15th April 2003 at 01:09 PM Hector Medina said this in Post #1
Intellegent design is the theory that God created every living creature straight up.
Nothing evolved, the similar creatures have a common designer --God.
Except Micro-Evolution which is observed. Like diffrent breeds of Cats and Dogs.
They all had a common ancestor a Cat or Dog.
Ther rest of evolution is mearly theory and nothing can be totally proven. The same this theory so feel free to express your opinons towards this.
As Seebs noted, this is not the correct version of ID. ID does say that every species was designed. You have done well in recognizing that ID
really means not "designed" but, as you put it, "made straight up."
There are predictions to be made from this. The first problem with this is theological. When you get down to the nitty-gritty and really
look at the "designs" in creatures, you find that many of the designs are sloppy, stupid, and cruel. Now,
if ID is correct and God made each of these directly,
then the inevitable conclusion is that God is stupid, cruel, and suffereing from Alzheimer's. This is obviously untrue. So Christians as far back as 1830 thought that God did
not make each creature straight up. They gave up ID then because it made God be something He is not.
The modern day version makes a few very testable predictions, mostly about what evolution cannot do. When we find that evolution can do those things, then ID is falsified. Some examples.
1. Darwinian evolution can't make irrreducibly complex structures. Not so. This article shows that any supposedly irreducibly complex structure can be reached by one or a combination of more than one of the 4 routes of Darwinian evolution: A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution, J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116. Sometimes you can find the paper at
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html If it is not there, PM me and I'll e-mail you a copy because I scanned the paper.
2. Nothing can give rise to complex, specified information. This got falsified 20 years
before Dembski made this prediction. But IDers are not very good at reading the scientific literature.
"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical
information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the
specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048
Proteins are, of course by Demski's view, complex. So we have complex, specified, information in proteins made by chemical reactions, not biological organisms.
