Evolution VS Intelligent Design

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There is no way to disprove the "theory" of intelligent design. It is untestable. You can't adopt it as a scientific theory because there's no way to see if it's right.

[CarolAlynn]

I know i already said that!

 

Anyone posting you dont need to explain the theory of evolution to me . I UNDERSTAND IT AND BELIEVE IT.

[Phi for All]

Exactly that is my point we dont know, which means we should not rule out any possiblity unless conclusive evidence can disprove it.

Science can only measure natural phenomena. A designer who chooses to be unobservable is, by definition, supernatural. You are certainly free to not rule out any possibility but science has boundaries on what it can measure.

 

This is the reason ID is not a scientific theory. Certain parts of it can't be tested at all, therefore it can never pass the kind of rigorous scrutiny science demands.

[doG]

Exactly that is my point we dont know, which means we should not rule out any possiblity unless conclusive evidence can disprove it.

 

Nothing is ruled out but, some ideals are beyond the realm of science so science needn't bother with them.

[mooeypoo]

Excuse me, but the poll makes no sense. Agree with what? There's no controversy in the scientific community. Evolution is proven and supported. Intelligent Design, and the "controversy" that it "raises" is an invention of the ID proponents for the sake of political advancements.

 

What is the poll asking?

 

I know i already said that!

 

Anyone posting you dont need to explain the theory of evolution to me . I UNDERSTAND IT AND BELIEVE IT.

 

Uhm... where.. is the question, then?

 

The entire point of the ID "controversy" is that the people who claim it do not know evolution. They claim they do, but they don't. They use the same claims over and over again, making blatant straw-men while they're at it, because they can't quite disprove evolution any other way.

 

Evolution is well supported in science. From biology to links in fossils - there are no missing links, each fossil we find only puts more and more support into the theory.

 

So.. if you understand and "believe" it (uhm.. I wouldn't quite call it 'belief' when it's such a structured and well founded scientific theory, but I can accept that term, I guess) - where, exactly, is the question or problem?

 

~moo

[Reaper]

I should also add that there has never been any peer-reviewed papers on ID. In fact, nobody who supports it has even suggested a way for it to be falsified; they are basically selling it to the general public hoping that anyone will be gullible enough to buy into it. With the way our mass media does things, it gets a bit tricky for the general public to sort out the crap.

 

 

In short, ID is not science. Not now, not ever. If you want a quick debunking of ID, you should check out Simanek's pages here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm

 

and read talk origins:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

Read this part more carefully:

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic' date=' fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. [b']So evolution is both a fact and a theory.[/b] See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory.

 

 

I suggest you read the links before you respond again.

 

 

===========================================

 

 

It really isn't about "open mindedness"; that's just an irrelevant appeal on your part. It's really about whether or not it has/can pass rigorous peer-review.

 

 

And, it isn't about abiogenesis; that's outside the scope of evolution (although, we do have a pretty good idea now about how life could have arisen, WITHOUT the need for a supernatural explanation, or otherwise...)

[CarolAlynn]

I would never try to disprove evolution, My point was actually directed more to those who theorize about intelligent design and the fact that if they choose to believe it it doesnt mean they cant also accept evolution.

[Reaper]

I would never try to disprove evolution, My point was actually directed more to those who theorize about intelligent design and the fact that if they choose to believe it it doesnt mean they cant also accept evolution.

 

 

Again, please read the links, the first link in particular. It's about the fact that ID isn't science. Don't respond until you have read and understood the info given.

 

We are not playing "burn the heretic" here, despite your accusations. We are trying to get you to understand that ID isn't science, and that all of it's premises are mostly flawed. At the very best, it is wild speculation, but that's as much credit as I can give it.

[mooeypoo]

I would never try to disprove evolution, My point was actually directed more to those who theorize about intelligent design and the fact that if they choose to believe it it doesnt mean they cant also accept evolution.

 

Actually, I disagree. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. I think you might be reffering to abiogenesis and evolution, and though I, personally, don't believe in God, I can see how someone could believe in a creator AND still not ignore evolution.

 

Still, though, ID is bull. It's also not representative of religious belief -- there are religious folk who dismiss ID and accept evolution; the theories cannot be supported together: One states speciation is NATURAL and one claims that speciation is NON-Natural. That's contradictory.

 

I see what you're saying, I just disagree.

 

 

Also, we should really separate the theory of the ORIGIN of life to the theory of evolution, which is the CHANGE of an organism (leading to speciation, etc). ID proponents LOVVVEEEE linking the two, because it creates a nice straw-man they can then disprove. But evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. It speaks only about the *change* of life forms.

 

~moo

[CarolAlynn]

maybe you should read a bit i already said i was no longer going to even call what im talking about intelligent design, its not a science it cant be tested in the lab but that doesnt mean it cant be real

 

I agree the theory of evolution, if we can even call it a theory anymore, should be seperate from the origin of life. Darwin himself admitted he was never really sure about how life began and that he was merely speculating about the subject. Darwin as many dont know in private letters wrote that he would be very open to any proof that would suggest design.

[mooeypoo]

maybe you should read a bit i already said i was no longer going to even call what im talking about intelligent design, its not a science it cant be tested in the lab but that doesnt mean it cant be real

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

[CarolAlynn]

What if humans never were part of the ape family, we were just really hairy humans who looked as apes do now.

 

your a moron if you think that just because science can prove it means its not real.

[Reaper]

maybe you should read a bit i already said i was no longer going to even call what im talking about intelligent design, its not a science it cant be tested in the lab but that doesnt mean it cant be real

 

Well, now you are shifting goalposts, because that's not what you claimed earlier. This is what you initially claimed:

 

My general idea is simple! Is it not possible that Intelligent design, that is the creation of life by intelligent means ( I have no idea what it is or could be, the possibilities are endless and mind boggling ) could incorporate evolutionary process. In other words life was created and meant to evolve and form on its own.

 

While i already understand that intelligent design theory has not been able to produce lab results, I also know that mathematics is a very real thing, and Intelligent Design theory definitly has the mathmatical evidence..........

 

and

 

 

 

 

I know evolution answers a lot of questions and is a very real process' date=' it happens every day, [b']but i am trying to point out that there could be other explanations as to the development of life on earth.[/b]

 

and

 

Exactly that is my point we dont know' date=' which means we should not rule out any possiblity unless conclusive evidence can disprove it.

[/quote']

 

 

Those quotes clearly suggest that you believe that ID is a valid scientific theory, while we have shown you otherwise.

================================================

 

 

It's fine if some people want to believe it, but again, it's not science, and it's doubtful that it's even representative of reality in general.

 

What if humans never were part of the ape family' date=' we were just really hairy humans who looked as apes do now.

[/quote']

 

There's boatloads of evidence and physical features that suggest otherwise.

 

your a moron if you think that just because science can prove it means its not real.

 

 

Troll alert.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[CarolAlynn]

that last post was a joke i dont think we were just hairy humans , i was trying to have a friendly what if conversation to begin with and every single person attacked me.

 

People Can Stop Telling Me That Id Isnt Science I Already Said That Myself

 

Oh and to the question about the pole im sorry about that, i was just playing around and trying to figure out how everything here works, im new so... sorry again.

[Reaper]

that last post was a joke i dont think we were just hairy humans , i was trying to have a friendly what if conversation to begin with and every single person attacked me.

 

We are mean attacking the idea. The main strength of scientific peer-review is to pick theories apart and poke holes in them. If it can stand on it's own merits, then it becomes a plausible conjecture. Ideas only become theories when there is physical evidence to support it.

 

It is not a conspiracy against you, but thanks for the rigor you used to come up with that conclusion, and for not bothering to actually read the links provided.

 

People Can Stop Telling Me That Id Isnt Science I Already Said That Myself

 

If you understand this, then what is the problem? Just concede the whole debate then.

[CarolAlynn]

ok well then if you know everything in ID is flawed maybe you can clear some things up for me. some scientists who have studied the cell call the parts of the cell machines because they work just as human machines do, how do you understand such things as the flagellum motor? I just want to understand these things

 

The debate wasnt about whether ID was science or not is was about the fact that it doesnt necesarily have to disprove evolution.

 

even if its not real and its some guys imagination of Jesus in the clouds, it still doesnt have to disprove evolution. that was my main point and what i wanted to discuss. although no one would discuss it with me so i guess i will just have to give up.

[MrSandman]

You know what I'm going to say is off topic like usual, but here I go.

 

Matter had to be created. There's no other explanation, now, How? is another issue, but irrefutably matter had to be created.How else could it come into existence? Something had to be nothing before it became so. Atleast to our knowledge something had to come from something, so where did the first something come from? Mind boggling, only a fool wouldn't think so.

[CarolAlynn]

oh and i did read the links thanks, they were great and completly missing the point!

 

well that was a mind blowing insight matter had to be created i couldnt have guessed, if you have no interest in what i was actually talking about why are you posting

[Reaper]

Alright then, here is material on how things like the Flagellum motor have evolved, for starters :

 

oh and i did read the links thanks, they were great and completly missing the point!

 

How so? They address the point quite nicely. And we addressed every single one of your points. You just chose not to believe them. We can only show you the material and debate the points, not make you believe them.

 

 

 

Regardless, this is a science forum, and as such all ideas must be scientifically valid. If you can't stand the heat, then don't start a debate. This is a put up or shut up basis.

 

 

 

 

And I will have to ask you to be patient the next time, I have other threads that are worth my attention too you know.

 

 

Anyways, here are some more videos regarding evolution, and how they explain biodiversity (while debunking ID at the same time and clearing up misconceptions):

 

 

 

Matter had to be created. There's no other explanation, now, How? is another issue, but irrefutably matter had to be created.How else could it come into existence? Something had to be nothing before it became so. Atleast to our knowledge something had to come from something, so where did the first something come from? Mind boggling, only a fool wouldn't think so.

 

Yes, Mr.Sandman, this is off topic. This is about the validity of ID, not about how matter came into existence.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[MrSandman]

I'd just like to put some thinking comprehension. The topic your attempting to discuss is more complicated then your mind can fathom. No one is ever on the same page.

Scientists have discovered homeobox genes that regulate the development of certain parts in animals. If you take one homeobox gene from one animal and replace it with that of a homeobox gene from another organism the organism will not be mutated, yet develope normally. An evolutionist can say it must mean they all share a common ancestor. Creationist can say they all share a common creator.

Both sides are pretty much helpless, but science being discovered because of evolutionist and creationist's battles is extrodinary. Homeobox genes can be provened useful in treating malformed fetuses. I hope your mind can grapple what Im getting at.

[MrSandman]

There you go...I love the evo vs. creation dicussions they are potively mind boggling always. Do you see how the creationist can use discovery of homeobox genes as god's finger print right? Really I think this question of ID or CA(common ancestry) will always be debated untill Evo or Creats die off.

[Reaper]

There you go...I love the evo vs. creation dicussions they are potively mind boggling always. Do you see how the creationist can use discovery of homeobox genes as god's finger print right?

 

I can see how or why they would do that, but it doesn't make it right. This is pretty much the same slippery slope fallacy that you see in all creationist and ID "theories" (they are not theories actually, but I'm not the one who names the ideas...)

 

Really I think this question of ID or CA(common ancestry) will always be debated untill Evo or Creats die off.

 

Well, that's the thing. There is no controversy at all, among scientists and among educated people.

 

 

The only "controversy" there is, is between people who are unwilling to accept the fact that ID and creationism is not science and the fact that they want to stuff religion down our throats. It isn't scientific movement at all, despite their claims; it is in reality a religiously motivated political movement. That's why they sell their ideas to the general public, rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature and journals. Hoping that some out there, especially the politicians, will be gullible enough to buy into it.

 

 

It's fine if they want deny reality to hold on to their faith, but then that's religion, not science.

[mooeypoo]

I completely lost your point, CarolAlynn, you keep moving the goal post and changing your claims.

 

Plus, you said this:

ok well then if you know everything in ID is flawed maybe you can clear some things up for me. some scientists who have studied the cell call the parts of the cell machines because they work just as human machines do, how do you understand such things as the flagellum motor? I just want to understand these things

 

and then you state this:

oh and i did read the links thanks, they were great and completly missing the point!

 

Bzz.

Obviously, you haven't read the links, as they are answering these well known (FAAAR from 'new') claims.

 

These "flagellum" and cell claims are repetitive ID claims that evoution explained a long time ago. ID Proponents just ignore the answers.

 

 

Uhm.. what, exactly, is your point? I think we are beating around the bush for the past few (hm) posts, because we answer a question you then change..

 

~moo

[iNow]

There are 12 chapters in this special to which I've linked below. If you are serious about learning, please take the time to watch it all the way through. I think you will be pleasantly surprised and that it will clear up much of your confusion and questions.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[mooeypoo]

There are 12 chapters in this special to which I've linked below. If you are serious about learning, please take the time to watch it all the way through. I think you will be pleasantly surprised and that it will clear up much of your confusion and questions.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

 

Oh my zeus I was SOOOO looking for that program, Thanks iNow! I heard about it when it came out but it wasn't yet available online.

 

Awesomeness

 

Thanks!