Victory for evolution in Texas

[spursncowboys]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

[ElNono]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[21] Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[22]
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[23]

From Specified Complexity

[Leetonidas]

I don't believe in evolution. And I called and asked my mom if I'm a stupid and she said no.

She's probably a stupid too, and so are you. You're welcome for the confirmation.

Evolution is definitely true, you can see it in nature, I don't see how any idiot could deny it unless he's a bible thumping dumb who believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago and God made the first female out of a dude's rib

[baseline bum]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/sc...evolution.html

In his opinion, the judge said he found the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, very persuasive. She had presented evidence that the authors of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People, merely removed the word "creationism" from an earlier edition and subs uted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

[Blake]

lol. I think I've seen you provide and source information a grand total of once, but whatever. We've had that discussion enough.

My sourcing information once in this thread was enough to show you are full of . That's what this discussion is about. lol.

[Blake]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

lmao intelligentdesign.org

[fyatuk]

My sourcing information once in this thread was enough to show you are full of . That's what this discussion is about. lol.

Stating you did a google search isn't even providing information, let alone sourcing it.

That is why I don't take you seriously. You'd never take that sort of statement from anyone else and demand a much higher burden of proof for others than you do yourself. Makes me laugh.

[RandomGuy]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Intelligent Design = Creationism

If you believe this isn't the case, as you seem to be implying, you have bought into a lie, and a rather thin, cynical one at that.

The when the ID people were attempting to make that claim in an actual court, the judge didn't buy it, because of the direct statements of the IDers themselves.

It is a very cynical attempt to put a thin veneer of secularism on a very religiously-based set of arguments.

The Wedge, a fund raising do ent from the Center for Science and Culture that set forth the group's "Governing Goals":

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

"An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism"

(full pdf of that decision here)
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/73

These people have every motivation to lie to fence sitters, and have provably been lying when they attempt to claim that it isn't, because their own words that clearly state their intentions, when brought out at an actual trial made that abundantly clear.



http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/in...miller-v-dover

It goes on:

1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the
editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the
Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.”
(11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390).

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at
705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other
scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion cons utes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

What does it say when they say one thing publicly, and a completely opposite thing to sympathetic insiders?

[spursncowboys]

She's probably a stupid too, and so are you. You're welcome for the confirmation.

Evolution is definitely true, you can see it in nature, I don't see how any idiot could deny it unless he's a bible thumping dumb who believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago and God made the first female out of a dude's rib

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it hasn't been proven or factual. I guess anyone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent. Way to show, not only your intelligence but your ability for respectful discourse. The fact that you are so unwilling to even discuss the factual basis of the THEORY of evolution just shows you are no better than the "bible thumpers". You are also an idiot for assuming I called my mom for confirmation. However if it was just to use an excuse to make a personal attack - then good job. Very witty. Your cowardly attack for no reason is definitely a help for your cause. Your entire post shows that you not only did your homework on the topic, but that you have something to add to the discussion.

[RandomGuy]

One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html


Testible indeed.

It has failed every test.

We have yet to find anything that is "irreducibly complex", because every time an ID "scientist" latches on to something they think fits the bill, like the flagellum, actual scientists test that item and find, to no one's real surprise, that it is indeed the sum of many incrimental steps.

Not only has everything that was "irreducibily" complex not been "irreducible", the evidence found when looking at the item *reinforces* evolutionary theory, because it identifies the evolutionary pathways that one would expect.

What does one do in real science with a testible hypothesis that never pans out?

[LnGrrrR]

Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

Like?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it hasn't been proven or factual.

It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I don't mean that in a legal sense or anything, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

The only way one can conclude that it hasn't "been proven" is if one hasn't done enough reading, no offense, or if one simply wants to believe, despite all this evidence, logical argument, and testible evidence, in creationism.

Evolutionary theory has been used to make a lot of testible predictions about observed phenomena that have panned out. The predictions that didn't pan out always, in the end, supported the theory, because they hinted at some new or misunderstood mechanism of evolution.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

Hmm. I had missed that too Lngrr.

Please give a specific example of "some things".

Sounds an aweful lot like irreducible complexity.

(please say bacterial flagellum... oh please....)

[LnGrrrR]

Yet if you ask our forum agnostics... most of them likely consider the depravation of our society's 'moral fabric' as progress...

I can't even count how many logical fallacies you crammed into that short sentence. Bravo.

They are blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society...

*wringing hands pitifully*

not that they care, because they seem to be content with a society that harbors and condones unnecessary abortions, the legitimizing of the sexual lifestyle, rampant drug use, the increase in the spread of STDs, an increasing suicidal rate, the loss of innocence at far younger ages, an increasing disdain for authority, vulgar and crass vocabulary, and the general lack of respect for others, etc

In order:

Define "unnecessary". Unnecessary to who?

sexuals are legitimate. Sorry your book says otherwise.

Define "rampant"? And humans have been using illicit substances since Adam and Eve. Wasn't that apple a mind-altering substance?

I don't know anyone content with an increase of STDs, or suicide rate.

Define "loss of innocence".

Disdain for which authority? Yours?

Vulgar and crass vocabulary... ok, fair enough. I don't really care if you swear, as long as you do it in the right settings.

Microevolution = adaptation ~ micro-speciation... <-- These processes can be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence we find to support them is rather extensive...

Yes...

Macroevolution = Class Speciation... <-- These processes cannot be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence to support them is built on speculative and observational conjecture...

What "proof" would you accept?

Few experiments (such as Richard Lenski's) are structured to look for proof that the derivation of new genetic code can provide biological advantage, but even his experiments start and end with the same species (no speciation observed)... Furthermore, his findings cannot conclusively state that new code (and a new function) was not already hard-wired within the genome of the E.coli strains he was reproducing... in other words, the premise that new, advantageous code can be developed from mutation alone cannot be conclusively stated until he can trace the exact mechanism which produced the new code... fortunately for his team, he still has the E.coli cultures prior, during and after the genotypical change (i.e. the 'mutation') so that he can identify, isolate, and retrace the mechanism... the scientific world will wait until he does...

It's hard to provide proof when you don't have a way to fast foward a few million years. This experiement is a decent proxy though.

Evolutionists still have to contend with the little problem of abiogenesis from which life itself began in their GOD-less universe (considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise)...

Again, you stuff such a short amount of logical fallacies into small areas. It's impressive.

Evolution can stand on its own, with or without abiogenesis.

And one can always believe that we were created, but not by God (say aliens, for instance.)

Of course, it's impossible for life to have just appeared, but the same rule doesn't apply for any omnipotent beings.

of course, short of contemplating a multiverse with infinite probability (using the constants in Drake's equation) can they overcome the infinitely low probability that the ad-hoc creation of life's genetic molecules (DNA/RNA precursors) could occur from scratch... they resort to working with undefineds in order to justify their beliefs... I would liken that approach to faith... yet they will always deny that this is the case...

Because that isn't the case. If I called you a hamster and you denied it, I wouldn't say that you have "faith" that you're not a hamster.

Folks here can flaunt their intellectual independence all they want... they can claim that they have it all figured out... they can exclude and mock GOD in the process...

I'm sorry you feel that anything that runs counter to what the Bible says is an insult.

Don't you all tire of rehashing this tired subject once a quarter?

Whatever... to each their own... I'm out.

You don't, why should we?

Nice drive-by.

[LnGrrrR]

Evolutionary theory has been used to make a lot of testible predictions about observed phenomena that have panned out. The predictions that didn't pan out always, in the end, supported the theory, because they hinted at some new or misunderstood mechanism of evolution.

See! That proves that it's just a "theory" and not TRUE science, because they can just make up a new "mechanism" whenever the facts don't fit!

[Blake]

Stating you did a google search isn't even providing information, let alone sourcing it.

The sources I found in the google search confirmed enough for me that your statement was bull .

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&h...w=1366&bih=587

the number references to "God's own image" meaning "free will" was rather weak......nearly non-existent.

That is why I don't take you seriously. You'd never take that sort of statement from anyone else and demand a much higher burden of proof for others than you do yourself. Makes me laugh.

Your bull in this thread has made me laugh. Thanks.

[fyatuk]

The sources I found in the google search confirmed enough for me that your statement was bull .

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&h...w=1366&bih=587

the number references to "God's own image" meaning "free will" was rather weak......nearly non-existent.

See that works better than "I did a google search." Not that I'll bother looking at it anyway

Your bull in this thread has made me laugh. Thanks.

Works for me. If I'm entertained, and you're entertained, then I'm accomplishing what I set out to do. I've said it before, message boards are for entertainment purposes only

[Wild Cobra]

Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.

TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a mutation.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.

What happens with GATTAGA?

[Wild Cobra]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

[ElNono]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

Talking about questions, a couple of posters asked you to back up your contention. Whenever you have a minute...

[fyatuk]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

Of course not. No one's really interested in an honest, open-minded discussion of the subject, so no one is going to change their mind.

[ElNono]

If what you're looking for is changing opinions, you're missing the point.

A lot of us made up our minds about this stuff a while ago (i.e.: I had my catechism classes when I was growing and realized they're FOS). Not that certain events and discoveries might not sway my opinion on the subject, but the bar is set a lot higher than the stuff brought up here. I mean, over half of the people here criticizing evolution started complaining that "it doesn't explain where things came from". That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of what the evolution theory attempts to solve.

If anything, some people got informed...

[LnGrrrR]

Of course not. No one's really interested in an honest, open-minded discussion of the subject, so no one is going to change their mind.

Which discussion are we talking about here? Religion or evolution?

I've had some decent discussions on religion here. I think most discussions on evolution don't go anywhere, because unless you're a scientist, you're using the internet to back up your words. And if you don't believe in evolution by now, links off the internet probably won't sway you.

[fyatuk]

If what you're looking for is changing opinions, you're missing the point.

A lot of us made up our minds about this stuff a while ago (i.e.: I had my catechism classes when I was growing and realized they're FOS). Not that certain events and discoveries might not sway my opinion on the subject, but the bar is set a lot higher than the stuff brought up here. I mean, over half of the people here criticizing evolution started complaining that "it doesn't explain where things came from". That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of what the evolution theory attempts to solve.

If anything, some people got informed...

Quite true. I know my own opinions on the subject were formed from a lot of research, meditation, and introspection, so there's not really any sway room there.

And yes, trying to combat a theory by going out of bounds of that theory is a faulty strategy. Personally, I find it odd that someone would even refute evolution after all these years, even if they believe in God.

RandumGuy and LnGrrr, and a couple others brought in some interesting information, but there's not even much of that in this thread (which is fine with me, since I still had my fun).

[fyatuk]

Which discussion are we talking about here? Religion or evolution?

I've had some decent discussions on religion here. I think most discussions on evolution don't go anywhere, because unless you're a scientist, you're using the internet to back up your words. And if you don't believe in evolution by now, links off the internet probably won't sway you.

I've never had a good religion discussion with people I haven't spoken to in person before. I've had plenty of excellent discussions and debates on the subect in person. I had a couple JW's come by every week for a while to discuss it, even though they gave up on converting me

And I've never seen an effective discussion on evolution when any party disagrees with it. The discussion just completely devovles.