Intelligent Design?

[gussiejives]

I really can't stand any more of this promotion of "intelligent design" or the idea that some higher influence is responsible at least in part for the evolutionary change in animals.

Now science happens to be a religion that just happens to be able to explain things most plausibly. Scientific method dictates that a hypothesis is formulated and it is up the scientist to attempt to prove it. The Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin is a result of that scientific method and his theory has been accepted by biologists and taught in classrooms everywhere.

But now there's an emerging trend within the conservative ranks that's trying to poke a hole in the theory of evolution by attacking the fact that evolution can't explain where the first life originated. Evolution has done its best to explain adaptation and survival of the fittest, and for the most part it holds true. Of course it isn't a perfect theory! That's why it's the THEORY of evolution not the LAW of evolution.

Now I hear that some folks in the US want this intelligent design idea taught alongside evolution in the classroom. As a scientist, I find this insulting. Intelligent design really has no experimental evidence that supports it. It's just a collary that sheds doubt on a single aspect of evolution.

People can believe in whatever they wish. I just don't want to crack open a biology textbook and find this dribble inside.

What do you think about this?

[Altarus]

I think that the scientific legitimacy of intelligent design is the same as it is for evolution, at least. The qualification for a scientific theory is that the theory be experimentally falliable. This means that the theory need not be provable, only disprovable.

Newton's Law of Gravitation is an example. How do you prove its validity? You can't. But you can disprove it. Simply find two bodies with mass for which the theory fails.

Therefore...

What is the test of failliability for evolution? Do you build a time machine and travel into the past to observe it actually occuring? How is the theory of intelligent design less falliable?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/17/05 09:13 PM, gussiejives wrote: I really can't stand any more of this promotion of "intelligent design" or the idea that some higher influence is responsible at least in part for the evolutionary change in animals.

Why? Why is it so hard to fathom? Someone had to create something out of nothing, so why is it so hard to believe that some higher power might be playing a role in the evolutionary process?

Now science happens to be a religion that just happens to be able to explain things most plausibly. Scientific method dictates that a hypothesis is formulated and it is up the scientist to attempt to prove it. The Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin is a result of that scientific method and his theory has been accepted by biologists and taught in classrooms everywhere.

Science is not a religion, and when you start using science as a religion, you get horrible disasters like the Marxist ideology. Darwin's theory of evolution has been accepted by biologists, but since Science is constantly changing, there is no reason to believe that it won't someday be irrelevent.

But now there's an emerging trend within the conservative ranks that's trying to poke a hole in the theory of evolution by attacking the fact that evolution can't explain where the first life originated. Evolution has done its best to explain adaptation and survival of the fittest, and for the most part it holds true. Of course it isn't a perfect theory! That's why it's the THEORY of evolution not the LAW of evolution.

No, actually there are big flaws. For exmaple, Darwin's theory states that changes are gradual and overtime. That's not true. Mutations are not gradual, rather they happen very sporadically and very rapidly. There is no known scientific theory to explain those kinds of behaviors exhibited other than Theory of Intelligent Design, which just says, "God must have done it."

Now I hear that some folks in the US want this intelligent design idea taught alongside evolution in the classroom. As a scientist, I find this insulting. Intelligent design really has no experimental evidence that supports it. It's just a collary that sheds doubt on a single aspect of evolution.

The finest professor I've had at UM was a scientist, an astronomer, and he taught intelligent design. He was not a member of the religious right either. In fact, he was a Muslim, and a big opponent of the religious right. If that theory insults you, you better stop taking it so personally. There also is proof to the principles of intelligent design. If you examine a dragonfly's wing, you find 2 sets of code: one active and one inactive. Why would the inactive strands of DNA be there in the first place? What about all the DNA strands we have in our bodies that are inactive? Just because Intelligent Design theory requires belief in a higher power doesn't mean it has to be God. You can believe that aliens are controlling evolution if you want.

People can believe in whatever they wish. I just don't want to crack open a biology textbook and find this dribble inside.

You don't have to believe it, but you should learn it. They should at least acknowledge that there is no known way to explain the irregularities of Evolutionary behavior.

[gussiejives]

At 10/17/05 09:46 PM, Wyrlum wrote: I think that the scientific legitimacy of intelligent design is the same as it is for evolution, at least. The qualification for a scientific theory is that the theory be experimentally falliable. This means that the theory need not be provable, only disprovable.

Newton's Law of Gravitation is an example. How do you prove its validity? You can't. But you can disprove it. Simply find two bodies with mass for which the theory fails.

Therefore...

What is the test of failliability for evolution? Do you build a time machine and travel into the past to observe it actually occuring? How is the theory of intelligent design less falliable?

Fossilized remains give a glimpse at evolution, particularily when it comes to the evolution of aves. The change in the hip bone structure is the best example.

But of course you raise a good point that nothing is infallible. As I said, the theory of evolution isn't perfect, but fossil records on hand today and observations made by Darwin in Galapagos support his conclusions.

I have heard nothing at all to support the theory of intelligent design. It's only purpose I see is to question the very few things that evolution can't explain. Questioning is something that a scientist does naturally, but that is not a reason to dismiss an entire theory.

For example, thermodynamically, the diamond should not exist outside extreme pressure. At atmospheric pressure, the stable state of carbon is graphite. So why don't all those diamond rings turn to graphite? Kinetically, it happens so slowly that it won't turn to graphite for millennia. So just because thermodynamics doesn't explain what happens with diamond doesn't mean we throw it all out the window.

[incompetent]

Proving that there was a higher form behind evolution is like proving the existance of God. Its just a matter of faith.

[gussiejives]

At 10/17/05 10:11 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Why? Why is it so hard to fathom? Someone had to create something out of nothing, so why is it so hard to believe that some higher power might be playing a role in the evolutionary process?

Science is not a religion, and when you start using science as a religion, you get horrible disasters like the Marxist ideology. Darwin's theory of evolution has been accepted by biologists, but since Science is constantly changing, there is no reason to believe that it won't someday be irrelevent.

No, actually there are big flaws. For exmaple, Darwin's theory states that changes are gradual and overtime. That's not true. Mutations are not gradual, rather they happen very sporadically and very rapidly. There is no known scientific theory to explain those kinds of behaviors exhibited other than Theory of Intelligent Design, which just says, "God must have done it."

The finest professor I've had at UM was a scientist, an astronomer, and he taught intelligent design. He was not a member of the religious right either. In fact, he was a Muslim, and a big opponent of the religious right. If that theory insults you, you better stop taking it so personally. There also is proof to the principles of intelligent design. If you examine a dragonfly's wing, you find 2 sets of code: one active and one inactive. Why would the inactive strands of DNA be there in the first place? What about all the DNA strands we have in our bodies that are inactive? Just because Intelligent Design theory requires belief in a higher power doesn't mean it has to be God. You can believe that aliens are controlling evolution if you want.

You don't have to believe it, but you should learn it. They should at least acknowledge that there is no known way to explain the irregularities of Evolutionary behavior.

I've seen an exhibit of the changes between the birds of prey reptiles and the early feathered aves. The changes are quite gradual, particularily with development of the hip bones, the hollow bone structure, beaks, feathers and such. This is a fossil record of evolution. And at the very least, it serves to support Darwinism. Science by definition is a matter of forming an opinion, testing it, and changing it based on the evidence found through experimentation.

Religion serves to explain creationism. Science explains creationism. Religion (in particular the Qur'an) explains cellular biology, physics, ecology, even some elements of chemistry. Science does the same. How can a comparison not be drawn?

As for inactive DNA, there are any number of explainations for its presence and its point of activation. More plausible conclusions can be drawn rather than blaming it on a higher power.

What really has me riled up about it is that its being used by the current administration to attack science as a whole. Were it simply a separate belief, that would be fine, but when it is used to discredit the scientific community, it hurts.

I should take the time to thank you for your reply. It's good to stir up some learned debate here.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/17/05 10:37 PM, gussiejives wrote: I've seen an exhibit of the changes between the birds of prey reptiles and the early feathered aves. The changes are quite gradual, particularily with development of the hip bones, the hollow bone structure, beaks, feathers and such. This is a fossil record of evolution. And at the very least, it serves to support Darwinism. Science by definition is a matter of forming an opinion, testing it, and changing it based on the evidence found through experimentation.

I'm not saying that evolution can't be gradual. It can be gradual, and it can be rapid and sporadic. The fact that it can be either invites a serious question. One of them being: "can science explain everything?" And we already know that Science can't.

As for inactive DNA, there are any number of explainations for its presence and its point of activation. More plausible conclusions can be drawn rather than blaming it on a higher power.

There are more plausible conclusions? Give me an example of one. Why is it there?

What really has me riled up about it is that its being used by the current administration to attack science as a whole. Were it simply a separate belief, that would be fine, but when it is used to discredit the scientific community, it hurts.

I don't believe that the President is trying to please the base or attack science. 1) The kook base of the right wants creationism to be taught. The whole "earth made in 6 days" bit. 2) Scientific theories SHOULD be constantly questioned. I do not oppose Intelligent Design on the basis that it is as good a theory as any other theory to explain the reason that some evolutionary processes are sporadic and rapid while others follow Darwin's Model.

I should take the time to thank you for your reply. It's good to stir up some learned debate here.

[Memorize]

At 10/17/05 09:13 PM, gussiejives wrote:

Intelligent design really has no experimental evidence that supports it.

Yes, and I suppose with science, we can take any animal and put it inside this machine, then hit a "rapid" button and it will evolve. I honestly dont care if they put intelligent design in it or not, doesnt matter to me any.

I just don't want to crack open a biology textbook and find this dribble inside.

It's my belief that whenever I open a biology book, all I read is just dribble. I personally dont see why anyone cares if they put intelligent design in it. It's not disproving evolution by the slightest bit! Also, I'm ashamed that it's mandatory to take a biology class, when I know for a fact I wont use it.

[gussiejives]

At 10/17/05 10:51 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 10/17/05 10:37 PM, gussiejives wrote:

I'm not saying that evolution can't be gradual. It can be gradual, and it can be rapid and sporadic. The fact that it can be either invites a serious question. One of them being: "can science explain everything?" And we already know that Science can't.

Of course science can't explain everything, but its theories and laws happen to make the most sense based on what we see and find experimentally.

There are more plausible conclusions? Give me an example of one. Why is it there?

Biology is not my strong suit, as I am a Materials Engineer. But I shall do my best. It is possible that this DNA was de-activated at some point long ago by proteins when changes caused these DNA chains to not be needed any more. It's possible they still require a protein to active. I'm just spitballing here. In any case, it's much more plausible to look within the cells organelles than to look above.

I don't believe that the President is trying to please the base or attack science. 1) The kook base of the right wants creationism to be taught. The whole "earth made in 6 days" bit. 2) Scientific theories SHOULD be constantly questioned. I do not oppose Intelligent Design on the basis that it is as good a theory as any other theory to explain the reason that some evolutionary processes are sporadic and rapid while others follow Darwin's Model.

A man named Chris Moody may disagree with you. Check out his book The Republican War on Science.

[fli]

My god, ID is a load of crock.

Any good scientist will attempt to avoid Scientific Bias...
but the whole premise of Intelligent Design is built on it!

Intelligent Design is not a "theory"... it is a bunch of very biased "scientific evidences" purposely contorted to make thing fit for this "theory".

[Der-Ubermensch]

Let's fit every single bit of unorthodox and unexplainable data under the "intelligent design" theory.

Brilliant.

[Lhotun]

This is something I'll never understand. Intelligent Design is not even in the same realm as evolution. Intelligent Design has no basis in fact. It isn't even falsifiable, as even if you find a clear method by which everything workst, you could still just say that process is intelligent design in itself.

Intelligent Design is philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Philosophy is taught nowhere in public schools, and certainly not in science class. So Intelligent Design has no place in public schools.

Can science explain everything? Probably not. Should that mean we should accept religious views, or a 'God did it' approach? No, that's ridiculous.
Let's say you can't find your watch. You could've sworn you left it on your desk. You're positive you left it there, and you're also sure nobody could've stolen it. Clearly, God must've made it disappear, and you go on about your day.
Does that make any sense? No. It might turn out you just knocked your watch in the floor. Maybe you were wrong about where you left it. But to say "God did it" is... just silly.

Just because we don't know why or how something happens doesn't mean we should form conclusions with no basis in fact.

[KevinLiakan]

Evolution was never meant to explain the origin of species and that's what ID is aware of, they target evolution to validate their own theory. I had no problem with this subject when ID was only there as an alternative idea for people who beleived that kind of thing. But it's when they started to try and teach it in schools as a replacement for evolution that's when it really got my blood boiling. Just because a theory can't explain something it never intended to be able to explain doesn't mean you should try and replace it with another theory. It's also interesting that whoever i speak to who beleives in ID seem to be unable to come back to my arguments and seeming hold their hands over their ears singing loudly :P

[RedSkunk]

At 10/17/05 10:11 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: No, actually there are big flaws. For exmaple, Darwin's theory states that changes are gradual and overtime. That's not true. Mutations are not gradual, rather they happen very sporadically and very rapidly. There is no known scientific theory to explain those kinds of behaviors exhibited other than Theory of Intelligent Design, which just says, "God must have done it."

Waitasec. Not that I want to get involved in this thread, but you're mistaken here, rooster. Mutations can be explained through science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations
"Mutations are permanent, sometimes transmissible (if the change is to a germ cell) changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during the processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which (when accidental) often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (or beneficial) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium, a disputed interpretation of the fossil record. Contrary to tales of science fiction, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect. Even less DNA changes have visible effects as DNA repair is able to reverse most changes before they become permanent mutations."

[RedSkunk]

At 10/18/05 02:53 AM, Lhotun wrote:

Yeah, your post was spot-on.

[Gtd-Orion]

thank you for being an intelligent person and stating thet it is just a darn therory not a lwa damn conservatives tehy are holding mankind back

[LordXanthus]

At 10/17/05 10:11 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: A long explanation of intelligent design's relevance

I must congratulate you, sir. Heretofore, I have not heard from anyone who has made intelligent design sound even remotely plausible. I applaud your well-thought arguments. They seem rather difficult to compete with at the moment, but perhaps I will attempt it later.

[Slizor]

There is no known scientific theory to explain those kinds of behaviors exhibited other than Theory of Intelligent Design, which just says, "God must have done it."

Wait wait wait. "The scientific theory of Intelligent Design" eh? And there I was thinking there was absolutely NO SODDING PROOF supporting Intelligent Design or even a level of unfalsifability for it to qualify as anything even vaguely scientific.

Who cares?

Why can't the Christians just leave the Atheists alone, and why can't the Atheists leave the Christians alone?

[The-Dran]

There is too much ancient text to support Science as being completely correct.

Sorry but Intelligent Design in non-religious terms is correct.

[LordXanthus]

At 10/19/05 09:09 AM, Dranigus wrote: There is too much ancient text to support Science as being completely correct.

Sorry but Intelligent Design in non-religious terms is correct.

I only have one thing to say: Put up or shut up. Why don't you show us some evidence that ancient text is any more relevant than modern discoveries? You would do well to learn from MoralLibertarian, and create a compelling argument.

[The-Dran]

At 10/19/05 09:18 AM, LordXanthus wrote:

At 10/19/05 09:09 AM, Dranigus wrote: There is too much ancient text to support Science as being completely correct.

Sorry but Intelligent Design in non-religious terms is correct.

I only have one thing to say: Put up or shut up. Why don't you show us some evidence that ancient text is any more relevant than modern discoveries? You would do well to learn from MoralLibertarian, and create a compelling argument.

What about fuck up?

Why do I need to show you some evidence, don't you know how to surf the web or are ya yellow Mr. Red Neck.

Ancient text are more accurate in terms of being so similar than something that is so easily twisted.

Do you even know how many scientific laws can easy be over-written with newly discovered information?

So by science isn't as correct as it appears to be, red neck.

Take for instance, the light from a quasar travels at a speed greater than which scientific laws allow, it travels faster than the speed of light or should I say the previous ideal setting of what was thought to have been the speed of light.

But then again light from a quasar comes from a quasar, which is really just a super super massive blackhole, which in terms has gravity so massive that it can bend and twist reality.

You want proof, you got hands you got a keyboard and you got an internet connection, why not use them?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/18/05 05:30 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 10/17/05 10:11 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: No, actually there are big flaws. For exmaple, Darwin's theory states that changes are gradual and overtime. That's not true. Mutations are not gradual, rather they happen very sporadically and very rapidly. There is no known scientific theory to explain those kinds of behaviors exhibited other than Theory of Intelligent Design, which just says, "God must have done it."

Waitasec. Not that I want to get involved in this thread, but you're mistaken here, rooster. Mutations can be explained through science.

Okay, I stand corrected. Still, Darwin's Theory cannot explain these mutations and that should be pointed out. Other factors should also be pointed out that could cause these mutations, like the ones you've listed.

If I were making curriculum for a biology class, I would spend a week on Darwin's Theory and maybe a day explaining some of the inaccuracies of Darwin's Theory regarding mutations, and what could be the causes of those mutations. Intelligent Design should be mentioned as a possibility for the cause of a mutation. I don't think that it would be proper to spend a week on it.

Bear in mind that one of the reasons why Intelligent Design doesn't bother me is because the person who taught me about Intelligent Design was a scientist who believed that it was a valid Scientific Theory. He believes there is evidence to support the conclusions drawn.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/19/05 11:04 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Okay, I stand corrected. Still, Darwin's Theory cannot explain these mutations and that should be pointed out. Other factors should also be pointed out that could cause these mutations, like the ones you've listed.

Yes, well. Darwin's theory of evolution is not meant to explain mutations. Mutations are already explained - say, with the page I just linked to. What other factors are there in explaining mutations Rooster? Or, I should say - what causes someone to believe that mutations are a result of god's will (besides simple ignorance of the scientific basis)?

[fli]

At 10/19/05 11:04 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Okay, I stand corrected. Still, Darwin's Theory cannot explain these mutations and that should be pointed out. Other factors should also be pointed out that could cause these mutations, like the ones you've listed.

If I were making curriculum for a biology class, I would spend a week on Darwin's Theory and maybe a day explaining some of the inaccuracies of Darwin's Theory regarding mutations, and what could be the causes of those mutations. Intelligent Design should be mentioned as a possibility for the cause of a mutation. I don't think that it would be proper to spend a week on it.

But intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. It picks and chooses things scientific explainations to fill in gaps. Whereas the Theory of Evolution has been tested ruthlessly-- proving and unproving things-- you cannot say anything of that sort with ID. Here you have a world full of scientists testing this theory constantly with objective scientists who several different kind of backgrounds. ID has a bunch of philosophers with no objectivity. They want to convince people that God made Evolution. The pick stuff that fits their philosophy of intelligent design. And ignore the things that contradict it.

And who knows. God perhaps made Evolution. Perhaps there is some kind of thing that made evolution work. But this should be left to the personal beliefs of people-- ID isn't a scientific theory, and thus should not be put into a text book. To do so will contradict the purpose of learning science! What's the point of teaching kids how to conduct research, explaining what is Scientific Bias, and Double Blind Study-- if we include pseudo-philosophical quackery that breaks all the purpose of learning science?

We shouldn't make things up to fill in gaps. Science is always creating new information. Perhaps time and objectivity will provide the answers.

And anyways-- who made the Intelligent Designer?
For surely there must be something above that to have created it.

I opt for the flying spegetti monster theory....

Bear in mind that one of the reasons why Intelligent Design doesn't bother me is because the person who taught me about Intelligent Design was a scientist who believed that it was a valid Scientific Theory. He believes there is evidence to support the conclusions drawn.

What's this scientist's name?
Every single scientific teacher I had says that this "theory" isn't anymore of a theory than an attempt by religious leaders to sway people back to religious views on creation.

Which is not a bad thing. People should believe whatever they want to believe. However, leave science alone for scientific explainations. Science doesn't always answer everything wholey, but it attempts to do so in the most objectively scientific way.

Professor Lazik-- my old Chemistry teacher-- who is Christian, says that this "theory" contradicts the Bible, as clearly there isn't anything in it to support ID.

Who cares people believe in the philosophy of ID.
It isn't anymore scientific or religious than to believe in the theory of Flying Speghetti Monster.

But what is important that it isn't taught by teachers or included in science text books because it's a fallible notion.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/19/05 11:34 AM, fli wrote: I opt for the flying spegetti monster theory....

Whoa, deja vu. I have heard that expression before, but I can't remember where. Is there a link or a picture or something?

Bear in mind that one of the reasons why Intelligent Design doesn't bother me is because the person who taught me about Intelligent Design was a scientist who believed that it was a valid Scientific Theory. He believes there is evidence to support the conclusions drawn.

What's this scientist's name?
Every single scientific teacher I had says that this "theory" isn't anymore of a theory than an attempt by religious leaders to sway people back to religious views on creation.

His name is Dr. Imad Ahmad. The evidence he provided was the fact that creatures have different codes of DNA, some active, some inactive that are already pre-written into that creature's system. he believes that it is possible that a higher power allows evolution to occur by switching from one active DNA string to another inactive DNA string as time goes on. I should be upfront with his experience: he studied economics, molecular and cellular biology, chemistry, but his major focus was astronomy. He was also a Muslim believer and a hardcore libertarian/privacy buff. This class was taught in a publicly funded University too.

I do not believe that ID is any more compatible with the Biblical Creation than Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, for one. The only way that it may be compatible with creation is that it requires us to believe that God or a higher power created our DNA strands. I do not believe that is far-fetched.

[fudge-monkey]

For all of those who think that evolutions theory on mutation is wrong, check out punctuated equilibriums..... they kindof adressed that.... And if people are challenging evolution, why not astronomy, physics, and earth science, cause god does it all...?

[SEXY-FETUS]

I think christians should adopt the mormon stance on intelligent design. a byu professor after getting some hastle for his research into evolution said "I have no doubt who created us, I also don't see where it says I'm not allowed to figure out how." not the exact quote considering I can't even remember the guys name, if anyone knows let me know.

[Elfer]

At 10/17/05 09:46 PM, Wyrlum wrote: I think that the scientific legitimacy of intelligent design is the same as it is for evolution, at least. The qualification for a scientific theory is that the theory be experimentally falliable. This means that the theory need not be provable, only disprovable.

What is the test of failliability for evolution? Do you build a time machine and travel into the past to observe it actually occuring? How is the theory of intelligent design less falliable?

The test of falliability of evolution is to find evidence to disprove it, or examine something that should be predicted by evolution but ends up having results contradictory to evolution.

For example, a species that goes through the life cycle quickly enough for evolution to theoretically be observed, such as a fruit fly, can be observed to see if it exhibits the behaviour dictated by evolution. If it does not, then that's a potential disproof of evolution.

Or, for example, if we unearthed some sort of evidence that shows that all life was spawned in its current form, such as some sort of space pod with full records on hand about how it was sent here with all the species in it.

The problem with intelligent design is that it is theoretically impossible to find any evidence either to support or deny it, therefore it is invalid as a scientific theory.