Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed... A movie review

[Cabal]

Out of curiosity, what books have you all read about Intelligent Design?

Honestly, I've not read many books - at this stage in my scientific education (Master's degree, Physics, year 4 of 5, have got some introductory bio classes under my belt) I'd prefer to read actual ID scientific data/theory, not so much coffee-table style stuff. I'm not trying to be snooty, it's just I don't really read coffee-table stuff for my own subject anymore now. I don't know of many places to look on the web for the actual hard data, etc.

You compared the extreme viewpoints (YEC, atheistic evolution) and said that ID isn't constrained by trying to prove a certain point of view - that it's merely an observation of intelligent design. Certainly, one can argue this, the problem is, like you said, it's not a theory - will knowing that DNA is intelligently designed help us understand how to customise genetic therapy? (as an example)

As I mentioned already, ID tends not to make understanding what we see easier, but it raises more questions than it answers. A not unreasonable next question is: Which designer? Yahweh? Allah? Ganesh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? (joke) The question of whether God exists or not, is completely unanswerable by the means of the scientific method. Opening it up to any other religion just confuses the matter even more.

Yes, I agree, that some atheistic evolution proponents do wish to use evolutionary theory as a tool to encourage atheism. However, while I do not agree with this, I do not think ID has yet any suitable scientific applications, which is why I think it is unsuitable for the scientific arena.

Certainly, there is no harm in observing/believing that aspects of creation are intelligently designed, and no scientist would be fired for that - if thinking that way led them to a solid scientific conclusion, then that's fine (bearing in mind there are plenty of things one has to do to obtain tenure, like coming up with results).

However, if they want to pursue ID over evolution, then they have to overcome the century-and-a-half's worth of tried and tested legitimate evolutionary science, which, as I've pointed out before, has led to many other uses other than origins science.

I think, also, you can't blame scientists, atheistic or no, for being a little antsy over this film - when ID has so many strong connotations with the Christian ID movement, not so much scientifically, but more in the virulent desire to undermine the current scientific (accepted) theories. As I asked before, do (specifically Christian) ID supporters merely desire equality with evolution, or dominance over it? It is this uncertainty that worries scientists - especially when films like Expelled try and make the issue an emotive one, not a scientific one, by making suggestive connections with Nazism. Another very telling point is that the creators of Expelled are on record as saying that interviewing Christian/religious scientists who were pro-evolution would "confuse the matter." It's not like we're a minority, either. And yet this film is quite content to ignore that and lump us all in with the Nazis and the atheists.

The problem is that many, if not most, evolutionists are trying to stop the debate. They aren’t interested in any opinion but their own, therefore research into any other idea other than the aforementioned chain of events that natural selection requires in order to be true, is being attacked on the grounds that “it isn’t scientific”. Scientific to these folks means any explanation that boxes out a creator.

And understandably - you pointed out it isn't a theory - then it doesn't fit into the framework of the scientific method (it could be an axiom, at the very least, perhaps). Also, I mentioned previously that "design" is not an objective quantity. Something like genetic variation (the underlying principle of evolution) is an objective quantity.

Someone may look at the eye and see design (...then what?). Someone else, whether religious or not, may look at the eye and not instantly think "design"..(a bit like beauty being in the eye of the holder, perhaps) and then go on to develop a plausible framework, based on existing evidence, as to how eye-like structures may have developed over a long period of time.

Sorry for the rambling answers - in deadline hell at the moment....

 

[Cabal]

Why? Atheists before TOE had no problem being Atheists. They just did not like the public scorn. They love TOR because TOE is their means to gain the ascendancy over believers, and now to ridicule them. There's the rub.
...
What you fail to see, is that TOE is an offensive weapon that Satan has devised over time to give people who like his style leverage over believers of the Bible. Face it. That's what it is.

Not all atheists want to ridicule believers. I know plenty of atheists that don't. As stated before - what a scientific theory is used to justify socially, has no bearing on its scientific veracity. The Bible has been used equally incorrectly over the centuries to justify plenty of atrocities, that doesn't make it right, nor does it make the Bible satanic.

You really think you can win anyone to Christ by being pleasant? That God depends on our personality to win the lost? That if you give a bad witness? They will end up going to hell, and its all your fault?

I'm not going to get into a debate here - all I can tell you is I've had much more meaningful, intelligent and spiritfilled discussion with non-believers when I haven't gone in trying to lay a holy smackdown on them.

If you think about it. All the essential functions that we mostly take for granted had to be developed almost instantly as to guarantee survival of a creature from its onset.

Not instantly, no. For a particular environmental niche, the ones that survived and evolved further were those that developed particular advantages for that nice. When you start to become multicellular, then you might need a defence mechanism of some kind. Those whose genes allow for the best mechanism are going to survive disease, and go on to improve their immune systems further.

As for many of the examples you cited - stomach, gonads - it is important to remember that most organs are multifunctional - digestion of foodstuffs is possible without protective layers, bacteria do it all the time in their cytoplasm. Extra digestive juices evolved later, probably to allow multicellular life a more varied diet. Stomach mucus has multiple functions, for example lubrication. It's not a case of one specific function, like chicken-and-egg, it's a case of multiple options available.

As for sexual reproduction - how else could it have worked out? If different methods of sharing gametes all evolved around the same time, then those that were compatible are the ones that exist today as we know them, because only they could reproduce. Evolution doesn't have a specific result in mind. It just works with what it's got, then it's up to natural selection to weed out the weaker creatures in a particular ecosystem.

For a better explanation of your questions, you should ask a biologist. I could go on - there are plenty of explanations for things like the digestive and reproductive systems. And I hate to point this out, but just because you find this hard to believe - well, that's not really a refuting argument.

Scientist often times equate their discipline with virtue. Yet, many fall short of that ideal. For example, Nazi Germany had brilliant scientists. Virtue in itself is not a given.

Seriously, what is it with the Nazis?!

I find that evolutionists still remain emotionally in many ways as children. Ones playing with their engrossing, amusing toys, and take great pride in themselves in their ability to analyze the material world.

For some, their pride in their ability becomes a justification for the hurtful rejections they received from other kids when they were a child. How they did not fit in and were awkward and made fun of or rejected.

You can't generalise an entire group of people like this. I'm sorry, but you can't. As with the Expelled movie, you've neglected all the Christian scientists. Also, there is NOTHING wrong with appreciating science. As I have said, there are many other valid reasons for accepting evolution besides origins theory. To call it playing with toys is just ignorant. I could argue that Christianity is just "reading a story-book," and clearly, there's more to it than that.

Sorry to go line-by-line on you, but there were a lot of points I wanted to address.

 

[Frisbee]

Cabal what was Einstein's biggest mistake?

Read this please

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html

In a nutshell...

Einstein's mistake was not a mathematical one but rather a philosophical one

But please read the whole paragraph in the link, and then let's talk about seeking the truth vs proving a theory. I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, I'm serious. This lays the groundwork, the framework of how I think we should approach science in general, of course this includes the study of the creation of the universe.

 

[Markus6]

Intelligent Design on the other hand is not constrained by either of the aforementioned limitations. It is simply an observation that life appears to have many attributes of intelligent design. Young Earth Creation (YEC) to Evolution by Natural Selection (ENS) are confined to the limitations they bring to the table, whereas ID can accept every answer because it is not about presenting a theory, but an observation of appears to be true.

From what I know ID isn't simply "an observation that life appear to have many attributes of intelligent design". I thought it was the theory that there is an intelligent designer based on scientific proof that an intelligent designer is necessary (e.g. irreducible complexity) so that, based on status as a scientific theory, it could be taught in schools.

Defining ID is a problem and I've seened it defined as anything from practically YEC creationism to practically theistic evolution. At the Dover trial the textbook was proved to be almost identical to a former creationism textbook with the word 'creationism' replaced with 'intelligent design'. But the way you define it "an observation that life appear to have many attributes of intelligent design" is something that I can accept even though I don't point to any event in the development of the universe as a unnatural miracle. I believe in an intelligent designer but not the intelligent design theory or movement.

What are your thoughts?

I will admit however, that I find ENS particularly troubling in that it is used as a platform by atheists to disprove the existence of God. Ironically, it can’t disprove God though. It can only prove that YECs are wrong. If it could be proved, which it can not.

You shouldn't find ENS troubling then, but the platform used by atheists (sometimes supported by creationists).

 

[GenemZ]

Not all atheists want to ridicule believers. I know plenty of atheists that don't.

You know plenty of atheists? ... I see.

I'm not going to get into a debate here - all I can tell you is I've had much more meaningful, intelligent and spiritfilled discussion with non-believers when I haven't gone in trying to lay a holy smackdown on them.

That was not written to you. Nor was it intended for you. It was for someone who was suggesting how I should live. The smack down should be facts that they must fight off in order to maintain their footing. Something that won't go away because they can not answer.

Not instantly, no. For a particular environmental niche, the ones that survived and evolved further were those that developed particular advantages for that nice. When you start to become multicellular, then you might need a defence mechanism of some kind.

How neat. "It just happened." I can just picture Tinker Bell flying on screen and twinkling her wand after I read those words. Scientific fairy tails... What a concept.

Those whose genes allow for the best mechanism are going to survive disease, and go on to improve their immune systems further.

When that happens, it creates less variety of what already was. It then goes on to becoming a lesser creature. Not greater. After all. Those who did not survive a particular crisis, may have faired better in another than the ones who survived the current crisis.. Sort of like brawn wins today, but the brains that died off, would have made it tomorrow.

As for many of the examples you cited - stomach, gonads - it is important to remember that most organs are multifunctional - digestion of foodstuffs is possible without protective layers, bacteria do it all the time in their cytoplasm. Extra digestive juices evolved later, probably to allow multicellular life a more varied diet.

Why the need to evolve? After all, simpler life forms survive easily as they are. Even easier in many cases.

Stomach mucus has multiple functions, for example lubrication. It's not a case of one specific function, like chicken-and-egg, it's a case of multiple options available.

Yes, I know. No intelligent design. Its just happened "by chance." Chicken lays eggs. Platypus lays eggs... Just worked out that way. Chance and luck. That's all it took.

As for sexual reproduction - how else could it have worked out? If different methods of sharing gametes all evolved around the same time, then those that were compatible are the ones that exist today as we know them, because only they could reproduce.

To think the complex male and female reproductive systems in higher life forms evolved in a parallel fashion with one another?

To think two opposite poles knew what the other needed to reproduce and changed accordingly before it died out?

To think some MINDLESS process brought it into being? Well? I have very little respect for the intellect that thinks that sort of biological function could possible happen by chance. Matter of fact. The more I understand about the functions of reproduction and sex, the more I look down upon those who claim I can not see it because I do not have the intelligence to understand. They confuse the awareness of intricate details with the comprehension of how things come into being. Its unfathomable to think it could have just happened by chance. I would have to be stupid to believe it could!

Evolution doesn't have a specific result in mind. It just works with what it's got, then it's up to natural selection to weed out the weaker creatures in a particular ecosystem.

Todays weaker, may have been tomorrow's stronger under different circumstances. There is no stronger. Only ones better suited for a given crisis.

Tiny people may escape a trap. Yet, the stronger bigger people for winning open battle, may remain trapped and die. In battles they must face after their escaping the trap, the surviving tiny people can not fight well. They must now resort to hiding in weakness, where as the tall and strong would have protected their freedom in the past. We end up with a lesser creature. Not a greater.

Seriously, what is it with the Nazis?!

Study history. Find out! Hitler did not want a black man to compete in the Olympics in Germany. For he saw there being such a thing as a superior race of men to become the rulers of the world. His own. Yet, Jessie Owens humiliated Hitler when he took gold medals home back to the USA. And, remember the inferior Jews that had to be weeded out of mankind? The Aryan race would be the goal of this process that Hitler saw as the inevitable evolution of the human race. Where have you deniers been? Its old news. I knew about that before even becoming a Christian.

You can't generalise an entire group of people like this. I'm sorry, but you can't.

I did not generalize. Read it again. You will see I was not generalizing. You even quoted what I said...

Here!

For some, their pride in their ability becomes a justification for the hurtful rejections they received from other kids when they were a child. How they did not fit in and were awkward and made fun of or rejected.
​

As with the Expelled movie, you've neglected all the Christian scientists. Also, there is NOTHING wrong with appreciating science

I have not. I was not generalizing.

Matter of fact. Those Christian scientists confirmed my long held convictions. I have no conflict with science. I have a conflict with arrogant scientists who manipulate their abilities to try and create an image of being a superior man to others. Before God, they are dust. They are nothing.

. As I have said, there are many other valid reasons for accepting evolution besides origins theory. To call it playing with toys is just ignorant. I could argue that Christianity is just "reading a story-book," and clearly, there's more to it than that.

Get this for once? Evolution exists!

Christians do not deny it.

But, evolution was not the cause for life, nor the cause of man's existence.

TOE's are theory maniacs. They are obsessed people. They are blinded by a sense of self glory. And, they have many dupes who follow them like the people followed Hitler.

Its a trend in the human fallen nature for many. These ones get caught up in what they never want to question... because it makes them feel good about themselves. Makes them feel smart.

Makes them feel threatened as well. Because unanswered questions will not go away. So? Expelled revealed how the questioners where to be made to go away. You did not see that?




In Christ, GeneZ



.

 

[Frisbee]

From what I know ID isn't simply "an observation that life appear to have many attributes of intelligent design". I thought it was the theory that there is an intelligent designer based on scientific proof that an intelligent designer is necessary (e.g. irreducible complexity) so that, based on status as a scientific theory, it could be taught in schools.

Defining ID is a problem and I've seened it defined as anything from practically YEC creationism to practically theistic evolution. At the Dover trial the textbook was proved to be almost identical to a former creationism textbook with the word 'creationism' replaced with 'intelligent design'. But the way you define it "an observation that life appear to have many attributes of intelligent design" is something that I can accept even though I don't point to any event in the development of the universe as a unnatural miracle. I believe in an intelligent designer but not the intelligent design theory or movement.

What are your thoughts?

You shouldn't find ENS troubling then, but the platform used by atheists (sometimes supported by creationists).

I think that you've missed the point. The movie was about what happened to university professor who held views other than neo-Darwinism, not a debate about Intelligent Design.

But if you want to debate teh finer points of what ID has to offer in a textbook for children, then let's try this...

DNA. Explain how evolution via natural selection explains the information in DNA. I mean precisely, not in big picture generalities.

What you'll find is that they don't know preciseely and make a lot of assumptions based upon a belief that it had to happen like that in order to arrive at the conclusions they have come to. I'm not aware that ID attempts to explain how the information got into DNA, but is rather an observation that information is a sign of intellegence, not chemicals slapping into each other in a chemical soup.

If ID and the scientists who wish to pursue such angles were given the ability to research such things without being fired and run out of the univeristy for daring to believe anything other than Darwinian evolution, then perhaps we could answer those questions. Until then, I'd say they have done a fantastic job given the milion, billion, trillion to 1 ratio of funding and access to facilities that evolutionists currently enjoy. That's not science, that is indoctrination.

 

[Cabal]

But please read the whole paragraph in the link, and then let's talk about seeking the truth vs proving a theory.

Haha, oh lambda.....

So what does the cosmological constant story mean to you?

To relate it to what we've discussed already, my take on it is - sure, Einstein was wrong to base his theory on his view of the universe (although 'tis ironic indeed that lambda might end up being useful after all ), but alternate theories were posited, with concrete, objective evidence, and Einstein accepted this.

Now, if ID wants to do the same thing cosmological expansion did, it's going to have to account for and improve upon the methodology for explaining everything that evolution has accounted for since it was postulated. This can only be done with objective and repeatable evidence.

Even if evolution was developed because of a faulty worldview (unlikely, seeing as Darwin was a Christian), it's been confirmed as an objective working model of genetic variation from the word go.

My question is - how does ID propose to improve on the theory of evolution? I can tell you straight off that comparing evolutionists to Nazis, and sheer incredulity, will not hold water in the scientific arena, and all it will do is damage ID's own cause.

 

[Cabal]

Genez:

Yes, I know plenty of atheists. What's your point?

Thanks for responding to my attempts to answer your questions from the other side of the discussion with yet more incredulity and sarcasm.

Please read.

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

Arguments from ignorance are a logical fallacy. ToE has not been empirically disproved. ID has not been empirically proved. You're entitled to not believe ToE, but that doesn't make you right. For someone who argues in his final paragraph that evolution does exist after denying a fairly standard application of natural selection (not even macro-evolution) a few pages up, I'd watch before I lay on the sarcasm.

Hitler: Social Darwinism =/= Theory of evolution. Don't know how much clearer I can make it. Nazi Germany had many Christians. What of it?

Matter of fact. Those Christian scientists confirmed my long held convictions. I have no conflict with science. I have a conflict with arrogant scientists who manipulate their abilities to try and create an image of being a superior man to others. Before God, they are dust. They are nothing

So, in other words, the scientists you agree with confirm your convictions? There are plenty of Christians who believe in theistic evolution, myself included. Although maybe I'm wrong - your previous post admits you accept evolution occurs, and yet when I attempt to give examples of it I get sarcasm - so which is it?

 

[Markus6]

I think that you've missed the point. The movie was about what happened to university professor who held views other than neo-Darwinism, not a debate about Intelligent Design.

I know. I am seeing the movie tonight so I'm not going to comment on it till then. I was just looking for a definition of intelligent design. Do you have one?

But if you want to debate teh finer points of what ID has to offer in a textbook for children, then let's try this...

DNA. Explain how evolution via natural selection explains the information in DNA. I mean precisely, not in big picture generalities.

Well evolution requires imperfect replicators to occur. An organism requires DNA to be imperfect replicator so basically evolution does not seek to explain the origin of DNA it explains the diversity of life given DNA.

I think you may be thinking about abiogenesis.

What you'll find is that they don't know preciseely and make a lot of assumptions based upon a belief that it had to happen like that in order to arrive at the conclusions they have come to.

Not assumptions, more guesses. That is how science works. They make guesses and then do experiments to find evidence and see if the evidence lines up with the guess. If it doesn't they then modify the guess or discard it completely to come up with an alternative. If ID has a guess we can look at that too, unless that guess is "God just did it" in which case there is no way to study it.

I'm not aware that ID attempts to explain how the information got into DNA, but is rather an observation that information is a sign of intellegence, not chemicals slapping into each other in a chemical soup.

What does ID explain? If ID's answer to "where did DNA come from" is "God did it" then how did God do it? You've given an example but even if abiogenesis doesn't explain it perfectly, if ID doesn't explain it why should kids study it?

If ID and the scientists who wish to pursue such angles were given the ability to research such things without being fired and run out of the univeristy for daring to believe anything other than Darwinian evolution, then perhaps we could answer those questions. Until then, I'd say they have done a fantastic job given the milion, billion, trillion to 1 ratio of funding and access to facilities that evolutionists currently enjoy. That's not science, that is indoctrination.

How does the theory of ID help you to answer these questions?

 

[Frisbee]

Let's start with putting evolution via natural selection in it's proper place. You (Markus6) alluded to this when you corrected me as I drifted towards biogenesis theory as opposed to the much bigger of the evolution of larger more complex organisms.

Evolution can very possibly explain the diversity of life that is present on planet earth right now. In fact, I personally believe that it is responible for the diversity of life we have currently. I have no problem there whatsoever.

What evolution can't do is explain how information ended up inside of DNA, and how DNA uses that information to carry out the necessary functions all life o this planet. If evolutionists can't explain that process in detail, then they are just guessing. How is that different than anything that an ID proponent has to offer?

I read you answer, but it is too vague. Also, there are issues with DNA that seem impossible to explain. Impossible as in not possible, off the table not possible. here's the problem...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/which-came-first-dna-or-protein/

I share the writer's basic challenge that if this can be solved by a process that can be explained with evoltuion by natural selection, then I would be much more open to the idea of evoltuion by natural selection from tip to tail. Unitl then I see things pretty clearly as having occured in such a way that requires intelligent design. How the information got there, I don't know. Nobody knows. But neither do evoltuionists. If evolution can not satisfactorily account for the intelligence inside of the building blocks of life, DNA, then the logical conclusion I come to is intelligent design and an acknowledgment that neither evoltuionists or IDers are currently able to tell me how.

 

[Markus6]

Evolution can very possibly explain the diversity of life that is present on planet earth right now. In fact, I personally believe that it is responible for the diversity of life we have currently. I have no problem there whatsoever.

So you accept the theory of evolution? Does that make you an evolutionist or is that something different?

What evolution can't do is explain how information ended up inside of DNA, and how DNA uses that information to carry out the necessary functions all life o this planet.

I'm not going to try and explain this. I'm not a biologist, nor am I uptodate on the current scientific research in these fields. Even if there is no explanation nobody is trying to say that we have a complete picture of the development of life from start to finish. There are still plenty of questions that scientists are working on.

If evolutionists can't explain that process in detail, then they are just guessing. How is that different than anything that an ID proponent has to offer?

What does an ID proponent have to offer? Is there an ID theory for which came first?

I read you answer, but it is too vague. Also, there are issues with DNA that seem impossible to explain. Impossible as in not possible, off the table not possible. here's the problem...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/which-came-first-dna-or-protein/

I share the writer's basic challenge that if this can be solved by a process that can be explained with evoltuion by natural selection, then I would be much more open to the idea of evoltuion by natural selection from tip to tail. Unitl then I see things pretty clearly as having occured in such a way that requires intelligent design. How the information got there, I don't know. Nobody knows. But neither do evoltuionists. If evolution can not satisfactorily account for the intelligence inside of the building blocks of life, DNA, then the logical conclusion I come to is intelligent design and an acknowledgment that neither evoltuionists or IDers are currently able to tell me how.

So you don't know how this happened so for now you are just content thinking God did it? Well sure, I believe in God, but this is far from scientific proof of intelligent design. It's a hole in our knowledge maybe but what if we do find an evolutionary mechanism or find another natural mechanism (not everything has to be evolution) that explains it?

 

[Cabal]

I wonder why that would be. Atheists are not exactly a majority group. Why do you know so many? What field of work do you do to know so many?

As I have already mentioned, I'm a physicist. And atheists aren't a minority group in particular either. I know many atheists, agnostics, and Christians in my line of work.

You were not answering my questions. You were simply repeating what you were told and had swallowed without question.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I attempted to answer your questions politely, then you turned on the sarcasm and accused me of trying calling you stupid. Sorry for thinking I could discuss things with you.

Yes... you do that with the Bible. Don't you.

Right, I'll spell it out for you.

God has not been empirically proven. (Because believing in Him requires faith, I imagine he won't ever be empirically proven.)

Evolution has been empirically proven. However, because there are something science can't explain, or seem incredible to someone, that does not automatically prove that God exists and created everything. To assume that it did would be an "argument from ignorance." It is still a matter of faith.

Please read the links I provide, instead of resorting to more "NO YOU" playground tactics.

I know I am not stupid. But you would have me to believe I am. I am not stupid. You theories are not above my ability to reason. Your ability to believe them blindly, is.

I attempted to discuss my points of view calmly with you.
You throw them back in my face with sarcasm and unfounded accusations.

And you're accusing me of believing things blindly?

TOE
​

.

secular fundamentalists! jump through the hoop if you want to be accepted! or, be expelled!​

Wow.

And you wonder why scientists get angry over films like Expelled, when people who represent the opposing point of view throw stuff like this around on a regular basis with little provocation. Way to convince people.

 

[Frisbee]

Evolution has not been emprically or otherwise proven.

 

[Cabal]

Evolution has not been emprically or otherwise proven.

You agree the principles of change in gene frequency, natural selection, and micro-evolution (which is essentially macro-evolution, just on a smaller timescale) are correct, do you not? Nor is evolution about explaining biogenesis, and it has other uses besides prehistorical uses. Surely these aspects of the theory are all valid.

 

[Markus6]

Evolution has not been emprically or otherwise proven.

No scientific theory has (including the theory of gravity and atomic theory). Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

 

[Frisbee]

The movie isn't about ID. It is about how scientists who are ID proponents are being persecuted.

Bottom line is that evolution fails the afrementioned test Markus6. You avoided the question and just chucked it back at me. Sorry, but that is just a debating tactic. I stand by what I said earlier, unchanged and unaffected by your attempt to just deflect it. DNA. Evolution can't explain it, so evoltuion is on equal footing with ID. Unless you can explain it of course.

 

[Frisbee]

In order for you to start down any road leading to evolution by natural selection, you must first address the information very plainly and obviously in the building blocks of life, DNA. If you can't, then all you are proposing is that things breed and change based on the information in the DNA you can't explain. Sorry to be so blunt, but a child could figure that out Cabal. Evoltuion as the one size fits all answer fails miserably.

 

[Cabal]

In order for you to start down any road leading to evolution by natural selection, you must first address the information very plainly and obviously in the building blocks of life, DNA. If you can't, then all you are proposing is that things breed and change based on the information in the DNA you can't explain. Sorry to be so blunt, but a child could figure that out Cabal. Evoltuion as the one size fits all answer fails miserably.

Ok, ok - I was just basing my thinking on the fact that evolution doesn't describe the origins of life, just its development. So maybe ToE just doesn't cover it. Not knowing where DNA came from doesn't stop the process of evolution from happening, it isn't dependent on our knowledge.

I know, it's a terrible answer, but like I said, there are some things science can't explain yet (which is different from saying they'll never explain them, mind )

So what testable hypothesis could ID (or related disciplines) come up with to explain the origin of DNA? Do you know of any?

 

[Markus6]

The movie isn't about ID. It is about how scientists who are ID proponents are being persecuted.

Bottom line is that evolution fails the afrementioned test Markus6. You avoided the question and just chucked it back at me. Sorry, but that is just a debating tactic. I stand by what I said earlier, unchanged and unaffected by your attempt to just deflect it. DNA. Evolution can't explain it, so evoltuion is on equal footing with ID. Unless you can explain it of course.

So our understanding of evolution currently cannot explain everything? Well nobody said it should. Perhaps there is another mechanism other than evolution involved. Evolution can explain a lot of things, it explains the fossil record and genetic similarities. What does ID explain? What even is ID? Is it theism? I believe God designed and created the universe and everything in it. I also believe in the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life. Am I an evolutionist or an IDist?

 

[Frisbee]

Ok, ok - I was just basing my thinking on the fact that evolution doesn't describe the origins of life, just its development. So maybe ToE just doesn't cover it.

I know, it's a terrible answer, but like I said, there are something science can't explain yet (which is different from saying they'll never explain them, mind )

So what testable hypothesis could ID (or related disciplines) come up with to explain the origin of DNA? Do you know of any?

Testable?

None. There is no way to find out how the process began IMPO. It is very possible that evolutionists (or IDers, either way) can explain how it happened in terms of a physical process. What evolution can't explain is how via natural selection, enough time and random chance. Whatever caused those things to happen are the answer. I don't believe that cause can be attributed to nothing. It's not unlikely, it's impossible.

But ot answer you question directly, I don't believe that anyone, including IDers, can answer that question.