Archaeologica.org

ID/Creationism
Ok, here it comes. First of all, I’m going out of my way to avoid references to certain individuals and certain commercial enterprises such as so-called ‘creationist museums’. Even I laugh at some of the claims and I am not even close to being a paleontologist.

I good place to start, is the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject referenced here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The following quotes are noteworthy and so I will kick off the discussion.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[18]

This one statement clearly shows, and I don’t believe ID proponents dispute, that ID is an inference rather than a science. Given this I concede that it is better suited to a philosophy class than a science class, nevertheless, its chief proponents state:

"Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his [Dembski] view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept.

My commentary is, we seen many places in these forums where inferences must be made for lack of physical evidence (for example the famous claim of creationists that not a single shred of evidence supports the ability of one species to evolve into another species). While this is probably disputed, no one can deny that two well respected scientists can examine evidence and draw different conclusions when a great deal of context is missing. Other disciplines must be called upon to fill in the gaps. The whole idea of exploration and experimentation is to flesh-in the context. Can we at least agree for now that inference is a part of the process?

I think one thing overlooked in evolutionary science is, from the big bang until now, the natural likelihood of every cosmological constant being perfectly effected in such a way that the possibility for life to evolve on planet(s) is pretty slim and yet here we are discussing this. (btw the idea of life evolving on any of the other billions of planets is a scientific inference.) This is kind of my expansion of the ‘Watchmakers analogy’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy). as well as fine tuned universe ideology. Rational critique of the principle can be reviewed in the Wiki article.


Concepts for ID include:

Irreducible Complexity –

Originally proposed by Michael Behe, it now seems to be uncompelling and need not be discussed further –

Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose," and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[42] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; however, in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[43]

Specified Complexity-
This concept is disputed but not refuted in my opinion.

The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."[44] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.

Fined tuned universe –

Already discussed briefly in my commentary above. The reader is invited to read a summary of its critiques in the Wiki article cited above.

Intelligent Designer –
Ok, even though they do not necessarily claim God is the creator. We all know what they are saying. So let’s not quibble.

Finally I would like to introduce one more layer of complexity not yet latched onto by ID’ers and see what sparks fly:

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

Though I have not provided direct links to hard evidence as some will quickly point out the point is the evidence is the same as that for evolution to a large extent. You have a system, you ask, “how did it get here”, you look at evidence and postulate theories.

OK – it this enough to start on?

I'm asking you to back the assertion that Creationism has some compelling evidence

I'm still waiting

Hmmm. I guess I am too, now that I've looked closer. Might have to eat some crow. Seems only a few guys are pushing it. I guess I was making some assumptions and find it difficult to defend nothing really new!

I guess we both need to wait because its hard to separate the science (what little there may be) from the politics. I will concede for the time being because I am not well equipped.

I reserve the right to revisit in the future.

1)see the thing about creationism is its clearly bollox
its an antiquated cosmology created in whole from the scribblings of some Hebrew scribes who were enslaved in Babylon
2)and the thing about I.D. is its for those people who want to believe in creationism but who are just a tad more intelligent (or have a tad less faith) and want to believe in something that they feel is credible
3)and the thing about evolution is its demonstrably true and is based on masses and masses of scientifically collected empirical data

so you got to decide if you
1) don't care as long as God did it
2) don't care as long as people don't know you think God did it
3) believe what people qualified to know are telling you

at the end of the day you can still believe in the power of God and be credible as long as you don't believe that its possible for mankind to understand what that power is

we aren't gods
and we never were


FM just one more thing

I think one thing overlooked in evolutionary science is, from the big bang until now, the natural likelihood of every cosmological constant being perfectly effected in such a way that the possibility for life to evolve on planet(s) is pretty slim

so lets give those odds a value of a trillion to one or a million trillion to one or a billion million trillion to one
and then compare that with an infinite universe
lifes a certainty buddy
thats why we're here
have you heard of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
I know Digit hadn't until recently

and heres my prediction for the coming year
Archaeogenetics is going to make the Bible obsolete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics

Yes I'm very familiar with the Drake equation - I was refering to the balance of the cosmological constants which make the existance of the universe as a whole possible. Those are incredible happen-chance!

As for this -

marduk wrote:
so you got to decide if you
1) don't care as long as God did it
2) don't care as long as people don't know you think God did it
3) believe what people qualified to know are telling you

I leave to you to decide which I choose.

and heres my prediction for the coming year
Archaeogenetics is going to make the Bible obsolete

Maybe not next year, but it's coming soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 11,00.html

Here endeth the lesson

Intelligent design is just creationism in disguise. This nonsense has no place in science classes

i liked the first reply to the article

Hi there people - God here. Sorry to trouble you in the early hours, but my job goes on 24/7 - I’m sure you understand.

That’s right, I’m God. I’m the intelligent designer they’re all talking about. And I’m intelligent alright. Really, really intelligent. I dreamed up evolution as a kind of stupid person’s alternative to actual creation. Creation - by me, God. The intelligent one. Who does the stuff that could only be done by someone all-powerful, all-seeing, all-singing, all-dancing ... above all, all-creating.

So I created everything. That’s right - everything. But I’ve got a confession to make, a little weakness if you like. You might call it a blind spot.

I forgot to create any clear, conclusive, incontrovertible evidence of my existence. I mean sure, some people believe I exist - and others don’t. But I couldn’t quite see a way to show those on both sides of the argument, everyone in fact, that I’m here - up here - right here.

And I’m still here. But despite my, er, intelligence, I still can’t think of a way of letting you all know. I mean there’s science - yes, and there’s empirical evidence - yes, there are laboratory tests - yes, there’s all that.

But the fact is I’m just too stupid to provide the evidence to all of you. I can only provide it to those who already believe in me anyway.

Pathetic, I know. But there it is. Anyhow, I am intelligent. And a designer. No really, I am. Really.

Take your shots Marduk its ok. As for me, I am little disappointed in my limitations but better not to tread this road much farther because I find more articles on ID politics than science. I guess its agenda is revealed by that. Still you never know when someone will begin to do some real work on the concept.

While back I said:

I feel that if my faith can be destroyed its built on faulty ground. Let the journey begin.

Weeeheee. Its been a wild ride so far and I'm still standing.

Now its time to have a little fun and clear my head. Tip of the hood to you all! See you next year!

Take your shots Marduk its ok

ah you're on level 3 now
level 1 is where you claim that you've been marginalised by your faith
you did this with your first "I am a christian post"
level 2 is where you misquote what other people have said because you didn't like it
you did this when you claimed I said that Abraham didn't exist
level 3 is where you start taking everything personally even when you're not mentioned
see your last post
level 4 is where you perceive every comment that you don't agree with as a personal attack
level 5 is where you deliberately post things out of context that at first glance appear to support what you are saying
level 6 is where you attack every comment made by every poster that doesnt agree with your theology
level 7 is where you start posting bible quotes as evidence
level 8 is where you start foaming at the mouth and calling people heretics
level 9 is where you start threatening physical violence
level 10 is where you get ordained as a catholic priest

I'll bail at level 9.

And I didn't say you were shooting at me. Don't worry - nothing personal here. - cyl

Actually Marduk I probably heard of the Drake equation before you knew Drake wasn't a bird.
I hadn't read this thread before today so I started at page 1, after page 20 I couldn't take any more, so I may have missed quite a lot. No doubt someone will let me know if I have
I have know intention of entering this discussion, pro or con either side, because like the one on blood sports it's unwinnable by either side, views, right or wrong, tend to be to entrenched.
The reason I am writing this post is to clarify a simple point, I hope.
Evolution is referred to as a theory. A good theory answers, rightly or wrongly, some questions. But the final test is to make a prediction, if that prediction is proven to be accurate the theory then is upgraded to a Law.
Evolution has not made any proven predictions and thus remains a theory.
The only one the Bible makes, along with most other creeds, is about the end of the world.
As yet, evolution, which I accept as probably right, has produced no proof of one species evolving into another. before someone collects his shotgun, I mean such proof as would win me a case in a court of Law.
To me it remains a theory, and I hope to live long enough to see proof one way or the other, meanwhile, perhaps we should all accept that one day we could all end up with egg on our faces.

Digit. While it seems these pages may be a quaint little forum among peers and associates, it is in fact visible to the entire world. And people of all creeds, nationalities and faiths read it. Any given post will have 2000+ visits. That's more than all the members here by an order of magnitude. True, the casual reader must realize it is a scientific forum and so things may be revealed here which could be considered offensive or disturbing to others. Let the reader beware.

Still I appreciate your comments very much because you have affirmed the current state of the 'evolution' of the theory. Given the fact it is a theory, it is surprising to find it is the only game in town. It would be very interesting to see if any real concrete work emerges which presents an alternate, genuinely, valid theory which make verified predictions; whether it would embraced or considered 'scientifically heretical' by the entrenched ideology. We have seen it before in break-through works especially in physics and cosmology. I am waiting for some proof one way or the other, and if evolution really IS the only game in town. I'll join the team. 'Till then, I remain a free-agent.

'Till then etc', agreed Monk.

Evolution has not made any proven predictions and thus remains a theory

this is a dog
this animal developed along with this animal

from this animal

over about 100,000 years
the evolution of these two animals was speeded up by human action on selective breeding
you can't extrapolate that between say this animal

and this animal

which both have a common ancestor 17,000.000 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(genus)
you really saying that this isn't evidence of evolution in action
what do you think dogs will look like in 17,000,000 years
if you discount this you are basically saying that man is better at making things evolve than nature or God is