrate is methane locked in ice. For ice to exist, an area must be cold, but we know that for the necessary chemical reactions to take place in the creation of life, there must be ambient heat to act as a catalyst. Also, for ice to exist, we would have to shift the location in which initial evolution took place a lot further north or south. That would invalidate so many other theories of evolution, it would set the movement behind a number of years; the theory would break down. It is impossible for life to sucessfully originate in an area where ice exists, and in an area where methane is trapped in ice. It's too cold.

You argue here that the "reactions necessary to create life" couldn't take place in extreme cold, but the argument in other places is that it's not known what reactions are necessary. Which is it? You seem to be thinking that the earth is static, it isn't. Ice freezes, melts, migrates, etc... Additionally, there are volcanic vents (talk about a heat source) that can/are involved. Even further, the concept of what environmental settings constrain life has been changed recently. The findings of organisms living in both extreme heat and cold, among other situations, has changed the old notion of life not being able to exist in extremes.

It is important to note that even with the most ideal of conditions, Stanley Miller was only able to yeild a result of 2% amino acid (and no chains) in his experiment out of all the other molecules that were formed in the reaction... that's with an abundance of the necessary gasses and surrounding conditions. Other experiments since have had similar yields (with no amino acid chains).

A 2% yield is very significant, especially when it's on a planetary scale over hundreds of millions of years.

Hydrothermal vents under water... This is what scientists have turned to as of late. The problem here is that too much heat destroys organic compounds, and too much cold will stymie chemical reactions, so there is only a narrow area between the warm and cold water where it would be suitable for chemical reactions to take place... The second problem is that chemical reactions tend not to like water... Water is the universal solvent and tends to disolve, or rather, disassociate molecules from eachother because of it's polar properies. Water is a huge, huge hinderance..

These constraints have been greatly revised as of late.

Actually, it is as wild and significant as I and others make it sound, and there are scientists that try to downplay it as an anomaly because it contradicts the theory of evolution... Notwithstanding your argument, it is undeniable that there was an unnatuaral explosion of life during the precambrian period, and no impetus for this explosion to occur.

Ok, I see the validity of your argument now: "It's this way, really" Right...

"biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University"

Here's what he had to say about his work: " My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

Note the fact that most of his colleagues strongly disagree with him. His reason for believing in ID is based on what he calls "irreducible complexity" which is basically a rehash of the watchmaker concept. This concept has been refuted many times over the years using many different arguments. For example, there's the theory that individual parts can be hijacked and used for new purposes.

Actually, his theory hasn't been refuted and whichever website you got that from needs to update that.

Here is a viable example of "irreducible complexity."

The avian lung is different from other lungs, such as the reptilian lung (which evolutionists believe it evolved from). Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that the transition from a reptilian lung to a bird lung (avian lung) is unlikely since intermediate stages would be a detriment to the organism.

Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (Michael Denton)

What are you accusing me of lifting from a website? His quote? The fact that his theories are just a rehash of the watchmaker idea? Or that the watchmaker idea has been refuted? His quote was pulled from ~his~ website at the university where ~he~ works. That is a very legitimate place to get information from him. As for the rest, now this may surprise you, but I actually can think for myself. And I have a strong science background. And myself, the watchmaker scenario, the argument against the watchmaker scenario, and my learning of these things, predates the internet by some time. Irreducible complexity, even how it's explained in the quote, is a remake of the watchmaker scenario. As far as I can tell, the watchmaker scenario dates back to 1802 (slightly before the internet) from William Paley, who, incidentally, trained for the priesthood. The refutation of the argument comes both through logical arguments and theories on evolution. Evolution isn't just "survival of the fittest." It's who can propagate the best. There is nothing to say that a cluttered biology is worse, as long as that biology can produce a lot of offspring that survive to produce their own offspring, it's in good shape. That clutter can then become a breeding ground for evolutionary experimentation. Traits can be linked, so that some traits that cause better reproduction (and youth time survival) can be linked to other traits that are unneeded. A simplified example would be a very strong, dominant dog born with two tails. Those two tails do nothing to help the dog, but the dogs other traits allow it to reproduce anyway. Eventually those two tails could lead to something more complex, and ID folks would be scratching there head, saying "that couldn't happen."

I read the other critiques of the scientists. The probelms you cite with almost everyone of them is that they either have religious motives or they have irrelevant fields of study...

I urge you to actually go back and dig deeper. It is apparent that you carried out a cursory internet search of each. Try finding excerpts of their publications before you are quick to discredit them. For example, you discounted the mathematician without knowing how he has applied math to his support of intelligent design. Others who's fields were obviously relevant, you pegged them as having religious motivation without taking a look at how their research led to their support of Intelligent Design.

Again you, like most ID enthusiasts, miss the point on these "scientists". Evolution is a broad field, an examination of any single, small aspect of it does not refute the entire field.

You entirely missed what I said. I'll clarify. If a field can be applied to life studies, it is important. Do not underestimate how much a seemingly irrelevant field is crucial to the study of life and life processes. Again, you dismissal of the mathematician is telling. I've spent hours in the lab mathematically analyzing the structure of DNA. It's astounding how something like math or chemistry applies to the life sciences. The same is evident with the chemist. Do some research on how crystal structures may be related to life sciences... you'll be surprised.

I never said you don't use mathematics in the study of evolution (or DNA in your case). What I'm saying is that the mathematician doesn't have the broad and subtle expertise, in chemistry and biology for example, to fully understand the ins and outs of what's going on. His study may be based on A, B, C, but he wouldn't even know about D-Z. Let me use your rational on the other side. I'm a "computer scientist" (well, I think I'm a programmer, but it makes me sound more important) I've done a lot of work in artificial intelligence, including some stuff with evolutionary code. So, by your rational, me supporting evolution should be very valid. ~My~ work has shown evolution can work, so all of evolutionary theory must be correct. But that's a ridiculous statement, I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, I just know the concept can work in a very limited, digital environment. Meaningful work must come experts in the major fields, perhaps with the aid of people in other fields. More importantly, that work must pass through the peer review process, by other experts in the major fields. Just because I'm a respected computer expert, it doesn't mean my theories on how to properly grill a steak are perfect.

There is no possible way that you can argue that "any scientist" will adming to a "great deal" of "evidence refuting". Many, many, many scientists subscribe to evolution. However, I would only need to find one to back up my claim, you would have to find them all to back up yours. Good luck with that.

I should revise that. Any scientist that is honest. If you know the questions to ask and the points to make, they'll either stop talking to you, or simply admit that not only are there may holes in the theory, but direct contradictions that can't be worked around.

Again you keep with the broad, sweeping statements. And again, good luck with that.

Edited October 24, 2005 by Schnazz

[Schnazz]

What you are referring to is carbon dating, however there are more methods of radioactive dating. Carbon dating does depend on the makeup of the atmosphere, but more importantly, it's limited to roughly 50,000 years in the past. Hardly useful for a detailed study of evolution. Another radioactive dating method, potassium-argon dating, can date significantly longer periods and does not rely on the make up of the atmosphere at any given time.

No. Potassium-Argon dating which is used to date mineral deposits has issues as well...

When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 it transformed the surrounding terrain dramatically in a short period of time. The lava that was spewed from this volcanic event was dated twenty years after the fact, using Potassium-Argon dating. Mount St. Helens should have tested out to 20 years plus or minus a year or two for a margin of error. Instead, sample results came back ranging from 1/3 to 3 million years...

I'm not sure what you're saying no to. That potassium-argon dating can date significant longer periods of time? Or that it doesn't rely on the make up of the atmosphere?

The Mount St. Helens dating is a great example of creationists (I think it was creationists then, not ID folks) trying to disprove the evolution by running experiments that are less then up and up. Potassium-argon dating is not used to date things that are 20 years old, it has a half life of 1 1/4 billion years! That's like timing a drag race with a calender. This, as well as all, dating methods, are used specific to different needs and time periods. Potassium-argon can't be used to pinpoint times to the day, month, year, decade, century, millennium, etc... Depending on the methods, history of the specimen, etc, it's accurate to 100,000 years to 1,000,000 years. There have been a vast number of studies supporting this. Additionally, true dating tests (as opposed to the St. Helens test) aren't carried in isolation. There's question of where the rock was found, what was around it, what layer was it in, possibly other dating tests, what's the known history of these types of rocks, etc...

Well here's the problem with your assesment. If Bob gave you a gift of 10,000 dollars, he can claim it as a deduction if it is charitable in nature. The catch is that you don't have to report it and it won't be taxed when you do your taxes because it was a gift, and gifts of 10,000 or less aren't taxed. Bob giving you 10,000 dollars would have the same effect as Bob giving the church 10,000. In fact, if this is the argument you want to go with, everyone that gives money to charity and claims it as a tax deduction raises your taxes. In essence, you're covering everyone that gives to charity. If no one gave to charity, your taxes would be a lot lower... You're forced to pay for charities...

Fine, we'll up it to 20,000 (which, incendentally, is why I said my numbers weren't accurate), that way we'll be above the 11,000 personal donation. Why do you want to argue a minor detail that's irrelevant to the general discussion? The numbers don't matter, if 10,000 or 20,000or 500,00 is the cut off. My core argument is that churches receive tax breaks. And yes, they do receive tax breaks.

And yes, I've already agreed that I'd have to pay for charities as well, I never, not once, denied that. Why do you keep bringing it up? It's not relevant to the discussion.

And finally, the complexity is not needed. Let me be as simple as possible. Churches do god stuff, the god stuff they do takes money. They may do many other things, but they spend money on god stuff. The money to do the god stuff was donated, and that donated money was tax deductible. Therefore, less taxes where collected. That's it, that's all there is. It's not complex.

Now, you want to argue about them actually being charities. In order for that argument to stand, the church would have to spend all of its money on charitable stuff. Since it spends money on god stuff, some of the donated money is donated to do the god stuff. If it didn't do any of the god stuff, then it wouldn't be a church anymore, it'd be a charity. If all the tax deductions applied only to charitable things, not to religious activities of churches, less money would be tax deductible. My original statement was:

"they get special tax breaks that means my taxes are higher"

To which replied, in part:

"you are not paying for churches"

My statement is accurate.

Well I'm not sure if you're being satirical, but you've missed the premise on which intelligent design is based... again.

Intelligent design doesn't say "Hey, some of this stuff is too complicated for our current understanding, so all of our ideas must all be wrong and a superior being set it all up."

That's what people say who want to ridicule the theory or aren't bothered to give it thought... Intelligent design is this... The processes to create life and to sustain it are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied.

For example... Lets say my screen name at some point during my time on JJFP.com posts the preamble for the Constitution of the United States. What would you think? What would you say if I told you that I didn't do it... that it must have been my cat at home, he jumps on my keyboard all the time. What would your argument be what it couldn't possibly be my cat?

I actually do understand the premise of ID. Let's take your quote:

"The processes to create life and to sustain it are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied."

and make it more accurate:

"The processes to create life and to sustain it", as we currently understand it," are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied."

and now let's rephrase it the way a scientist would:

"The processes to create life and to sustain it, as we currently understand it, are so complex and specified, that it seems as though our current explanations of certain aspects of certain stages of life don't properly describe the real world. We must refined our concepts in these areas to properly reflect the new data."

So, yes, I was mocking ID with the way I described it, but my way of describing it wasn't that far off from the reality, despite how it's prettied up.

Now, as for your example:

"For example... Lets say my screen name at some point during my time on JJFP.com posts the preamble for the Constitution of the United States. What would you think? What would you say if I told you that I didn't do it... that it must have been my cat at home, he jumps on my keyboard all the time. What would your argument be what it couldn't possibly be my cat?"

Let's make it a little more accurate. It'd be more like this:

"Day 1: The screen name was a single character, it was not the first character of the preamble, so the login program deleted it. Day 2, same deal. Day 100, it got the character right, so it stored it. Day 101, the cat hit another key, so now you have a two character login, but the second character was wrong, so the program deleted that, but kept the first one. Day 102, repeat of day 101. Repeat this for hundreds of millions of years."

Edited October 24, 2005 by Schnazz

[JusticeKnight]

Heres the SIMPLE ANSWER:

THE UNIVERSE IS FAR TO COMPLEX TO COME INTEO EXISTENCE BY CHANCE....

THERE MUST BE A CREATOR.

Consider this illustration if you will:

If you were to walk up to a house in the desert that was full of food and water, and beatifully decorated, would you not assume that some one Built that house???

The Eath is the only planet that is inhabitable, it is the only planet with intelligent creatures and design.....

THINK ABOUT IT!!

evolution is the greatest SCIENCE FICTION STORY EVER TOLD.

because people actually believe in it.

[Schnazz]

The Eath is the only planet that is inhabitable, it is the only planet with intelligent creatures and design.....

Really? How do you know that? As far as I know, we've only discovered a few dozen of the billions and billions of planets.

Edited October 25, 2005 by Schnazz

[MaxFly]

You argue here that the "reactions necessary to create life" couldn't take place in extreme cold, but the argument in other places is that it's not none what reactions are necessary. Which is it? You seem to be thinking that the earth is static, it isn't. Ice freezes, melts, migrates, etc... Additionally, there are volcanic vents (talk about a heat source) that can/are involved. Even further, the concept of what environmental settings constrain life has been changed recently. The findings of organisms living in both extreme heat and cold, among other situations, has changed the old notion of life not being able to exist in extremes.

The operative word in that sentence is "reactions." By reactions, I mean chemical reactions where one or more atoms, molecules, or compounds interact, releasing or taking in energy to form new molecules or compunds. What I'm saying is that the necessary heat that would be needed as a catalyst for the reaction to start and to occur rapidly and repeatedly isn't even there to begin with when dealing with methane hydrate, further reducing the chances for amino acids forming and joining to create any meaningful proteins.

Also, even though ice does freeze, melt, and migrate, we're talking about an early earth that was cooling down for millions of years. It's highly unlikely that methane would be able to be trapped in ice on an earth that was in the process of cooling down from very high temperatures in enough time for sizable amounts to exist when life would have had to come about. You would have to push back the origin of life several million years to have life originating from methane trapped in ice. That would create even more problems for evolution.

You made a good point concerning organisms that can live in either extreme heat or cold; Archaebacteric for example. But it's important to note that while the organism is able to sustain itself even in these conditions, that has no bearing on whether it can be assembled in those conditions. Every organelle within that organism is aiding in sustaining it. The question is, if you could take parts out in a sort of backwards evolution, would these individual parts be able to sustain themselves. Would the first parts have even been able to be formed. We know what happens to proteins and DNA when there is too much heat... We know what happens when the necessary heat isn't present for reactions to commence and take place rapidly in cold regions as would be needed... and then we would need the proper gasses...

A 2% yield is very significant, especially when it's on a planetary scale over hundreds of millions of years.

Yes, but not impressive when you consider that the conditions were ideal. Conditions on earth would have to have been as ideal as these experiments, and we know that things weren't close to ideal on earth. Also, remember that these yeilds, even in a most ideal earth would be destroyed with heat and water and the processes would have to start and restart repeatedly.

Hydrothermal vents under water... This is what scientists have turned to as of late. The problem here is that too much heat destroys organic compounds, and too much cold will stymie chemical reactions, so there is only a narrow area between the warm and cold water where it would be suitable for chemical reactions to take place... The second problem is that chemical reactions tend not to like water... Water is the universal solvent and tends to disolve, or rather, disassociate molecules from eachother because of it's polar properies. Water is a huge, huge hinderance..

These constraints have been greatly revised as of late.

Which constraints have been revised? Water and heat still destroys and stymies the creation of simple organic compounds. Perhaps science has revised its notion of under what conditions living things can survive as you pointed out earlier, but as for the conditions under which organic compounds can be created and react with one another, that has remained unchanged.

What are you accusing me of lifting from a website? His quote? The fact that his theories are just a rehash of the watchmaker idea? Or that the watchmaker idea has been refuted? His quote was pulled from ~his~ website at the university where ~he~ works. That is a very legitimate place to get information from him. As for the rest, now this may surprise you, but I actually can think for myself. And I have a strong science background. And myself, the watchmaker scenario, the argument against the watchmaker scenario, and my learning of these things, predates the internet by some time. Irreducible complexity, even how it's explained in the quote, is a remake of the watchmaker scenario. As far as I can tell, the watchmaker scenario dates back to 1802 (slightly before the internet) from William Paley, who, incidentally, trained for the priesthood. The refutation of the argument comes both through logical arguments and theories on evolution. Evolution isn't just "survival of the fittest." It's who can propagate the best. There is nothing to say that a cluttered biology is worse, as long as that biology can produce a lot of offspring that survive to produce their own offspring, it's in good shape. That clutter can then become a breeding ground for evolutionary experimentation. Traits can be linked, so that some traits that cause better reproduction (and youth time survival) can be linked to other traits that are unneeded. A simplified example would be a very strong, dominant dog born with two tails. Those two tails do nothing to help the dog, but the dogs other traits allow it to reproduce anyway. Eventually those two tails could lead to something more complex, and ID folks would be scratching there head, saying "that couldn't happen."

Lol, I'm not accusing you of anything, but for the sake of argument, irreducible complexity hasn't been refuted. As in the example of the bird lung... we are talking about crucial systems that would have been unable to evolve through evolution.

Again you, like most ID enthusiasts, miss the point on these "scientists". Evolution is a broad field, an examination of any single, small aspect of it does not refute the entire field.

I never said you don't use mathematics in the study of evolution (or DNA in your case). What I'm saying is that the mathematician doesn't have the broad and subtle expertise, in chemistry and biology for example, to fully understand the ins and outs of what's going on. His study may be based on A, B, C, but he wouldn't even know about D-Z. Let me use your rational on the other side. I'm a "computer scientist" (well, I think I'm a programmer, but it makes me sound more important) I've done a lot of work in artificial intelligence, including some stuff with evolutionary code. So, by your rational, me supporting evolution should be very valid. ~My~ work has shown evolution can work, so all of evolutionary theory must be correct. But that's a ridiculous statement, I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, I just know the concept can work in a very limited, digital environment. Meaningful work must come experts in the major fields, perhaps with the aid of people in other fields. More importantly, that work must pass through the peer review process, by other experts in the major fields. Just because I'm a respected computer expert, it doesn't mean my theories on how to properly grill a steak are perfect.

You've certainly make a number of good points... but we're talking about processes that evolutionalists are saying have to have occured in a specific way. If you can show in whatever field you are in that a certain process is not able to develop or work out as evolutionists say it has to have worked out, you've sent them back to the drawing board at the very least. I'm not trying to say that mathematicians can completely refute evolution... but earlier, you discounted the field as irrelevant without knowing how the mathematician has come to support intelligent design.. I just wanted to point out that it is not a irrelevant as it would seem.

Fine, we'll up it to 20,000 (which, incendentally, is why I said my numbers weren't accurate), that way we'll be above the 11,000 personal donation. Why do you want to argue a minor detail that's irrelevant to the general discussion? The numbers don't matter, if 10,000 or 20,000or 500,00 is the cut off. My core argument is that churches receive tax breaks. And yes, they do receive tax breaks.

And yes, I've already agreed that I'd have to pay for charities as well, I never, not once, denied that. Why do you keep bringing it up? It's not relevant to the discussion.

And finally, the complexity is not needed. Let me be as simple as possible. Churches do god stuff, the god stuff they do takes money. They may do many other things, but they spend money on god stuff. The money to do the god stuff was donated, and that donated money was tax deductible. Therefore, less taxes where collected. That's it, that's all there is. It's not complex.

Now, you want to argue about them actually being charities. In order for that argument to stand, the church would have to spend all of its money on charitable stuff. Since it spends money on god stuff, some of the donated money is donated to do the god stuff. If it didn't do any of the god stuff, then it wouldn't be a church anymore, it'd be a charity. If all the tax deductions applied only to charitable things, not to religious activities of churches, less money would be tax deductible. My original statement was:

"they get special tax breaks that means my taxes are higher"

To which replied, in part:

"you are not paying for churches"

My statement is accurate.

You made a very good point about the "god stuff" but I don't think it's as simple as it would seem, and making it simple is where your point lies. There are additional results to taxing churches. Lets say churches were to soley focus on their "god stuff" and pay taxes, that still leaves the govenment or other charitable foundations to take on the responsibility of the other services churches provided. Your taxes would remain the same. If churches paid taxes and were able to maintain their other activities through increased donations, your taxes would be the same because people would contribute more tax deductible money to churches, and gifts or donations are generally not taxed at the same rate as income. The only way in which your taxes will be alleviated is if churches were taxed as businesses.

I see your general point, but I just think there is more complexity in the issue.

I actually do understand the premise of ID. Let's take your quote:

"The processes to create life and to sustain it are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied."

and make it more accurate:

"The processes to create life and to sustain it", as we currently understand it," are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied."

and now let's rephrase it the way a scientist would:

"The processes to create life and to sustain it", as we currently understand it," are so complex and specified, that it seems as though our current explanations of certain aspects of certain stages of life don't properly describe the real world. We must refined our concepts in these areas to properly reflect the new data."

So, yes, I was mocking ID with the way I described it, but my way of describing it wasn't that far off from the reality, despite how it's prettied up.

Well two things... From you scientific approach to the theory of ID...

it seems as though our current explanations of certain aspects of certain stages of life don't properly describe the real world. We must refined our concepts in these areas to properly reflect the new data."

In general, we know enough right now to say at the very least that the current model of evolution is inconsistent with much of the very evidence that is supposed to point to its validity, however it's still being taught in schools as fact and the inconsistensies are skimmed over if even addressed.

Scientists have also theorized that we may be missing out on a physical law that would show how evolution came about or that future scientific developments will explain more about how organic chemicals react. The truth is that there is no indication of any knowledge that we are missing concerning chemical reactions or the laws behind them that would make our current model of evolution viable. Evolutionists charge those who believe in ID as wishful thinkers, but it goes both ways.

Now, as for your example:

"For example... Lets say my screen name at some point during my time on JJFP.com posts the preamble for the Constitution of the United States. What would you think? What would you say if I told you that I didn't do it... that it must have been my cat at home, he jumps on my keyboard all the time. What would your argument be what it couldn't possibly be my cat?"

Let's make it a little more accurate. It'd be more like this:

"Day 1: The screen name was a single character, it was not the first character of the preamble, so the login program deleted it. Day 2, same deal. Day 100, it got the character right, so it stored it. Day 101, the cat hit another key, so now you have a two character login, but the second character was wrong, so the program deleted that, but kept the first one. Day 102, repeat of day 101. Repeat this for hundreds of millions of years."

Lol, I like your more "accurate" version. You added that the login program stores the correct character, but in saying this, you're alluding to the fact that nature has some level of specification... that it's disposed to producing life as the program would be disposed to producing the proper characters in order.

To make your scenario even more accurate, we would need to have the program wipe out all the work the cat has done at random intervals and start all over again... including the characters it has gotten right...

[Schnazz]

Now, as for your example:

Let's make it a little more accurate. It'd be more like this:

"Day 1: The screen name was a single character, it was not the first character of the preamble, so the login program deleted it. Day 2, same deal. Day 100, it got the character right, so it stored it. Day 101, the cat hit another key, so now you have a two character login, but the second character was wrong, so the program deleted that, but kept the first one. Day 102, repeat of day 101. Repeat this for hundreds of millions of years."

Lol, I like your more "accurate" version. You added that the login program stores the correct character, but in saying this, you're alluding to the fact that nature has some level of specification... that it's disposed to producing life as the program would be disposed to producing the proper characters in order.

To make your scenario even more accurate, we would need to have the program wipe out all the work the cat has done at random intervals and start all over again... including the characters it has gotten right...

Lol, good point, it would need to reset every now and then.

The thing I was alluding to in the saving of characters was that stuff dies if it's not mutated in the correct way.

[Schnazz]

In general, we know enough right now to say at the very least that the current model of evolution is inconsistent with much of the very evidence that is supposed to point to its validity, however it's still being taught in schools as fact and the inconsistensies are skimmed over if even addressed.

I would agree that the current model of evolution is doesn't answer some questions. However, the thing to keep in mind is that if you try to examine every species that has ever lived in the history of the earth, it takes a bit to understand it all. That is, this is a very complex subject. Considering the complexity, evolution does remarkable well at explaining a whole lot of what's observed. The lack of completeness in recovered fossils tends to be a major problem in understanding evolution fully.

Another issue, which you have pointed out, if not entirely accurately, is that it is not fully understood how initial life was created. This isn't a problem with evolution itself, this is a problem of 1 - lack of information about the time and circumstances of the initial spark and 2 - it's hard to create a good test that simulates a few million years of time in chemical reactions spread across the globe.

That stated, evolution does answer a LOT of questions, as well as makes solid predictions. And some of the things that it doesn't answer aren't "proofs" that all of evolution is wrong, it's evidence that we're still working on it. This is opposed to ID which doesn't make any predictions and doesn't answer any questions. (unless you count the age old "cuz that's how god made it" answer as a scientific answer)

[Schnazz]

A 2% yield is very significant, especially when it's on a planetary scale over hundreds of millions of years.

Yes, but not impressive when you consider that the conditions were ideal. Conditions on earth would have to have been as ideal as these experiments, and we know that things weren't close to ideal on earth. Also, remember that these yeilds, even in a most ideal earth would be destroyed with heat and water and the processes would have to start and restart repeatedly.

Granted, as a whole, the conditions where not as ideal (how ideal they where is still unknown). However, they don't have to be ideal, just doable. And not doable on the entire planet, just in areas. And also granted, the process would have to start and restart repeatedly. However, when you're talking about millions and millions of years, the odds get a lot better. And if the odds are one in a thousand, that doesn't mean it takes a thousand tries to do it, it still could happen on the first try. When you throw in the idea that there are, very likely, many, many earth like planets in the universe, the odds get even better that it occurs on one of them. Lucky us, we happen to live on the one that it happened on. Oh wait, somethings backwards there... ;)

[Schnazz]

What are you accusing me of lifting from a website? His quote? The fact that his theories are just a rehash of the watchmaker idea? Or that the watchmaker idea has been refuted? His quote was pulled from ~his~ website at the university where ~he~ works. That is a very legitimate place to get information from him. As for the rest, now this may surprise you, but I actually can think for myself. And I have a strong science background. And myself, the watchmaker scenario, the argument against the watchmaker scenario, and my learning of these things, predates the internet by some time. Irreducible complexity, even how it's explained in the quote, is a remake of the watchmaker scenario. As far as I can tell, the watchmaker scenario dates back to 1802 (slightly before the internet) from William Paley, who, incidentally, trained for the priesthood. The refutation of the argument comes both through logical arguments and theories on evolution. Evolution isn't just "survival of the fittest." It's who can propagate the best. There is nothing to say that a cluttered biology is worse, as long as that biology can produce a lot of offspring that survive to produce their own offspring, it's in good shape. That clutter can then become a breeding ground for evolutionary experimentation. Traits can be linked, so that some traits that cause better reproduction (and youth time survival) can be linked to other traits that are unneeded. A simplified example would be a very strong, dominant dog born with two tails. Those two tails do nothing to help the dog, but the dogs other traits allow it to reproduce anyway. Eventually those two tails could lead to something more complex, and ID folks would be scratching there head, saying "that couldn't happen."

Lol, I'm not accusing you of anything, but for the sake of argument, irreducible complexity hasn't been refuted. As in the example of the bird lung... we are talking about crucial systems that would have been unable to evolve through evolution.

Ah, I believe I have used the wrong word, refuted is no the proper way to describe it. It is unknown how, specifically, each instance of the watchmaker scenario came about. However, there have been many logic arguments against it (including Darwin himself, I believe). Even further, there are several theories that can explain how these systems come about, including the hijacking of parts I mentioned earlier. The point being, ID states that "some level of intelligence needed to be applied." However, there are other theories that can be applied that don't require some level of intelligence. Occam's razor was a pretty good idea, I think it should be followed when possible. :)

[MaxFly]

Granted, as a whole, the conditions where not as ideal (how ideal they where is still unknown). However, they don't have to be ideal, just doable. And not doable on the entire planet, just in areas. And also granted, the process would have to start and restart repeatedly. However, when you're talking about millions and millions of years, the odds get a lot better. And if the odds are one in a thousand, that doesn't mean it takes a thousand tries to do it, it still could happen on the first try. When you throw in the idea that there are, very likely, many, many earth like planets in the universe, the odds get even better that it occurs on one of them. Lucky us, we happen to live on the one that it happened on. Oh wait, somethings backwards there... ;)

While it is true that the odds do get better over millions and millions of years, we're talking about development from scratch without predisposition or specification. Even the millions of years don't put much of a dent in the odds.

And when you add all the earthlike planets, you have the same problem with specification that we do on this planet. The odds may be even better yet, but still insignificant in the scheme of things.

Edited October 25, 2005 by MaxFly

[Schnazz]

Granted, as a whole, the conditions where not as ideal (how ideal they where is still unknown). However, they don't have to be ideal, just doable. And not doable on the entire planet, just in areas. And also granted, the process would have to start and restart repeatedly. However, when you're talking about millions and millions of years, the odds get a lot better. And if the odds are one in a thousand, that doesn't mean it takes a thousand tries to do it, it still could happen on the first try. When you throw in the idea that there are, very likely, many, many earth like planets in the universe, the odds get even better that it occurs on one of them. Lucky us, we happen to live on the one that it happened on. Oh wait, somethings backwards there... ;)

While it is true that the odds do get better over millions and millions of years, we're talking about development from scratch without predisposition or specification. Even the millions of years don't put much of a dent in the odds.

And when you add all the earthlike planets, you have the same problem with specification that we do on this planet. The odds may be even better yet, but still insignificant in the scheme of things.

That's a bold statement, considering that it isn't even known how many stars there are, let alone how many earth like planets there are. 70 sextillion and counting...

[MaxFly]

Ah, I believe I have used the wrong word, refuted is no the proper way to describe it. It is unknown how, specifically, each instance of the watchmaker scenario came about. However, there have been many logic arguments against it (including Darwin himself, I believe). Even further, there are several theories that can explain how these systems come about, including the hijacking of parts I mentioned earlier. The point being, ID states that "some level of intelligence needed to be applied." However, there are other theories that can be applied that don't require some level of intelligence. Occam's razor was a pretty good idea, I think it should be followed when possible. :)

Occam's Razor is used by a lot of atheist who argue against the existence of God, assuming that we can explain everything without adding the existence of an intellegent designer as such can't be observed by the senses or through empirical evidence. The point of intelligent design is that though science may not be able to solely prove the existence of an intelligent designer, it certainly doesn't prohibit nature from pointing to the existence of an intelligent designer.

[MaxFly]

That's a bold statement, considering that it isn't even known how many stars there are, let alone how many earth like planets there are. 70 sextillion and counting...

Most of the planets we have found in other solar systems are giant gas planets revolving around stars in close and speedy orbits. That's not to say that there aren't any planets like ours in the univerese. However, it is not that we have any evidence to back up the theory that there may be other earthlike planets with an atmosphere capable of sustaining life... we're confident based on probability...

Isn't it ironic that we're basing scientific theory on probability...

Edited October 25, 2005 by MaxFly

[Schnazz]

Ah, I believe I have used the wrong word, refuted is no the proper way to describe it. It is unknown how, specifically, each instance of the watchmaker scenario came about. However, there have been many logic arguments against it (including Darwin himself, I believe). Even further, there are several theories that can explain how these systems come about, including the hijacking of parts I mentioned earlier. The point being, ID states that "some level of intelligence needed to be applied." However, there are other theories that can be applied that don't require some level of intelligence. Occam's razor was a pretty good idea, I think it should be followed when possible. :)

Occam's Razor is used by a lot of atheist who argue against the existence of God, assuming that we can explain everything without adding the existence of an intellegent designer as such can't be observed by the senses or through empirical evidence. The point of intelligent design is that though science may not be able to solely prove the existence of an intelligent designer, it certainly doesn't prohibit nature from pointing to the existence of an intelligent designer.

Yes, Occam's Razor does get used frequently in that regard, often inaccurately. The point of bringing up Occam's razor is that it's a pretty good idea to exaust our ideas on some given topic before throwing up our hands and saying "the creator(s) did it." Evolution is far from exausting it's ideas.

That's a bold statement, considering that it isn't even known how many stars there are, let alone how many earth like planets there are. 70 sextillion and counting...

Most of the planets we have found in other solar systems are giant gas planets revolving around stars in close and speedy orbits. That's not to say that there aren't any planets like ours in the univerese. However, it is not that we have any evidence to back up the theory that there may be other earthlike planets with an atmosphere capable of sustaining life... we're confident based on probability...

Isn't it ironic that we're basing scientific theory on probability...

Yes, the irony is very entertaining. Though, while there's no proof of another earth like planet, there's at least some proof of the existance of life.

Also, the probability of the two cases is rather different.

Edited October 25, 2005 by Schnazz