If ID is a theory

[Garnett]

Even the snowflake proves ID

DevotiontoBible, am I to take it you concede my last post's arguments?

If there is anything you don't understand, please let me know. I'm not 100% certain I explained it sufficiently. I am keen to know whether you cannot comprehend it, you've chosen to ignore it, or whether its arguments have washed off you.

Come on, the snow-flake is the same as the river Thames. That wonderfully complex snow-flake has to be complex because otherwise it would collapse and reform before falling.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

DevotiontoBible, am I to take it you concede my last post's arguments?

If there is anything you don't understand, please let me know. I'm not 100% certain I explained it sufficiently. I am keen to know whether you cannot comprehend it, you've chosen to ignore it, or whether its arguments have washed off you.

Come on, the snow-flake is the same as the river Thames. That wonderfully complex snow-flake has to be complex because otherwise it would collapse and reform before falling.

I must have missed it.What post# are you referring to?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

DB,

You seem to be fairly selective as to what you will answer. If you don't mind, please answer this. It's not too difficult. Thanks.

So, you believe the judge in the Dover, PA case (a conservative Christian Bush appointee) was an "activist" judge--legislating from the bench--when he ruled that id was in fact obviously religious, and Judeo-Christian to boot, in nature.

Also, part of science is making hypotheses and then testing them. Do you agree with this?

If no, explain what the use of hypotheses is in science.

If yes, please provide a hypothesis as to who/what the designer is and how one could test for him/her/it.

Just make a hypotheses (or even just a guess--don't worry about the testing bit if that scares you).

 

[Garnett]

I must have missed it.What post# are you referring to?

#108. Looking back over the thread though, and reading that post, I must apologise if it seems agressive. I see a lot of posts directed at you, and I'm sure it must put you in a defensive mindset.

I feel quite passionately about the subject like many of us do. Even if I disagree with your standpoint, I applaud anyone who can argue for what they believe, as long as they retain objectivity.

 

[mark kennedy]

If ID is a theory would someone please define it for me?

According to Michael Behe, "Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts". He is quick to make the distinction between creationism and ID and it is clear to me that he is definatly not a creationist (would to God that he where, but he is not).

"As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretaion of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe)

As a creationist I am opposed to the concept of Single Common Ancestory, particularly with regards to human evolution from apes.

If you remove arguments against Darwinism because intelligent design is unscientific then the single common ancestory model losses all meaning. For example, Homo habilis (handy man) was so named because of the discovery of tools at Olduvai Gorge. The argument and conclusion was that these tools where intelligently designed, from a classic paper:

"While is is possible that Zinjanthropus and Homo habilis both made stone tools, it is probable that the latter was the more advanced tools maker and that the Zinjanthropus skull represents an intruder (or victim) on the Homo hablis living site." (Latest News From Olduvia Gorge, Nature 1963)

The Simithsonian makes this statement regarding Homo habilis:

"With an estimated cranial capacity of 680cc, Leakey and his colleagues chose to lower this number to 600cc. While calling attention to anatomical differences between OH 7 and Australopithecus, they chose a behavior- the ability to make stone tools-to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils. "

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

Dispite the fact that OH 7 was below the cerbral rubicon of 700cc it was included in the Homo genus. Why? Because it was determined that the tools where intelligently designed. Without the tools Homo habilis is little more then an ape.

 

[Edx]

Cough, snowflakes, cough.

 

[Garnett]

As a creationist I am opposed to the concept of Single Common Ancestory, particularly with regards to human evolution from apes.

If you remove arguments against Darwinism because intelligent design is unscientific then the single common ancestory model losses all meaning.

I'm taking this as the statement you wish to prove by the rest of your post.

For example, Homo habilis (handy man) was so named because of the discovery of tools at Olduvai Gorge. The argument and conclusion was that these tools where intelligently designed, from a classic paper:

"While is is possible that Zinjanthropus and Homo habilis both made stone tools, it is probable that the latter was the more advanced tools maker and that the Zinjanthropus skull represents an intruder (or victim) on the Homo hablis living site." (Latest News From Olduvia Gorge, Nature 1963)

The Simithsonian makes this statement regarding Homo habilis:

"With an estimated cranial capacity of 680cc, Leakey and his colleagues chose to lower this number to 600cc. While calling attention to anatomical differences between OH 7 and Australopithecus, they chose a behavior- the ability to make stone tools-to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils. "

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

Dispite the fact that OH 7 was below the cerbral rubicon of 700cc it was included in the Homo genus. Why? Because it was determined that the tools where intelligently designed. Without the tools Homo habilis is little more then an ape.

So what are you sayoing? That because some scientists recategorised a definition in Man's evolution, the theory of Single Common Ancestory is defunct?

Also I don't understand this refusal to accept a theory based on whether you think it makes you an ape. Surely when Creationists argue that "Darwinists are apes because they believe in evolution. I'm not, because I don't believe it", they know how ridiculous they sound? Believing a theory makes it true, but only for those who believe it? Come on, that's like believing someone when they say "A divine being has spoken to me and told me I am an instrument. Believe what I say and don't question my actions, then you'll be rewarded iafter you die."

 

[Split Rock]

With gravity, everything falls...all the time. With Intelligent Design, everything has an order and regularity...all the time. With evolution, species evolve into new species...none of the time.

None of the time? Wrong.

Check out Ring Species like the Greenish Warbler and the Herring Gull that are undergoing Speciation as we speak:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ring-species
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

If that is not enough, here is a list of speciation events compiled by Lucaspa back in 2004:

Observed Speciation -
General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely fine fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

 

[Garnett]

DB,
You seem to be fairly selective as to what you will answer. If you don't mind, please answer this. It's not too difficult. Thanks.

DB, have you had an epiphany? Are you starting to see the light? Please post even if you do not contend the recent posts just so I know we are getting through to someone.

 

[_Paladin_]

DB, even Answers In Genesis admits that speciation ocurrs.

 

[Phred]

130 posts and not one definition of the "Theory of Intelligent Design." Could it be that this, like "Scientific Creationism" is just more hot air?

Imagine that... ID this and ID that and there's not even an agreed-upon definition.

 

[_Paladin_]

Well if you look at my poll, there are actually very few IDs here to discuss it with.

 

[Arik Soong]

130 posts and not one definition of the "Theory of Intelligent Design." Could it be that this, like "Scientific Creationism" is just more hot air?

Imagine that... ID this and ID that and there's not even an agreed-upon definition.

There is no exact version of intelligent design because it is properly a teleological interpretation of reality and not all interpretations would be the same. ID does not call itself a scientific theory with any testable predictions. BTW, do you consider Paley's Natural Theology a science book? It used science to argue for a metaphysical view but it is not science as it is metaphysics. IDers have some ways to detect design like IC or CSI. These are helpful for making a design inference but they are far from perfect.

However, some people like to hi-jack the ID movement and use it to support their own religious dogma but real ID is independent from that. ID is compatable with common descent.

 

[Phred]

There is no exact version of intelligent design because it is properly a teleological interpretation of reality and not all interpretations would be the same. ID does not call itself a scientific theory with any testable predictions.

While I've never claimed ID was a theory others have. That is the purpose of this thread. If one is going to claim that ID deserves to be taught alongside the Theory of Evolution then one should be able to offer us the Theory of Intelligent Design. Thank you for confirming my suspicions... ID is not a scientific theory.

BTW, do you consider Paley's Natural Theology a science book? It used science to argue for a metaphysical view but it is not science as it is metaphysics.

Using scientific concepts and data to discuss other concepts does not make them scientific. We can talk all day long about how much the typical mouse eats in a day, that does not lend credibility to Mickey's existence.

IDers have some ways to detect design like IC or CSI. These are helpful for making a design inference but they are far from perfect.

Since those proposing things like IC won't do the science necessary to have them recognized it's impossible to say whether or not such a thing is far from perfect or impossible. As Behe admitted, IC is as valid as Astrology. What sign are you?

However, some people like to hi-jack the ID movement and use it to support their own religious dogma but real ID is independent from that. ID is compatable with common descent.

Then please define ID for me. We've determined it is not a scientific theory, what is the definition of the concept and how is it testable? Lastly, who's testing it?

.
​

 

[_Paladin_]

Phred,

I disagree with Arik, I think Intelligent Design is, or at least has the potential to be science. But I do agree that it has no bones about common descent. And I do not beleive ID is at the point yet that is developed enough to be taught in schools. As for testablity, have you ever heard of the frontloading hypothesis?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I think Intelligent Design is, or at least has the potential to be science.

I don't think "potential" is very meaningful. Astrology has 'potential' to be science. Remote viewing has 'potential' to be science, etc. ID deserves no special consideration simply because there are hypothetical data points that would favor it.

 

[Joman]

Phred,


I observe nature and recognize that things have been designed. And, I perceive that evolutionism provides no evolutionary pathway to explain how organisms obtained their complex/simple processes.

I'll give an example.

Consider the nail.

It is a thing that is so simple in it's form that aimless natural forces could be thought capable of producing it.
The nail I have in mind has three parts; a head (flat disk), a shaft (cylinder) and a point (cone). This particular nail is therefore not irreducible. An irreducible nail would be only a shaft.
If this nail were found in nature an intelligent person could suppose that it wasn't formed by any random application of naturally occuring forces because of the perception of purpose inferred by the arrangement of the three parts. Nevertheless, a less intelligent person might argue that they don't see any evidence of design.
The nail is a device designed to fasten two things together (perhaps wood). But, the form of the nail is such that although it's usefulness can be demonstrated, it can nevertheless, still be claimed (not intelligently however) as being the product of randomly applied natural forces.


Next, consider the Nut&Bolt device.

Would anyone expect to find a nut or a bolt that was the product of random and aimless (with respect to design) applications of natural forces?
Would anyone expect that both a nut and a bolt would be found?
Wouldn’t be utterly preposterous to expect that such a nut&bolt might be found attached together in working order?
The Nut&Bolt device is more complex than the nail as evidenced by the fact that it consists of two parts instead of one and in that the parts mesh properly.
The Nut&Bolt have the same basic funtion as the nail.
The Nut&Bolt device is irreducible.


Now consider the addition of a flatwasher. It is an example of an increase in complexity.

Next consider the addition of a lockwasher.


The resulting device (Nut/bolt/flatwasher/lockwasher) evidences usefulness and thus a designer/fabricator. There are many forms of nut/bolt washers that all reveal evidence of being designed for a particular purpose.

People who understand ID as a foundational veiwpoint recognize evidence of design in biology. The evidences of purposefulness, usefulness, orderliness, all coordinated toward planned outcomes is abundant in biology. But, many biological components and systems are not appeciated for their complexity and evidence of having been designed because they lack mechanical form. Now however, mechanical parts have been discovered to be components used in biological systems. It is becoming increasingly evident that just as in the above senario, it is preposterous to assume that such components are products of random forces in nature. It is far more rational to believe that these things that evidence usefulness were designed by someone for use in achieving planned and thus expected outcomes.
To my way of thinking…anything found in nature that evidences proper fit, form and function within a system can only be the product of intelligent use of available resources.
I submit to you that the ToE provides no means of achieving optimized biological processes. ToE exhibits no means of analysis necessary for the evolution of complex biological systems and the processes inherent in them. Natural Selection is too crude a means since it provides only a GO/NO GO determination of usefulness. Complex systems require much greater analysis to determine the proper fit form and function of systems and their components, and much more for the optimization of the system, components and processes.

Joman.

 

[Phred]

I disagree with Arik, I think Intelligent Design is, or at least has the potential to be science. But I do agree that it has no bones about common descent. And I do not beleive ID is at the point yet that is developed enough to be taught in schools. As for testablity, have you ever heard of the frontloading hypothesis?

But nobody is testing it Paladin... nobody's even trying to make it science. The damn concept can't even be defined. That's not even wrong.

 

[Phred]

I observe nature and recognize that things have been designed.

No, you don't. If you did you could define what ID is for us all and clear this up. But you can't. You see, you see design because you believe design happened. It has nothing to do with science.

And, I perceive that evolutionism provides no evolutionary pathway to explain how organisms obtained their complex/simple processes.

This too is false. Evolutionary pathways have been provided to you. So it's not that you can't perceive them, it's that you deny them.

I'll give an example. Consider the nail. It is a thing that is so simple in it's form that aimless natural forces could be thought capable of producing it.

Being simple is not enough reason to assume something could be produced naturally. Please provide a reasonable natural mechansim by which a nail can come to be.

The nail I have in mind has three parts; a head (flat disk), a shaft (cylinder) and a point (cone). This particular nail is therefore not irreducible. An irreducible nail would be only a shaft.

You don't know that. You can't define irreducible in relation to the nail as you don't know what must exist in order for the pieces to exist. Excuse me, but this entire "example" is nonsense.

People who understand ID as a foundational veiwpoint recognize evidence of design in biology.

Then why the hell can't you define what it is!?! Here, I'll start it for you, "Design is _______."

I submit to you that the ToE provides no means of achieving optimized biological processes. ToE exhibits no means of analysis necessary for the evolution of complex biological systems and the processes inherent in them. Natural Selection is too crude a means since it provides only a GO/NO GO determination of usefulness. Complex systems require much greater analysis to determine the proper fit form and function of systems and their components, and much more for the optimization of the system, components and processes.

Great, you don't have any science behind ID but you can attack evolution. No problem. We have a process for this. Do the experiements, make the observations and publish your paper. All you have to do in order to be successful is actually offer evidence instead of unsupported assertions.

Good luck. You'd be the first.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I submit to you that the ToE provides no means of achieving optimized biological processes. ToE exhibits no means of analysis necessary for the evolution of complex biological systems and the processes inherent in them. Natural Selection is too crude a means since it provides only a GO/NO GO determination of usefulness. Complex systems require much greater analysis to determine the proper fit form and function of systems and their components, and much more for the optimization of the system, components and processes.

Several hundred thousand scientists with evolutionary specializations could give a flying fart about what you submit.

Submit some evidence, then re-assume your smug posture.