Well, to answer this, we first have delve a little into the implications of Irreducible Complexity. The fundamental concept of IC is that there are certain organic devices so complex that they must have been created by an intelligence, as opposed to having arisen through random evolutionary means. What means, then, is that these devices are made up of components whose only purpose can be to power the device they make up. They cannot have any other job, or previous existance, or the argument loses its foundation. According to IC, a pocke****ch is made by an intelligence, and the gears and springs within it are specifically designed for that watch to work.

But now we run into a problem with the first pre-requisites of scientific methodology. "A theory needs to explain the currently existing data". The existing data that we have shows these metaphorical gears and springs being used for different purposes. For instance, Behe's infamous 'rotor' flagellum is, in a previous bacterium, identical in all but function, where it serves as a food gathering device. This is a problem. IC claims that the creation of a rotor can only be explained by assuming an intelligence behind it, and this implies that the individual components must have been placed there in order to achieve the creation of the roto, but suddenly we find one component which has a function entirely different than the one it was, according to IC, designed for.

Then we have the issue of predicatability. Exactly what is predictable with IC? Due to the wording, not a great deal. The very quality that makes it such a favorite among creationists dooms it as a scientific theory. IC claims that some complex devices are intelligently designed. We have no way to determine which devices are intelligently designed, and which are not. At most, all we can do is look at the individual components and claim that they could not be individually found to have arisen by chance, but then you are essentially saying that, because we do not know now how these things came about, we never will. This is a logical fallacy, the same one which doomed Behe's argument (except that when Behe claimed (and still does) that the working of the flagellum rotor is an evolutionary mystery, several papers written by biologists describing the functions, history, and evolution, of the rotor had already been published).

The third prerequisite is a little trickier. The theory must be logical enough so that an unbiased third party could arrive at it. The key here is to understand the difference between unbiased and unqualified. Unbiased third party does not mean someone who is ignorant of scientific methods, methodology, research, and procedure. I can be argued (and often is), that a scientists working in the confines of the current academic system is naturally biased, but that is an entirely different argument, and not this one, which is concerned only with how a given hypothesis does not meet scientific standards. But, to be perfectly fair, reasons for rejecting IC in terms of logic should not (they do, but for the sake of fairness) stand on existing knowledge, but rather logic, so this is where Irreducible Complexity fails logically. Irreducible Complexity assumes that complexity is the sign of intelligence. This is not the case. Complexity is not the sign of intelligence; simplicity is.

How does that work? Let me give you an example: Let's say that you are walking alongside a river. You pick up a river pebble and look at it. What would it take for you to re-create that pebble? You would need to measure every single angle, curve, and crevice, every crack, vein and scar. You would need to find out the mass, and if the density changes. You would need to map out all the different colors and variations, and even textures. Trying to re-create this rock as, say, a 3-D computer image would be complex to say the least. A skilled draftsman would have to take hours, possibly days to come up with the results. The reason for this is, quite simply, that this pebble is the end result of millions of random chances.

But what if you picked up a pebble, and it was perfectly spherical? A nice, shiny, smooth, black marble. How long would it take this one to be recreated? A first-year student could plug in the equation for a sphere in seconds [(4(Pi)R^2)]. Add a note for color, texture, and mass, and you are done. The entire process took our skilled draftsman less than five minutes.

So, the question becomes this: Which pebble do you believe was intelligently designed? The complex one, or the simple one? Which on would logic dictate?

The fourth pre-requisite is also the newest pre-requisite on the list, added just this centure. A theory, in order to be a theory, must be falsifiable. There must be a way to show that the theory is not true. In the case of IC, again, due to the wording, this cannot be done. IC posits that some organic devices are too complex and must have been assembled by an intelligence. There is no way to disprove this. Can we disprove this by showing how a device is designed by chance? No, because that still means that some device out there is intelligently designed. No, because then we fall into the assumption that we know all that there is to know. If there is no way to show that the theory can be falsified, then it becomes logically invalid.

And finally, the explanation offered must be a verifiable event. There must be some way to confirm that what was said to happen actually happened. In the case of IC, again, this becomes impossible. Thanks to the wording of IC, we have no idea what this "intelligence" is, or how we would detect it. There is, in actuality, no explanation offered here, becaude by defintion, and explanation guides us through the process, whereas the only thing IC offers is a postulate, a statement of belief "An intelligence created it", which is no more an explanation than "God did it." It is nothing more than a matter of faith, not an explanation.

In this particular case, Irreducible Complexity fails all five pre-requisites. It is important to note, however, that in order to be invalid as a scientific theory, you only need to fail one. This hasn't even gotten into the factual, conceptual, and logical errors involved in the review of an actual, valid theory; this is still the preliminaries, and Irreducible Complexity can't even meet these standards.

Oh, I have missed you Aquatus. Oh yes I have

You're not being sarcastic, are you?

Sarcastic? Please, I havn't even woken up yet

Thanks for the response, aquatus, I need to look over it, and will get back to you with further questions/comments.

I am reviewing your responses in particular regarding the prerequisites. Is it valid to ask questions regarding how different evolutionary theories meet those same prerequisites? If it is I will bring some up, if not, well, then that may bring up a different thread.

Absolutely. In fact, I strongly encourage it. You have gotten a twinkling earlier that you may have been engaging in a strawman argument without knowing it. This is an excellent opportunity for you to see and question the evolutionary theories as they actually are rather than how they are depicted by those who originated the creationist movement.

our lovely earth is two thirds water. if i was intelligently designed why have i not got gills.
a human being is highly complex yet starts off with a sperm and ova. though very complex in themselves the organism they create is far more complex. the idea of complicated designs being attributed to a designer, i.e. id, in itself is demeaning to mankind. that man cannot comprehend the complexities of life therefore it must have been a higher intelligence. the correct theories are only correct now. wait a while anotherone will be along in a minute. einstiens theory lookout.

*tears out hair* Intelligent design is NOT REAL. I attended a lecture by a Prof. Steve Jones a couple of weeks ago about this kind of thing. Evolution is not a planned process, with a man sitting at a table writing out little equations and plotting the Universe's future. It's a rather random process, involving nature churning out new designs and seeing if they work.

gosh i would get exhausted being you Aquatis...LOL

On the creating of the rock, as you have illustrated thinking its way into being is very slow indeed...

OK, aquatus, this was a huge response (very well written too), so I will have to take it in sections.

First, I recently read an article which gave the accepted definition of Irreducible complexity:



The definition, to me, does not seem to require that an organic "device" be only used for one particular purpose as much as it depends on the fact that the device is made up of parts that all had to develop together at the same time to function.

The fact that these "parts" could not come together randomly and could not develop independently over time since any one by itself would not only be useless, but would be a waste of important energy and material on its own and, therefore an evolutionary dead end, seem to be strong indication that the "device" was developed in toto for the particular purpose used by the organism.

Doesn't that address the 1st pre-requisite?

Also, if these "devices" are made up of various independent parts that by themselves would serve no purpose in this particular organism, and would be considered dead ends, how did they evolve?

If I remember correctly, the origonal creature brought forward to 'prove' intelligent design, was an insect of some sort that was a miracle of adaptation...it had so many features that were specifically designed to do a certain job, worked perfectly, and the arguement was that this must be proof of a designer, since such a thing could never come about randomly...

On closer inspection, the creature only actually needed and used a fraction of the various adaptations it had. The rest were either redundant, antiquated, or didn't have any function vital for the animal's survival. What was the intelligent designer doing when he created it, using up the last of his spare parts?



Traits that are filtered out through evolution are not always simply traits it doesn't need...they're traits that are nt a benefit - there's a difference. The reason a trait will stop occuring is because those that possess it fail to survive and reproduce - passing on the genes that give said phenotype. If a feature, regardless of how redundant it may be, is not actually reducing the creature's chance of survival, there's no direct reason for it to be removed during the evolutionary process.

That still does not explain how these devices, necessary for the survival of the organism came about randomly and independently.



SOURCE

Yes, that is correct. These irreducibly complex organic devices are made up of components whose only purpose can be to power the device they make up. These components cannot have any other job, or previous existance, or the argument loses its foundation.



That is what Irreducible Complexity claims. The extension of that would be that any device developed for a particular purpose should not be found fulfilling a different purpose in a different creature. Beyond that, it also means that the individual components making up that device should not have any sign of being evolutionarily brought about.



Well, no. The problem is that all the examples of irreducibly complex devices that are presented are, in fact, composed of individual components that are seen in various stages of evolutionary development in other organic devices. As previously mentioned, Behe's flagellum contains a rotor used for propulsion that is so complex he claims that it could not have been created by evolutionary processes. However, this same rotor component is indeed present in other bacterium, except that instead of being used to whip a flagellum into a motor for a bacterium, it is instead used to motorize a small piece of cilia, which drives food into a different bacterium's digestive opening. It is essentially the same component, save that one uses cilia to push food, and the other uses a larger flagellum to push a creature. According to Irreducible Complexity, we should not be seeing this. The creation of the rotor is so complex that there should be no sign of its existance prior to it being 'created' or 'intelligently designed' specifically for the creature it was designed for.



It's a little difficult to understand what you are asking, but I think you have inadvertently stumbled unto another flaw in the Irreducible Complexity argument.

First, let me address what I think you might be asking. The components in these complex devices certainly serve a purpose; they power the complex device. This does not make them dead ends. Evolutionarily speaking, dead ends occur simply because, for whatever reason, that particular genetic expression simply didn't get passed on. That could be because the animal died out, because the genome changed back, or simply because the genetic change went inactive. Whether the change served a purpose or not isn't what makes it a dead end, but rather whether that purpose had a strong enough effect to influence the survival of the genetic change.

But what does this mean of dead ends, however? Well, that is a slick little trick that creationists try to use. If something is intelligently designed, then there shouldn't be any dead ends. After all, what would be the sense in having a watch with springs and gears that didn't do anything? Again, it is ambiguity that comes to the rescue. Dead ends are obviously the result of "adaptation", not of the "intelligent designer", whomever this omnipotent, omniescient, almost divine force might happen to be. Unfortunatly for the creationists, this argument also fails, in that every single living organism, even those containing irreducibly complex elements, contain genetic dead ends. It also begs the question, why put an irreducibly complex device, like a human eye, for instance, in a creature surrounded by other much less intelligently designed features, like the nasal cavities, for instance, or the neck?

Ultimately, the Irreducible Complexity argument ends up generating more questions about itself than about the phenomenon it is trying to explain. That brings us to yet another flaw, and this is one that is prevalent in pretty much all elements of pseudoscience, and which is the primary Red Flag that you should watch for to avoid being bamboozled.

Irreducible Complexity attempts to explain a phenomena that by itself is not yet shown to exist.

Think about that: What is the primary purpose of scientific theories? Scientific theories are formal explanations of existing phenomena. In other words, a phenomena which already exists, which can be independantly corroborated, whose existence is factual reality, can then proceed to have a scientific theory attempt to explain how that phenomena occurs. In the case of the a right triangle, we have a continous phenomena of the 90 degree angle. Pythagorean theorum explains how this phenomena occurs. In the case of cell division, we have the continuing phenomena, of DNA seperation. The theory of Meiosis explains how this phenomena works. A theory explains a phenomena that already exists.

But what about Irreducible Complexity? What existing phenomena does it explain? Well, it doesn't have one. Irreducible complexity assumes the existance of organic devices that are so complex they could not have been created by means other than intelligent design, and yet, that is not a phenomena that is, in any way, shape, or form, independantly corroborated or factually derived. The purpose of a theory is to explain how a phenomena occurs, but Irreducible Complexity isn't about how the phenomena occurs, but rather tries to justify the existance of the phenomena. The existance of a phenomena should be beyond question. Even then it wouldn't be so tragic a problem, if only the argument proceeded to explain how the phenomena occurs, as a theory is meant to do, and yet it doesn't. The only explanation we have is that "An intelligent designer did it". That isn't explaining; that is passing the buck. If the printer is broken and it gets fixed, would "Bob fixed it" be an explanation? Not at all. It would simply be a claim. I t would describe no action, and it would certainly not explain how the existing phenomenon of the printer getting fixed occur.

Anytime you hear someone claiming they have a theory, be on the lookout. What is the phenomena they are trying to explain, and are they explaining it? The old switcheroo, trying to pass off an assumption as a fact, and a claim as an explanation, is a favorite tactice of creationists, so be on your guard

One of my favorite arguments against "i.d." is the existence of "shock". I will explain. Let us go to your favorite wikipedia for a moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock


Shock is a very primitive response to certain stimuli such as allergic reaction, heat, cold, or loss of blood. It is a way of the body trying to survive on minimal standards. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, and, without outside help, the victim usually dies. During the shock state, the peripheral blood system shuts down. Unfortunately, this includes the kidneys. In a short period, even if the victim lives, he/she may need dialysis for remaining years of life. My questions for evo folk are:
#1. What purpose dos shock serve, if the person usually dies without help? Why would God deliberately design a system that would kill you if exposed to the wrong influence? Doesn't this imply that this system originated in very primitive microscopic creatures, and we inherited it from them in a little sideline of evo?
#2. Why would God put the kidneys in the peripheral circulatory system? Didn't he know that they would atrophy and die without oxygen in a very short time? Does God like dialysis clinics?
#3. Bonus question. Explain anaphylactic shock in terms of a planned creation. Explain sickle cell anemia (which appears to be an old evolutionary tactic to overcome infection by malaria) and diabetes (which appears to be an old adaption to much less sedentary times).

I went through anaphylactic shock. It was the worst pain that I ever went through in my life. I was screaming silently inside my head for God to just let me die. I felt like I was completely on fire. Then the pain faded away and not too long after that my vision dissapeared. The shock took the pain away for the rest of the time it took for my heart to stop beating and for me to stop breathing.

I'm not sure that is correct according to the definition. The definition seems to state that the components are parts of fully functioning "devices" and can have no purpose on their own. In other words you could have a "gear" which is part of a "device" in one organism which runs only clockwise for whatever reason, and part of a "device" in another organism which runs only counterclockwise, but the "gear" by itself would have no function if it wasn't part of the more complex device. That is significantly different from a part not being able to have any other job.



Actually, your extension is not necessarily a logical one based on the definition. It seems to me that Irreducible Complexity claims that the parts of the device could have no purpose on their own, not that they could only be one purpose parts. That would speak against Intelligent Design, since any intelligent designer would try not to have to design basic parts all the time when he could instead design various devices that use a basic inventory of parts; in fact, that is what industry attempts to do as often as possible.

I have not found this calculation anywhere, but I would venture to say that the probability of the same gear appearing in various devices by being purposefully put there would be significantly smaller than the odds that several randomly assembled devices would have the same gear, don't you?



Again, I don't think the definition of IC necessarily prevents the individual "parts" from being used in other "devices", only that they cannot be used by themselves, they are always necessary components of a "device." That is significantly different from saying they can only be used in one "device."



Actually, what IC seems to say is that neither the flagellum nor the cilia would function without that rotor component at all, it would be a useless feature and, in fact, the organism would be greatly hampered or inexistent without that "device." That is significantly different from what you are saying, isn't it? And actually that would meet the 1st prerequisite, wouldn't it?




Actually, what I meant by dead ends had more to do with the idea that if an organism, somehow by random chance developed a flagellum or cilia (which in itself is also one of the examples of IC), it would have nothing useful and would, according to evolutionary theories, die out, and if another organism developed the complex rotor system, but not the cilia or flagellum, it also would die out. Both need to occur simultaneously, in the same organism in order for the device to work. So, from that standpoint the "genetic dead ends" contained in every single living organism would have no impact on what IC is addressing.



Well, this one is kind of fascetious, aquatus. An intelligent designer, even a human one wuld not have to use only complex devices if a simple one also worked. I have a Mac PowerBook Plus laptop, which is a complex piece of equipment (it is so shnazzy!) but yet part of what makes it so cool and so well designed is that it uses a simple magnet to make the power plug trip-proof.



OK, and please don't get upset but doesn't abiogenesis fall prey to the same issue?

Except that instead of intelligence it defaults to random chance, but because random chance is a "natural" occurence it is more acceptable.

Well, for the record, I disagree, but the argument gets a bit convoluted, and many new arguments are here that are of more immideate concern (and simpler to explain), so for now, we can shelf this one, and continue with your others.



Careful now, you are falling into the the bad habit of assuming something that we do not know for sure. The unfortunate affect of the creationist mindset is that the same mindset infiltrates all modes of thinking. It happened in a rather dramatic fashion when you assumed what I was talking about, and here again, where you are assuming that an intelligent designer would do things in the manner of our industry.



Hmm...no...

if something is being purposefully assmbled, I would expect the same piece to appear more often than if things were randomly assembled. But that is simply because we are talking about assembling things.



You are so eager to have something meet a pre-requisite! Relax. If it meets it, it meets it, and my admitting that it meets it or doesn't meet it won't affect that.

Now then, I think you are giving a bit too much credit to the claims of Irreducible complexity, but I'm going to show you the trick that creationists try to use when this happens. Seraphina touched on this a little earlier, but I don't think you caught the signifigance of what she was saying. The original claims of Irreducible Complexity had, as their examples, entire organic devices such as whole bacteriums and eyeballs. As the facts continued piling in (since we are talking about the first prerequisite), the creationists were forced to pare down their claim more and more, because their original irreducibly complex devices were being, slowly but surely, being reduced into their seperate componets. The example of the eyeball quietly became an argument about the lens and light structure, which slowly became the current argument about rods and cones, and which will likely become an argument about color pigments as soon as the creationists find no other way around it. The argument of the motorized bacterium became an argument for the motor flagellum, which became and argument for the rotor, which will soon become and argument for the individual components of the rotor as they are, inevitably, reduced, despite their (and their predecessor's) irreducible complexity. Even now, you are beginnin to talk about cilia and flagella as irreducibly complex.

It is an old trick creationists use, so old that it actually has a name. It is called the God of the Gaps argument, and basically goes that anytime an explanation is given to cut a claim in half, another two claims are immediately made about the two new halves. If we are talking about a missing link, as soon as one is found, then the claim is made that there are now two missing links, which conect the original creatures to the newly discovered link. In the case of Irreducible Complexity, which claims that complex devices contain components that would be useless by themselves, as soon as one of these supposedly useless components is suddenly found to have a use, the claim is then made that it is this individual component that is now Irreducibly Complex.

So, before we were talking about Behe's motorized bacterium, which claimed that a motorized flagella was too specific to be reduced. As it turns out, it can be reduced, into a flagellum, which certainly is useful to a great many creatures sans a rotor, and a rotor, which is found in a different bacterium using cilia for a different purpose, but using it nonetheless.

It is the classic child's game of asking "Why?" continously until one get's tired of asking. When all is said and done, the example that are given are explained. If these examples suddenly have to be redefined in order to be valid, then at that point the theory has to admit to being too vague in definition. If the theory cannot even give a manner in which one can define the phenomena it is supposed to explain, then what support is there that the phenomena exists in the first place?



Okay, well, two concepts here, one of which I addressed above, but will cover again. Yes, according to IC, if any of these Irreducibly Complex components appeared in other organisms without their companion components, they would be useless. Unfortunately for I.C., they aren't. A flagellum without a rotor can function quite well in a variety of different way, the most common one as a simple whip. A rotor without a flagellum can function to push water into bacterial mouths.

Now, another assumption has been made here, and it is an incorrect one. Things do not, according to evolutionary theories (at least, none that I know of), die out simply because they useless. According to evolution, traits only disappear if they somehow create an evolutionary disadvantage for the creature, such as brightly colored plumage in a pine forest environment.



I try not to be fascetious. I am not talking about whether something is simple or complex, but rather how well-designed it it is. An Mac is certainly well designed, and so is its plug. That makes perfect sense to us, because having a well-designed computer and an well-designed power cord is two good things working together. But what is the sense of something well-designed (allegedly) like an eyeball right next to something so badly designed as a nasal cavity, so prone to infection and back pressure that even a slight allergy can create enough pressure to be felt in the eyes?



You really need to work on the habit you have of assuming things.

In response to your question (and the assumption you made), is "It depends on the theory you are talking about". As I said before Abiogenesis is a seperate field of study, just like evolution is its own field of study. It contains several different theories, and they claim different things.

OK, can we drop the snide remarks about "creationists" please. I won't simply label you an "evolutionist", which to me is basically someone whose religion is evolution, and you can drop the "you creationists" bit which is supposed to make me seem like some nut who can't read anything outside his Bible to most people here. I am a person interested in discussing a topic, you are a person who seems to have done quite a bit of research on it.

I am attempting not to make assumptions, but I am also trying to move the conversation foward.

The reason I am trying to move forward in deciding whether a prerequisite has been met or not, is because I want to see what the objections to it are, and I want to see how evolution theories are measured against those same prerequisites. If that is not an acceptable process please let me know.

There was something else I meant to ask earlier, what do you base these prerequisites on? Ae they intended to be used for any theory, or just used within specific branches of science?

I was not using the term snidely, but rather derisively, because I simply cannot generate any sort of respect for creationists (blame that on the fifteen to twenty years that I have had on the topic). It is important, however, to know that I am not including you in this bunch. As long as you continue asking questions, I cannot relegate you to that field because, as you pointed out, creationists are a rather specific lot of people with rather specific beliefs on the matter. Be assured, when I speak of creationists, I am doing so with the purpose of distinguishing them from you, not to include you with them. Every example I am giving you containign reference to the 'tricks' used by creationists is done so for the purpose of getting you to recognize the tqactics in the arguments, and hopefully getting you to start thinking critically about the argument that you are presenting, and the inherent possible weaknesses of it.

In regards to combining Creationism with Intelligent Design, That is a matter that the Supreme Court has already decided, and I have found no reason to disagree with their decision that Creationism and Intelligent Design are one and the same, and the sole purpose of the name change was to attempt a legal by-pass of the educational laws. I will no more start calling creationists intelligent designers than I will start calling terrorists freedom fighters, simply because they decided to change the label on the box.



You have to be very careful about this. One of the major reasons that creationists do not have credibility is because they do not have a solid foundation in the subject they are talking about. It is this precise lack of foundation that leads to the great majority of the issues present. As you have noticed, some of the most basic assumptions you make in the presentation of the your arguments have turned out to be non-existant. It is precisely because of this that I am going very slowly; I know you want to get into the thick of the argument, but it is essential that you realize that the argument itself may not even exist to begin with.



That's fine, but you have to understand that there is nothing wrong with not coming to a final decision on something. If one does not have enough information to come to a conclusion, one should not force a conclusion. This is one of the problems with the mindset created by creationists thinking, and I really want you to realize the extent to which you have been subconsciously affected by its methodology. If you want to see how other theories match up to the pre-requisites, that's fine, just keep in the back of your mind that whether or not other theories meet the pre-requisites has no bearing on whether I.C. meets the pre-requisites.



The five pre-requisites are meant to apply to every single scientific theory in every single scientific field. Some fields may have additional requirements on top of them. The pre-requisites are general guidelines that are accepted by scientific societies around the world, and are generally arrived at through presentation to the top societies for distribution throughout the various communities. Changing or adding pre-requisites is something extremely difficult, as you might imagine, and not something anyone but a top level scientists can do. The last to do so was Karl Popper, who formally introduced the subject of falsifiability.

I disagree. That intelligence, could choose how exactly they wanted to do things. That intelligence is unknown, and therefore unpredictable. So who are we to say that something intelligent would not make the universe exactly as it is now?


So, your arguement that complexity seems to imply non-intelligence, but simplicisty the opposite, fails in my opinion. Because we just do not know of the personality, intentions, etc of the intelligence. You are basically viewing the intelligence how you think it would be(A bit biased if you will), which is really based on nothing but personal perception and opinion.

Actually, no, it isn't based on personal opinion, but rather on definition. What is intelligence? Intelligence isn't merely data, intelligence is data organized in a specific fashion. What is the difference between the pebble and the marble? The information in the pebble has no organization, but rather is a random compilation of data, which we know is what would happen the pebble had been formed through a series of random events, such as a tumble down a river. The information in the marble is organized in a very specific manner, which we recognize as a mathematical formula, and has no sign of the randomly assorted data we would expect from non-intentional design. Because of that, we can conclude that the design of the marble, due to the simplicity in whcih the information is organized within it (the intelligence) was intentionally designed, whereas the pebble, due to the lack of organized information within it, was randomly created.

I suppose you could try and argue that the randomness of the information is actually some sort of order we cannot understand, however then you would be at pretty much the same place as someone trying to argue that the fire under the kettle isn't what is boiling the water. We know random chance results in unorganized information.

I find it very telling that none of you creationist christians responded to my earlier post. This means you either don't have an answer or don't understand. I am quoting myself, with my permission.



C'mon, don't be afraid.

Not one proud defender of creationism to answer my little challenge? Not one? I am so disappointed.

As I see it, there are two problems with intelligent design:

1. It's not science, or science-based. That means it doesn't belong in a science class. Where can you put it, if not in a science class? The only place it fits is religion. And that means it can't be taught in a public school because that would be government establishment of religion. QED.

2. The only real weakness of Evolution (some would say fatal weakness) is the Doctrine of Uniformity, which basically says that the only forces that have ever operated in the Universe are still operating. But that means the only way change can occur is in tiny increments. That requires huge amounts of time and there is no way to prove that the required time has actually transpired.

BUT: intelligent design says that evolution occurred, but God was directing it. Thus, the ID supporters concede the passage of vast amounts of time. In doing so, they admit that Evolution's greatest weakness is strong enough to support intelligent design; but that means it's also strong enough to support Evolution without a guiding intelligence. The id folks are trying to have it both ways.

Question for ID supporters: how do you defeat Evolution once you have conceded Uniformity?

--DJS

I'm not a creationist, though I do believe God is the creator, so I'll see if I can answer it from a limited layman perspective, ok Gid

I would have thought that Shock actually gives proof that we may not have evolved. The concept of evolution is that traits hindering growth are slowly weeded out. One could argue that Shock in lesser-evolved life may work, in us it kills. Would evolution have allowed us to become what we are with such an obviously built-in flaw?

Alternatively, one could argue that Shock is not proof that we evolved anymore than an opposable thumb is proof that we evolved.

How's that?

Are emotions created or evolved? I can get that greed would be an evolutionary plus on the side of survival for you personally, but for those around you? best to learn to share a little, buddy, unless you want this whole prideland to yourself, mate. Unless it's greed on a group level.. we have more so we'll do better than you. (Actually, I guess that's more a personality trait than an emotion.. self-serving vs harmonious and equal across the board. Better for a few to have a lot then a lot to have a little?)

Is that why greed is one of the seven deadlies? because it's an evolved trait that can't help but promote inequality? Is that an intelligent design? Let the best survive and have it all, and let the worst of you suffer without? Sounds a little darwinistic/spencerfied to this slithgly boozeaddled brainpan...

edit-- then again, the best survive.. perhaps that's the intelligence in the design.. but that doesn't explain why people can't figure out how to use a hanger at a retail store... sigh...

p.a., little buddy-I love you like a son, but, as you say, you don't support i.d.I go somewhere toward Deism in that sense. Yes, God is there and created everything, but through a slow process, and indirectly. To quote a song "GOd is watching us, from a distance". That song should be the Deist National Anthem.The idea I was trying to get across was, that shock, diabetes, sickle cell, etc. are remnants of earlier needs, and never left us. Now they are errors, and thus, proof that God did not sit down and flawlessly design every trait. Shock may have been very important to extrememly primitive micro-animals, but oops-never went away. Evo would have permitted such an error. True i.d. would not have.

Let me get this straight..

You think a Bette Midler song should be the anthem for Deists?

*chuckles*

Truth be told, Gid - I.D is not a big issue in Australia. I honestly don't know what it purports except that God is the creative force behind evolution. From that respects I have no idea what the difference is between Evolutionary Creationism and Intelligent Design. To me they are basically saying the same thing.

But thanks for the answer anyway. Does I.D say that humans are created perfect? I'm not sure that's biblical, considering the flawed nature of humanity. But I guess some people want to do more with that cake than just look at it y'know (who wouldn't want to eat it, lol).

You are assuming that God din't intend us to die. But if He did, wouldn't intelligent design include many vaired ways for system failure to occur?

You don't get what I'm saying, aquatus. You're saying that the complexity shows that it was not intelligence that created the rock. But then again, how do you know? Perhaps this intelligence created the universe with the ability to create that pebble in ways that we define as "natural"?

You're assuming that if there was some form of intelligence behind "everything" that he/she/it would just create that pebble the way you'd expect intelligence to create it. It seems to me like it's the same as trying to predict another human beings decision.

Or there were little left-over errors because evolution is a slow process. Example: vestigial toes on horses. They serve no purpose, since horses evolved away from needing 5 toes. They are still there, left over like the shock mechanism. Do you deny that horses have vestigial toe bones? They do! Don't even say that Satan put them there! Some species of snakes have vestigial arms and legs. Not all, but some. They evolved away from needing them./

Calm down Gid, why would I need to deny anything? There is nothing to say that an intelligent designer would not use previous designs that worked and just make modifications without needing to remove parts of the previous design that do not interfere.

And (I just can't let his one go ) from a Christian perspective, I WOULD expect snakes to have vestigial arms and legs, since they had them before God condemned them to crawl on the ground for the participation of that serpent on tempting Adam and Eve

Iams,

Could you clarify what I have quoted above?

Are you saying everything is predestined? If the snake was a snake before the temptation, than he was punished PRIOR to his tempting?

I get exactly what you are saying, and I responded directly to it. I'm not saying that complexity is proof that it was not intelligence that created the rock; I'm saying that the intelligence in the rock design is identical to what we would expect from randomness. If you wish to attribute randomness to some intelligent designer, that is up to you, but you are now in the position where you already have a cause for a given effect, and are claiming that it is actually a different cause creating that effect. As I said, it is like trying to argue that the fire under the kettle isn't what is boiling the water.



Actually, the pebble thing is just an example of complexity vs. simplicity. It isn't a philosophy.

but, as I stated, not al snakes have the vestigial bones.some species do, and some don't. If the garden tale was literally true, all snakes would either have them (IF THE PROCESS WERE SLOW) or no snakes would have the extra bones (since the curse was instantaneous).

I believe there is intelligent design at work, atleast on some level. I also believe in randomness. For instance, what makes 2 parts hydrogen and 1 oxygen work together to form water? What decided this? What did an atom of hydrogen or oxygen evolve from? Perhaps any given contact between the two is random, but what makes it work? The way I look at the whole thing is kind of like a dvd or vcr player: Each unit has multiple technologies put together to form a finished product, not one person created the vcr from the ground up... without using known technologies. The basic building blocks were created, and were used together to form a type of function or compound.

No, hyper, what I was referring to was Genesis 3:13-14

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

Basically, the serpent had arms and legs when he tempted Eve and was cursed to do without them afterward. So, one might expect for some serpents to still show signs of having had them at one point.

Not necessarily, we don't know what typ of serpent was the one which tempted Adam and Eve, maybe there were already snakes wich did not have arms and legs, and serpents which did, and the ones who still have vesigials are the decendants of the ones which did prior to the curse.

It just seemed to me that you were implying that it negates an Intelligent Designer. All it does in my opinion though, is display how that rock was created once all of the laws of the universe were in place and working. It says nothing about an IDer, so I don't understand why you brought it up.

EDIT: Guess you just wanted to point out that it proves that the IDer did not create the rock DIRECTLY. Unless he/she/it chose to create that rock in "natural ways". Don't know why, but who I am to say anyway...

This goes back to the "sins of the fathers" argument, turned up one degree. Not just the species of snake that tempted, not just the genus that tempted, but ALL "snakes" shall forever bear the punishment of one. Is he that petty, or just not know his own creatures well enough to identify the one that should go limbless?

Couldn't sleep and noticed no one had posted in a while so I figured I would stir things up a bit.

Here are some quotes from a few scientists, regarding the validity of the whole thought of evolution with the idea that if the THEORY of Evolution is "valid" enough to be taught as "almost fact" any competing theory should get equal billing.

I hope you will actually take the time to read them before dismissing them

PROBABILITY

"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros."

(Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"

(Professor Harold Morowitz)

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."

(Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability)

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."

(Professor Richard Dawkins, an atheist)

"The complexity of the simplest known type cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

(Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)


VALIDITY

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species."

(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."

(Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science."

(George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."

(Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."

(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."

(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."

(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."

(Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

(Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."

(Bruce Alberts, President, National; Academy of Sciences "The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines," Cell 92, February 8, 1998)

"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

(Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205)

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

(Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)

"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)


I'm sure if you look hard enough you will be able to prove that these are all just "disgruntled scientists." I would expect in some way they all are. Afterall, wouldn't you be disgruntled if you suspected you were dedicating your life's work to promoting a lie?

IamsSon,

"The covers of this book are too far apart"

Job (ch.xxxi, v. 35)

I find quotes can be used to mislead the intent unless the whole context is understood.

Are you saying the quotes are out of context I'm not saying they are (i don't know, I'm just asking questions). I for one found the quotes most interesting.

edit: Oh, that I had someone to hear me! I sign now my defense—let the Almighty answer me; let my accuser put his indictment in writing. - Job 31:35 (that should be xxxi, unless my roman numerals desert me). Not certain what chapter/verse you're talking about, actually

What book are you quoting Leonardo?

The statements are concise enough that the context is fairly obvious and they have not been altered or translated or interpreted, they are quotes of what these sientists said.

I take it you have no further questions regarding why Intelligent Design does not meet the prerequisites of Scientific Methodology, then.




Have you ever heard the term "Quote Mining", IamSon? Perhaps you should look into it.

NO. It was "the serpent".

Mr Android



I too found a lot of the quotes interesting. I'm sure many scientists regularly question themselves and their peers about hypotheses and theories - it is part of the scientific process to have disagreement.

I didn't want to say any of the quotes were taken out of context. Any or all of them may have had the context exactly as IamsSon was trying to convey. Your response to him about quote mining was what I was trying to warn him about. I usually don't use quotes unless I consider them to be non-contextual or I can explain the context in which they were used.

One thing I particularly don't like about quotes is the use of figures to emphasise their point without explaining or demonstrating how this figure was derived. For example the figure "1 to 10-340,000,000" from the quote by Prof. Morowitz. Perhaps a link to the site where the quote was taken from would be useful.

IamsSon,

I am not criticising your beliefs in any way. Just wanted to illustrate how quotes could mislead.

Sorry. In response to your question about what book I was quoting, it is the Bible. The quote itself I got here. The actual quote is on page 2.

Edited again for spelling/grammar. Wish my brain would actually synchronise with my fingers when I'm typing

The serpent reffered to in the bible is a being who tempted Eve to eating from the tree of life do you judge a book by its cover serpents and dragons are beings who bite poison and devour living things and can't be good.

When God created Adam he made him in his image perfect from red clay and the blood of a slain God therefore making ADam and his companion immortal Adam wrote of his encounter with Angels and how God banished them form Eden in his own book(biography) he talked of Aeons of their being a royal blooodline and the flood of Noahs time and the total destruction of the Earth by fire and brimstone and he talked of the kingdom that would be forever when his decendents have filled the Earth their would be no more death and suffering only life everlasting but only when God returns to re-plant the tree of life