ID vs Natural Selection

[United]

Hi Guys,

The following letter was printed in the "Western Australian" newspaper yesterday and has some points worth discussing:

In my body I have a colour camera with auto focus and automatic light adjustment to enable me to see; a microphone which detects loudness, frequency and overtones to enable me to hear; a pump and plumbing, some of which has valves to prevent reverse flow, to nourish me; a computer which enables me to think and remember; a system of levers, joints and rigid rods to enable me to stand, walk and manipulate objectsl an electrical network to enable me to experience the world around me and to detect dangerous threats; a three dimensional orientation device to enable me to balance ... and lots more.
All this grew from a single cell with a huge DNA molecule which is made up from four combinations of atoms, repeated over and over in an orderly manner.
To me, it is blatantly obvious that there is some intelligent design behind all this and all of it is the subject of study in the biological sciences. Consequently I have not confilict in the study of intelligent design as part of science.
Then there is also botany, the structure of the atom, astronomy, all orderly as if they are the subject of intelligent design - and perhaps even evolution may be guided by an intelligent designer.

I believe the last line hits the nail on the head. The weakest link in the theory of evolution is it's mechanism - natural selection. There is no doubt natural selection can affect a population (eg the well known moths experiment), but its extrapolation as the universal design mechanism is a very weak arguement. I therefore see no reason why ID shouldn't be studied as part of a course in evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

As one who lives in WA, I read the article. It is pleasing to see some acknowledgement that people have different beliefs about our origins than evolution, which has been forced upon school children for too long. I have seen one science text book that openly dismisses the Genesis record of Creation as myth. That is a grave concern to Christian parents who believe Genesis is a historical record of Creation.

The weakest link in evolution is the lack of evidence. I do not agree there is a lack of evidence for natural selection. AIG recognises natural selection occurs. However, proving natural selection doesn't prove 'slime to scientist' evolution.

Lee Spetner is a respected scientist with a PHD qualification in Biophysics. He studied and wrote about the possibility of the DNA evolving. In his book 'Not by Chance', he concludes that the classical NDT theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed. For 'slime to scientist' evolution to occur, there needs to be an increase in information. Any one who disputes that, regardless of their definition of information, simply needs to consider the differences between the DNA of the first hypothesised living cell, and the DNA of a person.

Spetner points out that there were no known cases of mutations resulting in an increase in DNA. And even if the point mutations that did occur could be considered responsible for evolution, he demonstrated that the probability of this occuring is so low it is impossible.

Spetner believed large non random genetic change does occur. That opens the door to a further belief regarding evolution. This belief rejects the classical theory assumptions that evolution results from random genetic change and natural selection. It asserts that genetic change was the result of intervention by God, and natural selection caused these changes to become fixed in populations.

While this belief may be palatable to some TE's, Christians who believe the historical record of Genesis will recognise that it is at odds with Scripture. Death, sickness, suffering and sin were no present before the fall. God created all the different kinds of animals. There is not even a hint in Scripture that the different kinds evolved.

 

[ebia]

I therefore see no reason why ID shouldn't be studied as part of a course in evolution.

Because there isn't any science to ID. Even if something was found tomorrow that demonstrated the Theory of Evolution to be a crock of bovine waste, ID still wouldn't be science, because it can't be subjected to scientific methodology.

 

[ebia]

As one who lives in WA, I read the article.

Was it "National non-scientists try and get non-science included in the science curriculum week" last week or something? There was a different but equivalent bit of drivel in The Age.

 

[depthdeception]

Because there isn't any science to ID. Even if something was found tomorrow that demonstrated the Theory of Evolution to be a crock of bovine waste, ID still wouldn't be science, because it can't be subjected to scientific methodology.

Amen.

 

[Smidlee]

Because there isn't any science to ID. Even if something was found tomorrow that demonstrated the Theory of Evolution to be a crock of bovine waste, ID still wouldn't be science, because it can't be subjected to scientific methodology.

I believe many scientist already knows that TOE is a butch of nonsense but don't want open the door to ID. So now TOE is dogma just because they don't have any better with a total naturalist view. Creationist has been marked as fools so long it's hard to admit they were right about anything.
William Paley's view over design has been call the argue of ignorance for so long many believe it's written in stone. But ID isn't argueing out of ignorance but out of knowledge. William Paley was more right than he knowed, (while Darwin was more wrong than he knew) for now we see design in the cell that compare to something as simple as a watch is a joke. If only William knew about computers.

 

[Critias]

We will have to keep in mind that some of you TEs believe that ID has no science within it. That way, if something in ID and ToE are the same, we can make the same assertion back at you.

 

[depthdeception]

We will have to keep in mind that some of you TEs believe that ID has no science within it.

A view of the world which proceeds from a foundation that "supernatural" involvement can explain the universe in which we live is not science. It is a philsophical stance. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with such a philosophical stance. However, it cannot be a basis for science, for everything that can not be explained naturalistically will be delegated to the supernatural. Yet the supernatural is not observable. Therefore, we wind up in the absurd position of trying to provide answers to observations of the physical world with philosophy.

The problem, then, becomes quite obvious: if we are content to fill in gaps of our knowledge of the universe with philosophy, then which philosophies are we to turn to, and which should be considered valid, and which invalid? Obviously, this cannot be determined, and my assertion that an eternal, cosmic Enchilada is the answer to the "gaps" is just as valid (and provable, or more appropriately, unprovable) as the claim that the Triune God of Christianity is the answer.

 

[Smidlee]

So Critias , supernatural intelligent isn't science but supernatural-selection is. Giving "nature" these supernatural ability to proformed miracles is ok as long as you don't point to ID since this would allow indirect evidence of a creator.

 

[stumpjumper]

I believe the last line hits the nail on the head. The weakest link in the theory of evolution is it's mechanism - natural selection. There is no doubt natural selection can affect a population (eg the well known moths experiment), but its extrapolation as the universal design mechanism is a very weak arguement. I therefore see no reason why ID shouldn't be studied as part of a course in evolution.

Evolution is a theory and a fact. The fact is that common descent has occured and that the biodiversification of life on earth can be traced to evolution. The theory is how it occurred and it is open to debate. ID sounds nice and it does make some good points but it doesn't really say anything.

I read Dembski's No Free Lunch and a bunch of articles but what the whole movement boils down to is: "We don't believe that evolution has all the answers of how biodiversication happened." Well, no duh. The theory is constantly evolving and when new information is found it is updated. But just because we can point to some of the weaknesses does not mean that there is not really, really strong evidence to support universal common descent.

In a debate with an atheist at another site I was defending Theistic Evolution and I was presented with this contradictory claim made by ID'ers: (I was not supporting ID so it didn't make any difference) ID advocates would say that our universe is fine tuned for life (fine tuning theory) yet if you accept the main claim of ID that life on earth required intervention to create Irreducibly complex micr-organisms then you are saying that the universe is not fine-tuned to produce life. A bit nonsensical to me.

 

[ebia]

The theory of Evolution describes with greater and greater precision the mechanism by which things did come into being and, where we don't yet know how something came about, how it might have come about.

Like all science it starts from the assumption that it is an understandable, natural, mechanism, because if you don't Godidit is a satisfactory answer to every question and you can never get anywhere - the whole methodology of science doesn't work with philsophical, non-testable, questions. Even if ID is right, it isn't science.

We will have to keep in mind that some of you TEs believe that ID has no science within it. That way, if something in ID and ToE are the same, we can make the same assertion back at you.

As far as I've seen, it's not that ID doesn't have any science - it takes up some of the science from ToE and then wants to stop at some point and say "this is too complicated to bother to research scientifically anymore, so Goddidit."

 

[ebia]

I believe many scientist already knows that TOE is a butch of nonsense but don't want open the door to ID.

Do you have any basis for this, or is it just wishful thinking?

So now TOE is dogma just because they don't have any better with a total naturalist view.

Science only works on the natural. It's tools don't fit the supernatural. It isn't that scientists only believe in the natural, it's that science is intrinsically as study of the natural.

William Paley was more right than he knowed, (while Darwin was more wrong than he knew) for now we see design in the cell that compare to something as simple as a watch is a joke. If only William knew about computers.

Unless you can provide a completely objective test for design, and show us something that isn't designed, looking for design isn't science.

 

[Smidlee]

If we found a unknown object on Mars ; for example a Stargate; Scienctist would easy determine if it was a product of intelligent design. So science/scientist can and does identify intelligent design. if we find nothing but the Stargate on Mars noone would deny it's a product of ID even through who built it is unknown. So intelligent design doesn't equal supernatural as some here claims.
Also it's not because we don't understand how a cell works (even though we have much to learn) or the very proteins that build complex structures. What we don't know is how can we fit the facts and our knowledge of the cell into the evolution dogma. The only reason somoeone comes to conclusion that ID automaticly means "God did it" is because they know that cells are a lot more complex than anything that man has built in comparsion.( So even if aliens did built life on earth they would be gods in comparsion to our knowledge.)

So science can runs test to determine if something is intelligent design or not even if it's origin is totally unknown. The more we learn about cells and build blocks of life to more it shouts intelligent design. this old agruments againest ID just doesn't hold water anymore.

 

[ebia]

If we found a unknown object on Mars ; for example a Stargate; Scienctist would easy determine if it was a product of intelligent design.

How do you know? You are assuming that something designed by an alien intelligence would look like something we designed. There might be a stargate in your back garden that you haven't recognised yet.

The fact is, we very often do need to know about the designer to tell if something is designed. We also need non-designed things to compare it to.

Rest of post is built on this, so falls.

 

[United]

Evolution is a theory and a fact. The fact is that common descent has occured and that the biodiversification of life on earth can be traced to evolution. The theory is how it occurred and it is open to debate. ID sounds nice and it does make some good points but it doesn't really say anything.

Hi Starjumper,

If you read my original email you would realise neither I nor the artical I quoted critised common decent. My only comment was that natural selection (in it's various forms) is seriously lacking as the primary design mechanism. I find it interesting that all replies have critised ID without addressing it's alternative. The fact is that natural selection in itself is practically impossible to disprove as the primary design mechanism (sounds like the argument against ID...). Natural selection deserves a place in the study of evolution, but so do it's serious limitations. Where one theory is highly questionable, all other related theories deserve to be presented ... including ID.

 

[depthdeception]

I find it interesting that all replies have critised ID without addressing it's alternative.

Which alternative "philosophy" is it to which you are referring?

Where one theory is highly questionable, all other related theories deserve to be presented ... including ID.

True enough, but ID is not a scientific theory--it is a philosophcial presupposition about the necessary existence of supernaturalistic answers to gaps in our naturalistic understanding of the universe in which we live.

 

[Micaiah]

If we believe that God created the universe, then we'd expect to see evidence of intelligent design in Creation. The two are inevitabley going to be intertwined. Using that evidence to demonstrate a Creator, and demonstrating the evidence supports the words of the Creator is very much a part of scientific enquiry.

True enough, but ID is not a scientific theory--it is a philosophcial presupposition about the necessary existence of supernaturalistic answers to gaps in our naturalistic understanding of the universe in which we live.

Effectively what you are suggesting is that science should only be taught in the classroom if it makes no reference to God. That is strange coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. It shows the extent to which people have been influenced by humanist dogma.

The peppered moth story illustrates the very tenuous nature of the evidence supporting evolution. Notto's statement that it is an example of the *process leading to* speciation is typical of the exaggerated claims made about this story. At best it could be an example of natural selection, and even that idea has come under attack from various scientists. The scientific studies done by Kettlewell are now recognised to be fundamentally flawed to the point that his research has been invalidated along with his exaggerated claims about what his experiments proved. The more we research even a simple hypothesis such as natural selection of a moth, the more we realise how little we really understand.

Given the problems we have in establishing the truth of this relatively simple example, what right do schools have to imply that 'slime to scientist' evolution can be considered a scientific theory. It is very much conjecture. For humanists, it is the basis for a philosophy where there is no God and nothing supernatural. YEC's have often pointed out the extraordinary faith of those who accept this philosophy.

*Edit

 

[stumpjumper]

Hi Starjumper,

If you read my original email you would realise neither I nor the artical I quoted critised common decent. My only comment was that natural selection (in it's various forms) is seriously lacking as the primary design mechanism. I find it interesting that all replies have critised ID without addressing it's alternative. The fact is that natural selection in itself is practically impossible to disprove as the primary design mechanism (sounds like the argument against ID...). Natural selection deserves a place in the study of evolution, but so do it's serious limitations. Where one theory is highly questionable, all other related theories deserve to be presented ... including ID.

I believe in creation and design just not ID or Creationism. I would accept an alternative theory to natural selection if it made a scientific claim. ID does not make any predictable or testable scientific claims but the ToE does. When Darwin first came out with his theory there were no transition fossils yet Darwin boldly predicted that some would be found and some were found.

Now natural selection might be a weakness in the ToE (I do not believe it is but I am open-minded) but until another scientific mechanism comes about it is the best theory. Whether as Christians we like it or not simply saying "God-did-it" does not do very much to raise the scientific awareness and knowledge of our children. Kenneth Miller a Roman-Catholic and author of Biology textbooks wrote a very good book called Finding Darwins God and he makes a lot of design claims just not Design claims. There is a nuanced yet significant difference.

 

[Critias]

So Critias , supernatural intelligent isn't science but supernatural-selection is. Giving "nature" these supernatural ability to proformed miracles is ok as long as you don't point to ID since this would allow indirect evidence of a creator.

Unfortunately, many Christians are against the idea of God creating the universe with a miracle and opt for the natural process instead. It is just being inconsistent with Biblical teaching. Either accept the miracle as it is told it is, or deny it and the rest of the miracles as well.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Unfortunately, many Christians are against the idea of God creating the universe with a miracle and opt for the natural process instead. It is just being inconsistent with Biblical teaching. Either accept the miracle as it is told it is, or deny it and the rest of the miracles as well.

So either agree with you or become an atheist? I'm glad that Jesus is at the core of my beliefs not you.

Shouldn't there be a rule in the Christian Only forums about not activly trying to deconvert others from Christianity itself? I'm kind of tired of being told I should deconvert and become an atheist because I do not agree with what ever extra-biblical theology that someone else believes in.