Intelligent Design Creationism

[@badideass]

Creationism - psuedoscience at its best

[@OnSafari247]

Evolution....the funny monkey religion....at its best.

[@badideass]

@@OnSafari247 Evolution doesn't qualify as a religion,... Your ignorance is showing..don't you care about your education?? Obviously not

[@OnSafari247]

@@badideass Evolution is nothing but a religion. Considering there isn't a shred of evidence for it, it's not even a good religion. Without hesitation I would say evolution is the most anti-scientific religion on earth. The spaghetti monster is more scientifically plausible than the funny monkey religion.

[@badideass]

@@OnSafari247 if Evolution was a religion it would be the only religion that's a fact and supported by Science. Unfortunately Evolution is a Scientific fact and does not qualify as a religion. Nice try though, I can tell you "really" tried to understand Evolution

[@badideass]

@@OnSafari247 you should care more about your education

[@madgeordie4290]

Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.

[@loricalass4068]

Those who support evolutionism and atheism too often try to paint a stereotype of creationists as being low I.Q. science illiterates. Such people are smugly sure that THEY ain't religious. (Like me in the past when I called myself an atheist.) But they are. Profoundly so. Why? Because they have great...faith...in what is never seen and is even what is impossible. Yet they flatter themselves that they are way smart, and all about science, while feeling sure that creationists have nothing but an Imaginary Friend. . Let's look at just a few of the imaginary friends and myths from evolutionism and atheism. . First there is the belief in the imaginary time fairy friend. Evolutionists promote the idea that life can come from inorganic matter. (And don't say they do not. It's easily found all over Google and on YT. Who came up with the mythical primal pond theory? Creationists?) When it is pointed out that life only comes from life and life of the same kind they respond "Well, with enough tiiiiime, anything can happen. We have...faith...therefore, that things happened differently in the conveniently unverifiable past." . They have faith, too, in their imaginary crystal ball friend that sees into the unverifiable past. For ex. they will pick up a fossil from a rock and tell you what happened to its invisible and evidenceless descendants for over 100 million Darwin years. They also talk about "missing" links, more of their imaginary friends. Don't bother to ask how you tell missing links from never existed links. They have...faith...that they are just "missing." . Next we see the imaginary Geologic Column friend that "supports" evolution. The real evidence shows the fossils are jumbled. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chili. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops, as with the world's highest, the Himalayans. Take a look. www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&FORM=IGRE . Those are the fossils of extinct, ocean bottom dwelling, trilobites. They, and other marine fossils found with them, are often in stunningly well preserved, and beautifully detailed, condition. We are told "plate tectonics" moved those deep sea creatures all over the world, in unbroken, vast sheets of concrete in the billions onto the world's mountain heights in such great shape. That's fine.... If you don't believe in erosion and admit you believe in miracles! . "Cambrian" fossils, like those trilobites, are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places on the planet, high and far, inland. Now why do we see evidence of sea life all over the planet at every level? And, how did all that sea water get everywhere? Hmmmm.... And btw, oceans don't, and can't, create fossils. Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried - so that animals can't eat them and natural forces can't erode them and the chemistry of fossilization can take place. There are no fossils anywhere in the oceans, or even after such things as local floods and tsunamis. . Next, there is the imaginary Family-changing fairy friend. Put a Species of any Genus of fish, bird, lizard, tree, bacteria, whatever, under your Darwinian pillow. Voila! Over an evolutionary "night" it will change into the next step up in the Animal or Plant Kingdom, i.e. a different Family. However, in the real world of trillions of life forms, and throughout recorded history, eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, tulips stay tulips, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, chimps stay chimps, fish stay fish, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change. . We never, ever, see any evidence of a life form transitioning from one Family to another. Since all the evidence shows that never happens all around us with life forms, you just have to have... faith ... that it somehow happened differently in the unverifiable realm of the ancient and conveniently invisible past. . With no evidence of any Family transitioning to be another kind of Family, there is no evidence for evolution. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from any Order, Class, Phylum or Kingdom.) It's just that simple. . Then there is the supremely imaginary god-friend of nothingness. Richard Dawkins and others tell us that everything came from nothing. This defies the laws of thermodynamics and physics, not to mention common sense. But their imaginary friend, the nothingness god, sells big time to those who want to believe they can be their own, puny, little gods. . Are you willing to take a serious and open minded look outside the box? If nothing else you can hear what the creationists are really saying, not the spin about what they are saying. . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Are you aware that more and more blood cells, blood vessels and soft stretchy materials are being found in dino bones? Forensic science and common sense tell us such things could not last for more than a few thousand years. Go to Genesispark to see ancient art depictions of dinos from around the world. My fave is the stegosaurus carved on a 1,000 year old Cambodian temple. That site has lots of info on soft tissues and blood cells being found in dino bones, and historical reports of dino type creatures, including some from the famous historian Herodotus and from Alexander the Great. All information is gleaned from secular sources. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ . See Don Patton's The Fossil Record and many others. In this link he uses the fossil record to place evolutionary and creation predictions side by side. You can see for yourself what the real record of the rocks shows: .kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKLTZKKEfreVb5I . Thomas Kindell's vids are great, especially Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation where in the first 10 min. you hear quotes from well known evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2LcpaJmYt9lmLM . Wazooloo vids, particularly The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution and So Ya Think Yer A Chimp, and the DNA ones, are full of scientific fact presented in an often humorous way. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5u0paSdaN6soM0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4uro5avbdFsmbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6q1mqSFe86Cfpo . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzbin.info/www/bejne/anmoo6CmarWtp9k . Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys gives scientific evidences for why people believe in a young, yes young, earth. Check it out and see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qomclneKg8uEfrs Part 1 And regarding the speed of light "problem", there are many unproven assumptions about light. It was always assumed, for instance, that the speed of light was constant. Since last century, various secular scientists have been saying it is slowing down. However, here is another perspective. We have found that space, as in outer space, is stretchy. Several times in the Bible we are told that the Almighty stretched out the Heavens. This would mean the light from stars got stretched out, too, thus creating a false impression of distant time for light travel. . Answersingenesis.org covers just about everything . You are not a goo through the zoo ape update. You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you. Why are you trading in those astounding truths of who you are for pseudoscience fairy tales and imaginary friends? Rhetorical Q.

[@captaingaza2389]

Answers in genesis Hahahaha i.e. Pull nonsense from the deepst darkest depths of my arse and present it as fact Hahahaha Yes, that pretty much sums up AiG hahahaha

[@netelsg]

If Eve was created by God from Adam rib, was Eve DNA the same as Adam DNA?

[@iainrae6159]

@@loricalass4068 Could you kindly inform us when your 'loving ' God instantly created a) humans An approx date, within a few thousand years is fine. b ) the earth c) dinosaurs d ) the most distant galaxies in the famous Hubble deep field photograph. My daughter is doing s school project on creationism/ intelligent design beliefs . Many thanks

[@boglerun8444]

@@loricalass4068 'You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you.'...that is an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence....& not just some drivel from a scripture verse from a book of dubious origins.

[@campdon]

My point exactly. It is Dr. Pennock who makes the comparison between the mechanisms of evolution (living things) and his computer simulations. I'm glad we agree on this point at least.

[@robertj.simpson354]

Don't forget to remind yourself that the appearance of design is not design. The most exquisite design is not design. Design, no no no no; the appearance of design is not true design. Just keep on reminding yourself of this because it is not possible that what appears to be designed actually is designed - design can't really just be what it is, design!

[@J450b]

+frankos rooni Nope - he is talking about the amazing intricacy of life, the language in DNA, the perfect climate and orbit of the earth, the working of single cell organisms to be able to convert food and use it to reproduce themselves and much much more. Just simple accidents. You know. Definitely not design or anything. Don't you worry they are all mistakes. Nope, even if it looks designed it definitely can't be. That would be too logical.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Robert J. Simpson You're an uneducated moron. We have WATCHED, in REAL TIME, information being produced by random processes subjected to automatic selection, BOTH in computer simulations of Evolution, AND in animals through only a few dozen generations when we sequenced their genomes. Your supposed creator never showed, did nothing, and doesn't exist. How do we know? When we mathematically analyzed the changes in each generation due to random mutation, we saw that they were ALL EXACTLY RANDOM!!! You're an idiot.

[@Chris-zd8cs]

If God created everything, the snowflake is a result of design.

[@Detson404]

Show your designer. If all humans died today, there’s be plastic shards and radioactive isotopes as evidence we were here, and those would last for millions of years. Find the same for god.

[@frogster777123]

What a great presentation - regardless of which side of the fence you sit on. This guy spoke really well, he's obviously an expert in his field and yet he made his talk very accessible. Very interesting, thank you for posting.

[@ICEDMX1]

Once the "hook" of a con is generally known, the con artist has to reinvent his modus operandi or, move on to another hustle. The meat of religiosity is, at least in this day and time is money and control.

[@benthemiester]

cont...No one argues that minor variations or adaptations could not occur, only that gradualism is not what we see and punctuated equilibrium raises more questions concerning phenotype than it answers, not to mention that it turns Mendelian recombination genetics on its head.

[@doublejake1]

I absolutely HATE ad hominem arguments.... but while I won't accuse the poster with the username "Angela Pearce" of actually being a fool, he/she is spouting foolish ideas. A moment's thought would give the lie to "intelligent design." As unintelligent as Angela is, he/she might have done a better job of designing the human body than nature did. Were I to have designed the human body, I would had left out wisdom teeth that cause us trouble and have to be removed in adolescence. I would have designed different tonsils that don't infect so easily. I would have left out the appendix that has no purpose except to kill people before surgery was invented. I would have designed heart arteries that wouldn't clog as easily and heart valves that were stronger, less prone to leakage, and in no need of replacement with man-made parts. I would have certainly designed a better nasopharynx -- why on earth would an intelligent designer make it possible for us to choke to death on a morsel of food because our airway crosses the food pathway? ANYone redesigning the body would have two separate and discrete paths so we don't get food in our trachea (or lungs). I would have designed a better method of transmitting heredity than DNA that is subject to random mutation and the cause of congenital anatomic and functional malfunctions. The list goes on and on and on about poor design features, from the shape of our feet (a poor but evolving adaptation to bipedalism) to the way our pancreas works. Evolution explains every poor design feature of every living organism; if the was a designer at all the designer was much less intelligent than Angela, which is saying a lot. "Intelligent design," my aching foot.

[@ibrahiymghany4996]

Ur foolishness is not laughable but sad to say the least

[@marbanak]

This is an old tack. "It's not intelligently designed, because I wouldn't design it that way." With a sufficient knowledge of all the facts, your protests will evaporate. Here's a start: The appendix, which you indict, does have a purpose. You can look it up. Other complaints vanish, when you confess that you are looking at de-evolution. And given mankind's behaviour, you can count on even more de-evolution.

[@vaahtobileet]

@@marbanak googling "de-evolution" immediately reveals it to be a bunch of bullshit. Mankind's historical behavior has pretty much nothing to do with evolution, evolution works on a much larger timescale than what we really know about humanity.

[@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00]

@@marbanak If we were intelligently designed, why do we have earlobes? Why do we have muscles in our head that do nothing but wiggle our ears? Why are some people born with extra tailbone?

[@marbanak]

@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 It would be enjoyable to engage you on this, but the online forum is time-consuming, and it doesn't lend itself to lively dialogue. Here's what I can give you for now: I acknowledge the questions you pose are good ones. And for each one I could answer, you will surely have more. Rather like a king-of-the-hill scenario, where my efforts will consistently fall short. The intelligent design thesis is a quest for evidence of design. It cannot, at present, discern the intent of the designer at all points. One approach to your battery of questions, is to assume it is designed, and then see if a purpose can be discovered. We are in for a long ride. I would recommend humility and inquisitiveness to anyone watching this subject unfold. When the human appendix was found to be functional, and when the "junk DNA" was found to have function, those, who were shooting spit wads from the peanut gallery, had to backtrack. There's more to come. Let's stay tuned.

[@nickabeta]

@Bereitwilligkeit -side note- Evolution (biology) only refers to life changing over time and not the appearance of life in the first place (ambiogenisis) or the start of the universe (cosmology - big bang) so you´re argument is directed at the wrong theories. That being said… "I’ve designed and seen designed ..." for this argument to be valid requires a demonstrated link between design (human) and nature. This is the subject of discussion so the argument is circular. Dawkins words (cont)

[@underdonkey5]

diverging from science for a moment.. I have also been very interested in religion, and involved with many religions. What I see is that many people have spiritual feelings, and organised religions tell you 'if you feel like that, so do we.. but you have to believe all this other stuff too'. The truth is, you don't. We are free to change our mind, reflect on our experience and compare it what we are told.

[@jarrettludolph6000]

How can people deny evolution with lectures like this.

[@OnSafari247]

Agreed, clearly such a stellar presentation proves that all life on earth descended from a single common ancestor that spontaneously popped into existence in a puddle of shit 3.8 billion years ago.

[@walkergarya]

@@OnSafari247 Lie.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

_Creationists_ refuse to accept logic. It's a disease.

[@walkergarya]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Agreed.

[@boglerun8444]

@@OnSafari247 '...puddle of shit...' ..that's organic!

[@nakedapedude]

@Bereitwilligkeit I love how you quote scientific research that you think backs up your argument while at the same time having absolutely no idea what the scientists are talking about, it's hillarious, every time!

[@johniec5282]

My " theory" is that most of the individuals and organizations promoting this inanity, as the judge put it, are doing it for the money involved in this religion and creationism business.

[@underdonkey5]

ok.. quick course on process of evolution: 1. Within a species there is genetic diversity and occasional mutation (of genes). 2. Species adapt to an environment, because genes that code for characteristics more suited for the environment allow those individuals to reproduce (competition within the species). 3. Members of a species that are separated (e.g. continents seperate, or by isolation due to eg mountain range or islands) adapt to slightly different environment and diverge (genetically)

[@b991228]

Teaching the controversy is acceptable. The only requirement that it first become a theory established with years of scientific professional testing and peer review.

[@garywalker447]

there is no controversy. Evolution is FACT, creationism is crap.

[@ozowen5961]

@@garywalker447 However the post has a good point. There could be a controversy if ID did the work to become a Theory. But that would mean testing and challenging their own hypothesis. But they will not do that.

[@garywalker447]

@@ozowen5961 They won't do that because they know their "theory" is pseudoscience.

[@len9505]

Jim Mauch isn't speaking of ID, he's speaking of another truly scientific theory that doesn't yet exist. If there was a theory, that meets his qualifications, then controversy would be reasonable.

[@EricZombie]

And the word shall be truth. I respect a guy that can quote himself to prove himself!

[@BeauLeeman]

Thanks for your comment. As you know, the Dover v Kitzmiller ruling was in two parts. Referring to the .pdf doc (Google dover, jones & decision), I'll make a few points. Jones cited prior court cases to show where Creationism violated 'church & state'. He then, via testimony, was able to establish that ID was in fact, Creationism. Not that I agree, since ID entails much more than was presented in its defense, but I'll abide with his decision regarding the Board's actions, (1st part of ruling)

[@sombodysdad]

Judge Jones was fooled by the lies of the plaintiffs. He was also fooled by a literature bluff.

[@stiimuli]

@monitor301 semantics aside, evolution is not in violation of the third law of thermodynamics. Even if it was, given the massive amount of discoveries in the fields of biology, paleantology and genetics that indicate evolution in such detail, such an idea would more likely point to a misunderstanding of the second law than a problem with evo.

[@livardo]

Dude, this is the best comment I have ever seen in a discussion about ID.. ever!

[@underdonkey5]

Saying evolution cannot be observed is like saying gravity cannot be observed, only the things gravity acts on.Like gravity (the laws of which are still being investigated by scientists due to inconsistencies)evolution explains an enormous part of the way organisms interact and their forms. Evolution is going on today, but many scientists believe most evolution occurs following large environmental changes or mass extinctions(as new niches in the environment are opened up for species to adapt to)

[@Machdude]

Of course no ones said outside factors are not part of the control over a decision. I forgot to mention one key aspect of free will, it is how you choose to see it. In reality, the true act of free will would require you to have complete understanding over the situation. If there were any act that would waver a person to make said choice, they would only be acting on the illusion of free will. If this was to be a viable proof, the circumstances would have had her convert without said depravity.

[@wildreams]

"This is a battle of the presuppositions by which we may explain the evidence. And it's won by not allowing any opinion but your own." No one says you can't have your own opinion though, but when someone deliberately lies, use false logic and other dishonest means to bring forth their "opinion" that is contrary to evidence, we have a duty to educate the public. In science, u are free to have any opinion, but bad ideas that contradict evidence will just be disregarded and ridiculed.

[@walkergarya]

Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)). …and… ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation

[@BeauLeeman]

"What are the merits of ID?" I meant it not in the colloquial sense of "Superior quality or worth, excellence," but more the legal definition of: "The factual content of a matter, apart from emotional .. considerations" From USLegal, "Merit is a term subject to various meanings, but in the legal context, merit refers to a claim which has a valid basis, setting forth sufficient facts from which the court could find a valid claim of deprivation of a legal right" So essentially, 'a valid basis'

[@BeauLeeman]

For those unfamiliar with retinal function, and glial cells in particular, Google "Müller cells: Natures fibreoptics" Now mind you, there is an article by Creation Ministries, which is obviously a religious website, but which does not render the Müller/ glial discussion religious. I would suggest reading all/ most of them for a balanced purview of retinal function. Google 'webvision retina' for more. The 'eye' args for a designer predate the Roman Empire, but are even more viable today.

[@stiimuli]

@Bereitwilligkeit The quote you're using is a favorite on creationist websites that attempt to use selective science (often misenterpretted quotes) to disprove science that conflicts with their faith. If you read the full letter to the editor from which this selective quote was taken, its clear that Ross agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law, because it receives a continuous input of energy from the sun. That is why there are no known violations.

[@wildreams]

If you are interested with Darwin's personal philosophical view on evolution, this is what he said, not as a scientist but as a philosopher, not everybody share his view though, but i certainly do: "There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

[@campdon]

You could do this yourself by checking with wikipedia. Scientists: Kenneth Miller, Francis Crick, Henry Schaefer, John Polkinghorne Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo. In the Arts and literature: T.S. Elliot, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien. Jonathan Edwards, John Adams, Soren Kierkegaard. No statistics, MrUhre, but a pretty good starting list. And some that may surprise you, Kenneth Miller, for example.

[@piusvapor]

@petmensan simply because "everyone believes what they wish to believe" is no reason to quit trying. The pursuit of the truth is always a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of what everyone believes. I personally have never liked books written for the "layman", they are usually insultingly sensational with a philosophical agenda towards controversy; This does more for book sales and little for enlightenment.

[@underdonkey5]

Well, thanks for the conversation, and thanks PatchesRip too, you had some well presented comments. Happy christmas/winter solstice to everyone :D

[@ArcanaKnight]

CONT You also still run into the other problems noted earlier: 1) There isn't enough water to cover the world; even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 60 meters. 2) There is no evidence of a global flood in the ice cores or tree rings. 3) There are no traces of such a flood on the sea floor. 4) Such a flood would have caused the polar ice caps to have floated off their beds and broken up.

[@ultradevon04]

@1tabligh Basic elements are produced in stars and then heavier element are produced in super nova explosions. With all we know about physics and chemistry, these are the best explanation for the origin of such element. The fact that we have evolved intelligence is irrelevant to the origin of existence. IMO existence has always existed in one way or another. We are just describing the nature of existence or at least the portion that we experience.

[@underdonkey5]

it has been consistently shown that complexity can arise from simple rules e.g. in (self-evolving) software programs and in game theory (behavioural strategies)

[@underdonkey5]

When PatchesRips (who is obviously a scientist) and I talk about science, these are not 'ideas we have had' or 'our interpretation of reality' unless we state so. These are tested and analysed theories that there is enormous evidence for. We are working within a stated logical structure. Your argument is not within a logical structure, so you may as well argue that man and woman were created from trees by Odin (Norse creation myth) and say if we don't believe it, its because we don't understand.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

We do not require "knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe" to understand parts of it and its processes. You migrate to the extreme, requiring "total knowledge" where you realize perfectly well that is unrealistic as a standard. If you can't make an argument based off of the realistic, yet still stringent, standards that even the top scientists work from, then you can't expect to make sense or gain the respect of your fellow debaters. All natural processes can be understood.

[@BeauLeeman]

"Lastly, ID is not investigated, it is hypothesized." I never said it was a theory, nor have I in my last ten years of writing on the subject. ID is a hypothesis based on 'design inferences.' Evolution is a theory, but a complex one, with more than one mechanistic function. Natural selection is also a hypothesis, and its validity rests on what it selects from. Random mutations have NOT been show to produce novelty, and are thus falsified for -macro alterations. Adaptation, yes. Speciation, no.

[@benthemiester]

I would be more than happy to try and answer your questions about Lucy and others. Those are actually good questions that should be asked, however I'm not sure I want to waste my time explaining, when you so easily waved off the piece about the museum curators with out any specific evidence concerning the names mentioned. Nobody was sued for libel when this book was written. The experts mentioned were honest enough to speak freely concerning the lack of quantifiable transitional fossils.

[@ArcanaKnight]

CONT Besides, not only is it inappropriate to teach ID in science class because ID just isn't science, but high school students don't have the foundational knowledge of biology that would be necessary to evaluate the evidence and determine whether something is valid or not. This is the same reason why its also not left up to high school students to evaluate new ideas in physics, chemistry, or mathematics.

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

You can't argue with observable intelligent design. It will always be there and it will always be observable, the whole three billion digits worth of information that no object or static force can account for.

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

People who spout nonsense make more money because there are more people who believe nonsense than believe the obvious truth of their Creator. Me, I would much rather have a clear conscience knowing and speaking the truth no matter what the the truth is valued at by people who believe nonsense. You can't pay me to speak anything but the truth because having a clear conscience is priceless.

[@underdonkey5]

NB. the contribution Dawkins made to science was popularising the fact that selection really works on GENES rather than individuals i.e. mates select for traits reflecting good genes (good skin, shiny hair, nice teeth.. indicative of health), animals tend to protect members of their family or group first (genetically similar) etc. HOWEVER this doesn't lead to eugenics..

[@ScientificalnessUSA]

Conjecture is important as one can't revise, invent, innovate, improve upon, or correct without imagination.

[@mrbadguysan]

There's actually several possible answers to your verbose question. 1) Taken literally, there shouldn't be one, because an earnest investigation of creationism will reveal it for what it really is: A Philosophy of Ignorance. It would be hard to argue that knowing this wouldn't be a benefit. 2) From what I think you mean to say: Survival is imperative for all evolved creatures. If your perception of the world is flawed, survival is more difficult. Creationism is a flaw in perception.

[@DarthServo]

This post is such a beautiful description of creationists.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

Evolution is also the original "theists against science" approach, and thus required protection via legislation. We are not in the habit of legislating what science is right and wrong, that isn't how scientific theories advance or die. IDers were looking for a case like Dover via the organization that supported the religious intervention. They knew it would happen somewhere, and they planned to use it to get a positive note for ID in classrooms. Then they failed miserably.

[@robertj.simpson354]

+francos rooni What I was getting at is that human beings are exquisitely adept at distinguishing between actual design and everything else. There are virtually no naturally occurring phenomenon that are mistaken for design by a designer when, in fact, the phenomenon of interest is due to purely natural process(es). We can be confident that, apart from training ourselves to ignore our instinctive capacity to detect true design through the inculcation of and repetitious chanting of the evolutionary mantra that all life forms are but mere instantiations of "apparent" design, when we detect design, it really is design. Crystals and snowflakes are typical examples invoked by evolutionists as

[@asix9178]

*Why all the hub bub about whether life is designed? Of course it was designed!!!..... by physics & chemistry. You're welcome to call life designed, good luck proving your invisible magician exists to design something.*

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Robert J. Simpson Not when it comes to life, when brainwashed with creationism they will PRETEND they do. But things that replicate themselves are TOTALLY DIFFERENT than ANYTHING they normally experience in the way of design. We can WATCH life replicate AND watch it change AND DESIGN ITSELF to adapt to the change in environment, we can sequence their genomes and WATCH THEM CHANGE, UNDESIGNED!! Till you learn how this happens and WATCH IT DO IT, you're no more than a DUMBASS!! Go to college and take a course on Evolutionary Genetics, AND PASS IT, or you're a moron babbling in the dark!!

[@rainbowofhazes]

Agreed, also please lets keep in mind what a theory is; its an idea that explains the observations done, explains why we see these observations and predicts what else we should see if the reasoning of the theory is correct. ID does not comply since it contradicts the fossil record hence it doesn't explain observations. It just lets people who like to have faith over fact try to rationalize their viewpoint which has been proven wrong for centuries.

[@BeauLeeman]

A correction to a Pennock remark: Pennock cites Wm Dembski quoting the then president of IRAS, which Pennock then labels a 'pro religion group'. Michael Cavanaugh [35:22] "[ID] is totalitarian religious thought." but then adds (misquote), "This is not the kind of religious Christian view that we really want to hold." Cavanaugh now has a site called religiosnaturalism, where two of his 'top ten books' are 'Why Would Anyone Believe in God" and "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality"

[@wildreams]

And even if there are certain details that scientist do not have a clear understanding of in our evolutionary history, it doesn't necessarily lead to the collapse of the entire theory. And it also does not discredit the other parts of the theory that were established with greater certainty. Like common decent.

[@campdon]

Probably a good idea. We don't seem to be making sense to one another. The theological discussion was a digression anyway. The focus was intelligent design. I was hoping by way of the reference to Dr. Pennock to get us back to that.

[@BeauLeeman]

If you mean Behe, Day 11: " ... as I tried to make clear in my testimony, findings accumulated over 140 years that support the contention that Darwinian processes could explain complex molecular systems total a number of zero." He wasn't denying there were papers, but of the fact that they supported the fact (essentially proved) that Darwinian processes proved macroevolution, to paraphrase. That's not lying, just questioning their content. And NO citations were provided from those docs.

[@BeauLeeman]

The 'Pandas and People' edits (1989 edition) were to comply with 'Edwards v Aguillard', where 'Creationism' was deemed religion, and unteachable. The author felt that 'creation events' were designed events, and that the change in terminology was justified. While I agree that Davis and Kenyon appeared to integrate religious tenets ("various forms began abruptly ... fish with fins" et al), which would correspond to a 'poof scenario', have nothing whatsoever to do with ID in its current synthesis.

[@benthemiester]

I have been debating people for years on this subject and there is always one reaction that takes place when a person starts to realize that science offers no refuge for unscientific beliefs, and it manifest itself in name calling and reverting back to childhood instincts.

[@classicalsteve]

Barring the extremist leadership of the Creationist movement, I think that most creationists still miss the point. It is not that Creationism/Intelligent Design can't be taught. They can be taught in a religious history/social studies class in the public schools or in a religious school that can teach whatever religious persuasion it wants to propagate. But public schools cannot and should not favor religious beliefs within a scientific context. It's separation between church and state.

[@underdonkey5]

apologies.. you may have all noticed - I wasn't quite sure how the youtube thread works and I have put some in the wrong place!

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

They failed miserably in the scope of this trial. Obviously people still question, but the simple fact is that it is not a debate. Science is not "to the best debater the spoils." It is not a democracy or popularity contest, and no favortism is handed to theories. It is established by evidence and study via the self-correcting process of the Scientific Method. I never said "Dover was about the kids." Its academic integrity, & a monetary loss is motivation for other schools to behave.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

Yes, every field of science has questions it has yet to answer. In layman terms, "gaps." However, this does not equate to the biased view of 'gaps' a theist might like to use to vaguely insert his preferred deity. Some questions are fine details, some are overarching issues, but the process by which we gain information remains the same. That there is always more to learn is the first step to scientific study. Filling such questions with supernatural assumptions gains us no new knowledge.

[@underdonkey5]

until these two populations are unable to reproduce (with fertile young)... the creation of seperate species. Important points: i. species generally try to AVOID competition (because rather than compete for the same resources, it is more energy efficient to use another resource or live in a different environment). Thus, species numbers have INCREASED over geological time. Species occupy different 'niches' ii. PREADAPTATION is required for most evolutionary processes e.g. feathers were originally

[@underdonkey5]

Species has gained some meaning in popular language, but in science a species is defined as not being able to produce reproductive young.. so those 2,900 species cannot inter-breed. 'Mosquito' is an english name we give them, but in science different species will have a different latin name, so we can understand that they are actually different. The importance of not being able to inter-breed, is that if one develops a +ve selective trait (through mutation) it cannot be passed to another species

[@benthemiester]

The best thing we can teach is science in the science class room. Francesco Reddi and Louis Pasteur proved empirically and scientifically that living things come from only other living things. To teach anything else is conjecture. Sometimes its ok to say we just don't know. Were working on it, but again we just don't know. The problem with the fossil record is well known even evolutionist like J Gould said we have to stop bullshitting ourselves. The subject is vast you need to do your homework.

[@BeauLeeman]

It's only an "ideology" if 'faith based' [" 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class or a culture. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs ... "]. Id is no such. For an up-to-date definition, go to "New World Encyclopedia" + "Intelligent Design" The design 'hypothesis' is based on biological organization, complexity, synergy of systems, and aesthetics (not 'beauty', a subjective feature), but symmetries that would offer no repro advantage.

[@benthemiester]

In 1980, Paleontologist and Curator at the British Museum in London, Colin Patterson had the horse series removed from the Museums display, and Dr. Raup had eohippus removed from the horse series display at the Field Museum in Chicago. Pressure from dogmatic evolutionists forced Dr. Patterson to reinstate the horse display at the British Museum. Biele 2006

[@LanceCady]

1. It is just as true as the KJV. The wording might be a little different, but the sentiment is still the same. 2. If something cannot be removed, then it can also be said to be fixed. If something is fixed, it does not orbit. 3. "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." KJV Ecclesiastes 1:5 "and hasteth to his place where he arose." Think about that one. That specifically states that the sun moves around the earth.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

The problem lies in the idea that one can legislate reality. The US is *very* legally based, behavioral wise. This leads people to believe that whatever passes through the courts is the "truth." Passing regulations that put "warning stickers" in science books gives them an empty victory, we know that, but it is a victory for the personal beliefs of that group, and not for what is real or scientific. And the courts do not always protect what is right... it often passes what is popular.

[@ArcanaKnight]

@TheThumper49 For the record, that "distinction" is absolute bunk; ID is just creationism that was put through a word-replace in an attempt to get past the no-teaching-creationism-in-schools ban. ID proponents may dance around specifically saying the word "god", but they do so with a wink and a nod; everybody on both sides knows its what they really mean.

[@johnlewisbrooks]

But one of their biggest industries is commercial fishing. After all, they're right next to a large body of water, which is interesting because Tyre was built this time about 20miles further inland.

[@underdonkey5]

you are correct to say many 'scientists believe', is not a justification. I mean 'many scientists believe, based on the weight of scientific evidence and testing' that puncuated evolution occurs. If you are using this criteria for my argument, it is only fair to use the same criteria in your argument.. many religious people believe=bat guano. Please present YOUR arguments

[@underdonkey5]

'The Book of Q' by Burton Mack is an excellent book (by a historian) on early christian origins. I am weary of this argument Bereitwilligkeit, as you won't change your mind regardless of the evidence provided to you. You have to realise that the theory of evolution is utilised on a daily basis by almost all biologists (including me) on a daily basis, and without it, much of our current understanding of the world would just not make sense. It provides a superb model of how biology works.

[@caramandunga100]

Many people feel the same: the writer Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of Nuclear Physics, compares the chances of the universe and life have arisen by chance at winning the lottery three times: "Before we can collect the third ticket awarded, we'll go on his way to jail for cheating. The possibility that someone wins three times, are followed or in the course of a lifetime, is so small that it is discarded as insignificant. "

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

The pronouncement is not "a creator does not exist." A scientific, realistic statement is "there is no evidence that a creator exists." People may personally adhere to the first statement, but the second is scientific. The problem lies in that you believe these two statements to be freely interchangeable, which they are not. To be specific, there can be no "prejudice" in the scientific statement. Whats more, you refuse to admit to your OWN prejudice, which is blatently obvious.

[@nakedapedude]

the word macroevolution is a creationist invention, it is sometimes necessary to use it when discussing evolution with a creationist like you who apparently believes in microevolution (small changes within an as yet undefined "kind") but not macroevolution (small changes adding up to large changes over time) your creator is not required, we have perfectly good naturalistic explanations for the diversity of species we see in the world, magic is not required and is in fact a non answer

[@Ozzyman200]

Fossil records so perfectly fit evolutionary predictions. No one else has provided any other plausible explanation for them. The DNA evidence overwhelmingly shows science was right, not creationism. It shows nothing about intelligence, only nature. How do you explain ERVs then, without Darwinian evolution?

[@robertj.simpson354]

+francos rooni evidence that the instinctive design-detection that inheres to human beings is fundamentally error-prone, thus unreliable. But this canard is easily refuted by considering the two basic attributes of true design: specificity, a property of the patterns created by snowflakes and crystals; and complexity, which the latter two lack. Specified complexity are the two properties of any entity that human beings can innately intuit to distinguish actual over against apparent design. In fact, "apparent design" is a misnomer since, as in the case with biota, we confidently know design when we see it.

[@IaintNoGood]

The key word in that definition is "factual". In the context of this issue, what is factual & what is not is driven by philosophical/theological disagreement. It is subjective & cannot be quantified by ID. The same goes for your attempt to make this about how minutiae within the legal system, has been used to misreprent the claims of ID proponents. "Valid basis" & "sufficient facts" are also subjective termonologies based on philosophical/theological presuppositions. Face it Jones got it right

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

Just be glad that our existence is still viable 6,010 years after the initial spoken directives even though our environment has become inhospitable. We are not what we used to be but at least we are still living and that is something to be grateful for. We can't even make a phone that is viable for more than a few years and does not become obsolete.

[@stephengaddis9791]

From my experience, usually creationists, like on Answers in Genesis are promoting The Genesis Flood as an explanation for the geologic record. I don't believe that the intelligent design crew does this. They simply raise the possibility that things appear to be a design.

[@acspicer]

Because they already got their ass handed to them in the Scopes trial and knew they had to water down their bullshit to try to get it through.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@acspicer Not the Scopes trial. The anti-evolution side won that case, legally. I think you mean the Edwards v. Aguillard,

[@pokermaster54]

@purpose2life "building has to have a builder." You're relying on intuition. Intuition is based on daily experience. And science has proven over the years that when we use intuition to assume things that are outside of daily experience, we are often wrong. Maximum speed during free fall is 120 miles per hour. Sound travels at 761 miles per hour. Science taught us that the earth orbits around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. Intuition made us believe that the earth is still.

[@caramandunga100]

First of all, what is meant by "well regulated"? Take for case the intensity of the fundamental physical forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear interaction .* The four act on all objects in the universe and are adjusted and balanced with such precision, that the slightest change end the existing life

[@drumrnva]

Evolution theory has explanatory power. We are still in the early stages of observing & learning about our world. What I said still stands-- even if someone really brought evolution into doubt, that would provide zero evidence for intelligent design. It's not a binary, either/or world. The way that life started could well be something we can't yet imagine, but a process of descent with gradual changeis evident fact, whether we call it "evolution" or something else.

[@underdonkey5]

you are correct.. abiogenesis has little to do with the theory of evolution. The evidence for abiogenesis is much weaker than evidence for evolution. Evolution can be observed in the way that e.g. skeletal structures with all vertebrates are related. Genetic adaptation to environmental conditions is easily observable in experiments with species that reproduce quickly (fruit flies and bacteria). The Galapogas islands show how species have diversified for their habitat and become different.

[@underdonkey5]

designed for insulation by ancestors to birds, and then birds gradually adapted to flight (explaining why some features of flight feathers are unrelated to flight (Buss et al, 1998)). Common misconceptions: - that evolution is a progression(evolution is simply adaptation to a changing environment) - that humans are the top of evolution(homo sapiens have only been around for 200,000 yrs.T.Rex was around for 3 million yrs,horse-shoe crabs have been around for 445 mill yrs, some bacteria even more.

[@BeauLeeman]

You guys are hung up on semantics. I'll rephrase: My central point is that ID is a valid pursuit, is science based, and is evidential based on Irreducible Complexity (which may be redefined), synergy of systems (a new hypothesis), and aesthetics (re: symmetries only). These proposals merit further study. (This time I used 'merit' as a transitive verb, is that OK with you guys?) ID as science is in its infancy, is NOT Creationism, consists of a valid forensic pursuit, and will not go away.

[@mikedunn7888]

I agree (almost) with the Christian Loonies on one important point! There IS an 'after life' that IS miraculous and wonderful! ...I was made from the stuff of ancient stars and sometime after i die, I shall return the stars...to the miraculous and wonderful source of my being! I expect nothing more! And it will happen regardless of how I lived or whatever religion or philosophy i followed during my journey through this very short life I am living...with great joy, I might add...as an Atheist!

[@ArcanaKnight]

@Patience1138 Its not just about the freshwater adaptation to occurring and become ubiquitous, but every single freshwater fish species would also have had to have evolved from those first freshwater fish since then. I'm also going to need the source for your claim about major changes being measured in short periods.

[@CrimeEnjoyer]

Because finding out where we came from is one of the most important tasks for our species, I would think.

[@BeauLeeman]

Scientists accept Darwinian evolution because of Darwin's predictive explanation, AND because they would rather not deal with the possibility of other intelligences. They say that supernaturality rules out ID, BUT ID d/n propose 'magic'. It doesn't define the means of design/ creation, but I, as an ID proponent, predict that it is via genetic coding alterations (genetic engineering). Gene tweaking can be done by chemical, laser, or insertion (gene sequence added) means, a form of validation.

[@ArcanaKnight]

@davnxs "nothing exploded and that created everything" That's the big bang theory, not evolution; its also a mischaracterization of what the BBT actually says. Increases in information, by any meaningful definition of the term, have been observed to have evolved. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, and novel genetic material, novel genetically-regulated abilities.

[@ArcanaKnight]

@davnxs Yes, I actually watched that video before I even posted that last response. I can even give the sources which support every one of the four instances of increased information being observed to evolve that I mentioned if you'd like, though I doubt it would make a difference either way; you've shown repeatedly that no amount of disconfirming facts or evidence will ever be able to sway you from your beliefs because when cornered, you'll just invent some reason to hand-wave it away.

[@underdonkey5]

You ever seen a graviton? The particle of gravity has not been directly observed. Gravity is measured by measuring the force it exerts. Evolution rates are measured by rate of molecular changes in DNA or rate of change of traits. I hold to punctuated evolution, but it doesn't mean it stops between mass extinctions.. the environment and competition changes (ecology is dynamic). Some scientists still hold to gradual evolution, but not many.

[@underdonkey5]

I agree with Patches, that a literal interpretation of the bible is not necessary to be spiritual, or a christian. Evolution does not disprove god any more than finding that the earth goes around the sun does. In spiritual matters, is it more important what we believe or what we do when we act from our hearts? I have met cruel christians and cruel athiests. I dont think our spirituality is contained within our belief systems, but within our basic compassion for each other.

[@Sundaysunny2]

@Mr88playmaker I strongly agree with you and understand your view.

[@Ozzyman200]

OK, well it's good to hear that you're not a YEC. ERV evidence does indeed support common ancestry, which was a point I was making to YECs. Those are the ones that are hugely far out. You and I do not disagree hugely. You have chosen a very watered down version of creationism, which is not silly, but is ultimately unscientific.

[@Ozzyman200]

Well, that's precisely my point. You see DNA is complex, you assume inteligence. You acknowledge that you can't demonstrate this, which, frankly, is very telling. Scientific principles can always be demonstrated. There's simply no necessity of intelligence behind something complex even if it's very complex. If you define information to be from an intelligent source, then you must demonstrate that DNA is information.

[@ElectrasolAdvanced]

let me say first....I AM a highschool drop out. I AM 28 years old. I AM a father of three. And I know that I was built from the Father of ED. The fact that you can read this comment proves my main point. I can wrap my mind around that. Can you??

[@benthemiester]

The dino to bird hypothesis in itself is just one of many educated guesses. I have nothing against propositions or extrapolations however, they require empirical evidence. My skepticism of macro evolution is based on years of personnel research and taking into consideration the arguments of both sides. I just happened to have come to a different conclusion than the consensuses. The fact remains that major animal groups appear abruptly according to the fossil record.....

[@len9505]

Would like to hear more from you. Birds didn't arise abruptly - neither did any of the other tetrapod groups.

[@dcieniuch]

Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Isaac Asimov

[@benthemiester]

@NoAntecessor You never gave a response to the specific emergent systems I mentioned, instead you gave a strange they answer without specifying what they is. I was speaking of chemicals being able to produce living phospholipids with proteins, not inert dead fatty acids that decay and are simply semi permeable membranes that succumb to entropy. Szostac is very familiar with this problem. You need to be more specific.

[@BeauLeeman]

If we agree up to a point, it would be that there is *some* evidence of design (even Dawkins aludes to "apparent design"), and that one interp would be intelligent input at certain points to genomic coding. If we exist as intelligences, it is a viable possibility that others exist as well. I don't regard bioforms as 'life', but rather as vehicles for sprit entities, which we ourselves are. This is based on OOB experiments I have done in my 20's. But It's not a position I am pushing, however.

[@stiimuli]

@monitor301 "Wouldn't absorption of solar radiation (a phenomenon with a high level of disorder/entropy) for creation/propagation of highly ordered biological systems be an overall loss of entropy?" Decreasing entropy in one area of a system is offset by increasing entropy in other areas within the same system. In fact some scientists propose that this exchange of energy is actually one of the driving forces of evolution. and entropy does not necassarily = disorder.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

Don't be crude just because you can't understand something. I made it very clear that all science has questions yet to answer, and that this will likely never change because of the accumulation of new questions with new knowledge. Hardly a "generalization."