None of those citations you so generously provided give ID credibility. Bring as many citations as you wish, but your bias will assure a steady flow of strawmen. Some of them were funded by theologically based foundations (Discovery Institute) with the a priori purpose of finding some reason to support ID - or aren't in legitimate scientific peer reviewed journals (Goto PubMed!). The Denton and Marshall citation from Nature makes no such arguement for ID - Physical Law constraining the number of forms allowable for protein folds doesn't indicate (detect?) ID - it is a wonderful insight into the idea that if life exists through out the cosmos it might have similar fundamental structures and physiology to that found on this planet. And having researched first hand the conservation of structure without correlating sequence I can say it's a beautiful idea! but it's not a signature from the Almighty.

Worship as you will, but there is no 'scientific' evidence pointing to or proving ID. If there were, it wouldn't be 'science'.

Very little is known about a vast majority of the insect population. Many researchers are still trying to determine what they are doing and how and by what mechanisms they are doing it. They may just be very conventional indeed.

Bees and ants of various types are engaged in some extremely sophisticated forms of communication amongst themselves both chemically and by vibrations that are still being research today. demonstrating distances traveled for food sources and more suitable housing.

Since you brought up Christianity and religion, here is a bible passage for you.

Proverbs 6

6) Go to the ant, O sluggard, Observe her ways and be wise,

7) Which, having no chief, Officer or ruler,

8) Prepares her food in the summer and gathers her provision in the harvest.

If something looks designed it MUST have a designer, and if the design is clever, the designer MUST be intelligent.

1. Even though something LOOKS designed doesn’t mean it was designed. The termite mound is a good example of this, and is a better example than the watchmaker. Termites may build the mound, but it is foolish to suggest that they “designed” it in any conventional sense.
2. If you want to see a real controversy in science, research the hub-ub concerning the concept of “intelligence”. I’m personally not sure it really exists, even among humans.

Which reminds me of Percival Lowell who, having more money than a science education, built a great telescope and spent his life finding evidence for “intelligence” on Mars. Of course, we all know where that “science” went.

Speaking of things I read, I did an informal survey of Christian Universities that have a school of biology. Not a single one had a course in ID, but all started their freshmen 101 biology course with an exhaustive examination of the science of evolution. The real problem for these schools is the LOSS OF FAITH by students who have been drilled in ID by their parents (and/or others). Luckily, these schools also have a divinity school which can counsel students to have faith without believing in creationism or ID.

All of this makes me wonder whether or not ID is really a DEVIL’S ARGUMENT: Namely, IF any part of the bible is not literally true, THEN you can throw the whole book out as worthless. Too many of our young people are doing just that.

And by the way, don’t patronize me. From what I’ve read, proponents of ID have only one thing weaker that their arguments, and that is their faith.

Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked
that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it.

There’s a good sociological reason for this.

Machiavelli put it this way:

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm
defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising
partly for fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the
incredulity of men, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual
experience of it.
— Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1519), The Prince, ch. 6

intelligent design. According to this policy, absolutely nothing is to be conceded to intelligent
design on the scientific front.

Indeed, to do otherwise is to allow that intelligent design might
have something going for it scientifically, in which case its legitimacy in the public school
biology curriculum would be immediate.

As a theory of design detection and
technological evolution, intelligent design is now well in hand. But as a general theory of
biological form, ID has a long way to go.

Intelligent design, however, is hardly alone in this
regard.

Consider the following admissions about the lack of a general theory of biological form
by mainstream biologists and scientists:

“The strange thing about the theory of evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it.
But we do not.
—Stuart Kauffman, 2003

“Biology still lacks a theory of organization.... The need for a conceptual framework for
the study of organization lies at the heart of unsolved problems in both ontogeny and
phylogeny.
—Mary West-Eberhard, 2003

“We do not claim that the fundamental laws of physics (and thus of chemistry) do not
hold in biology; they, of course, do. But we do claim that their conceptual frame is too
narrow. Rather we have to find new concepts that transcend the purely microscopic
descriptions of systems.
—Kelso & Haken, 1995

“We do not even know what biology is about, in the same sense that we know what
mechanics is about, or what optics is about, or what thermodynamics is about. We thus
do not know the scope of the domain of biology, for it has as yet no objectively definable
bounds. In place of these, we have only a tacit consensus.
—Robert Rosen, 1991

“If it’s true that Darwinism alone constitutes the theoretical portion of biology, that’s is
because it alone introduces a virtual reality, namely, the collection of all the possible
evolutions of a species in a given time and place. But this virtual reality is uncontrolled;
one can say nothing about it.”
— René Thom, 1990

“The delusion of the finished [evolutionary] synthesis places restrictions on freedom of
thought of which its believers are unaware. Selectionists [i.e., those who think that
natural selection is the principal mechanism in evolution] point to the internal debates as
evidence of free discussion, but the freedom is bounded by the dead hand of Darwin.”37

—Robert Reid, 1985

This ID debate is Scopes in reverse and everyone is starting to catch on. Especially the youth, who are looking for a good fight against the establishment of entrenched immovable theories.

The table cloth is being removed from that entrenched neo-Darwinistic view.

Thier insecurity in any competing views are being exposed as an ugly stain that is appearing on the wood surface called, hold the fort at all costs, even if it may be true or possible, and brand it a lie and throw them under the bus.

Marginalize them if you chose but they're coming and I don't think they can be stopped.

Has anyone here ever heard of endogenous retroviruses? Or pseudogenes? Or retroposons?

The strongest evidence for evolution exists in our genetic code. Look up the above terms, I suggest going to http://www.talkorigins.org or visiting the discussion on http://www.evolutionisdead.com.

The fact of the matter is, even if ID did present a serious challenge to evolution (which it most certainly does not, no matter how many "reputed scientists" the IDers claim to have on their side), it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't been peer reviewed extensively enough to belong in a science class room.

It lacks the structure of a theory, first of all. It can't be falsified. It doesn't even have hypotheses or methods of testing. The moment we rely on the supernatural in science is the moment science goes straight to hell. You can't build a nuclear power plant on faith.

The science class room must reflect the standing of the science community. Right now only about 0.15% of all biologists hold creationist viewpoints. If creationists can get their shit together, develop a coherent theory, allow their work to be rigorously peer reviewed, and perhaps provide some experiments or testable hypothesis, then maybe, just maybe, there might be a chance in the distant future that a teacher should be allowed to bring it up after class.

Thus ID can "prove" that TERMITES ARE INTELLIGENT!

2. The universe is fine tuned that ensures that life will arise.

Life in a life unfriendly universe.

Life in the Universe is seen By IDists as only friendly and probable for the small blue dot and unfriendly every where else in the observable Universe.

Paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee think all of us should feel lucky. Their rare Earth hypothesis predicts that while simple, microbial life will be very widespread in the universe, complex animal or plant life will be extremely rare. Ward and Brownlee admit that "It is very difficult to do statistics with an N of 1. But thier defense, they have staked out a position rarely articulated but increasingly accepted by many astrobiologists.

The revolution in astrobiology during the 1990s was twofold. First, scientists grew to appreciate how incredibly robust microbial life can be found in the superheated water of deep-sea vents, pools of acid, or even within the crust of the Earth itself. The chance of finding such simple life on other bodies in our solar system has never seemed more realistic. But second, scientists have begun to appreciate how many unusual factors have cooperated to make Earth a congenial home for animal life: Jupiter's stable orbit, the presence of the Moon, plate tectonics, just the right amount of water, the right position in the right sort of galaxy. Ward and Brownlee make a convincing if depressing case for their hypothesis, undermining the principle of mediocrity (or, "Earth isn't all that special") that has ruled astronomy since Copernicus.

bacterial life forms may be in many galaxies, but complex life forms, like those that have evolved on Earth, are rare in the universe. Ward and Brownlee attribute Earth's evolutionary achievements to the following critical factors: our optimal distance from the sun, the positive effects of the moon's gravity on our climate, plate tectonics and continental drift, the right types of metals and elements, ample liquid water, maintainance of the correct amount of internal heat to keep surface temperatures within a habitable range, and a gaseous planet the size of Jupiter to shield Earth from catastrophic meteoric bombardment. Arguing that complex life is a rare event in the universe.

The evidence is mounting that we live on the best piece of real estate in the observable universe.

So IDist's would say life in an unfriendly universe except for our nieghborhood.

The first problem is in assuming that ID is the default explanation. That is a vacuous position. The default position should be whatever theory, despite its current short comings, explains the data best--i.e. whichever theory is most likely true given data.

Further, even if "Darwinism" is refuted it does not mean that we have to accept Intelligent Design. This is a classic example of the either/or fallacy. The problem for IDists is that to replace "Darwinism" ID must offer a more robust explanation. You cannot offer a more robuts explanation without data, experiments and predictions. Once again we are brought face to face with ID's inability to provide the very things it needs to succeed.

As for the dogmatism of evolutionary theory this can only be true if the person who believes in evolutionary theory holds that the probability of evolutionary theory being true is 1. Since for most scientists this is not the case, this is an untenable position.

Arguing that evolutionary theory is an ad-hoc cobbled together attempt to disprove the existence of God is just silly. God is supernatural and hence is above the concepts of refutation and verification. You cannot find evidence for the supernatural because everything is evidence for the supernatural. For example,

Prove that I do not have mental powers and that I am going to control exactly what you write in your next post.

Go ahead and try to disprove that claim.

The fine tuning arguments are exemplify the contridictory nature of IDists, IMO. On the one hand IDists want to argue,

1. Life as we know it is so complex it couldn't have arisen without the guiding hand of an intelligent designer.

Then on the other hand IDists, without blinking, want to argue,

2. The universe is fine tuned that ensures that life will arise.

Further, probabilistic arguments using the fine tuning argument show that concluding design is precisely the wrong answer.

Let F = a fine tuned or life friendly universt.
Let L = that there is life in the universe.
Let N = Natural laws/processes are at work in the universe.

Let ~N = Supernaturalism.
Let ~L = A sterile universe.
Let ~F = A universe that is life unfriendly.

Now, the following is true.

P(F|N&L) = 1

That is the probability of the universe being fine tuned given that there is life and only natural laws at work is 1 (100%).

Now, we want to know the following:

P(N|F&L).

That is, what is the probability of natural laws alone are at work in the universe given there is life and that the universe is fine tuned? We can solve for this as follows.

P(N|F&L) = P(F|L&N)P(N|L)/P(F|L)
=P(N|L)/P(F|L)
>P(N|L).

The first line is merely an application of Bayes theorem.

The second line makes use of P(F|N&L) = 1, and the third line follows from the fact that P(F|L) < 1.

What this says is that upon learning that the universe is fine tuned it cannot lower your probability that the universe is governed by natural laws.

Probability is the logic of science. All scientific hypotheses can be put into probabilitistic terms and evaluated very much like we have just done with Bayesian methods (try a google search on Bayesian methods in science).

So even the fine tuning argument, when looked at in a probabilistic manner means precisely the opposite of what IDists claim. We don't need to invoke the Many Worlds Hypothesis. We don't need to invoke a sequence of universes, or anything else.

Even if you don't buy into the arguments above, and I'd like to point out again, that the argument is essentially a mathematical proof (and no, this isn't a proof that God doesn't exist or that natural laws are true, but about probabilistic statements...that is the hypothesis of "naturalism" could still be false), think of it this way.

What points to some sort of intelligent intervention:

Life in a life friendly universe, or
Life in a life unfriendly universe.

To me the latter says, "Hey, something really outside our laws of nature might be going on here." Whereas the former says, "Nope, nothing special here."

Whether your ID is a God or an Extraterrestrial seems almost moot (indeed, Michael Shermer has suggested that it would be impossible for us to tell the difference between the two, if the ET were sufficiently intelligent and powerful). Whichever you choose, you still have to deal with Infinite Regression. God made us: who made God? ET made us: who made ET? Theologians can get around this by arguing that God is qualitatively different from any biological organism and so is immune to the argument from design. This seems like a slippery rhetorical trick to me, but perhaps it has been worked out in better detail than I have represented.

In any case, the importance of Darwinism to atheism (as Dawkins has described in the above quote) opens evolution up to charges from religionists that it is merely a "dogma" specifically designed to prop up atheism. A creationist might argue that evolution is a desperate ad-hoc idea cobbled together in an attempt to prove that life can exist without God.

Where would we atheists be, if Darwinism failed? Would we be forced, out of logical necessity, to accept some form of intelligent design and abandon our atheism? But if Hume did in fact successfully dismantle the argument from design (I don't know whether he did, not having read Hume yet), then does that not leave us in a conundrum? As Dawkins hints, all we can do, failing Darwinism, is to shrug and say, "I don't know how life got here, but I refuse to jump to any easy goddidit conclusions all the same."

I think however that there are other levels at which this question can be addressed. Having solved the problem of life via Darwinism, we still must confront the infamous "fine tuning" arguments -- the idea that, of all possible universes, only a very small percentage of them would be able to harbor anything that might be called life. (Presumably most of them would just be random swirlings of matter, or they might have no laws of physics at all, or whatever... we don't know this, of course, but it can be speculated.) So one thing that is suggested to refute fine-tuning is the Many Universes idea: there is a vast, maybe infinite, series of universes, and we obviously exist in one of those few which can harbor life.

But here's the weird thing. If we are going to resort to a "many universes" argument anyway, do we really need Darwinism at all? Certainly if there were an *infinite* series of universes (as opposed to merely 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 1 googol), then we could speculate that eventually a universe would come into being in which *all the ordered complexity of biology* simply existed a priori, no Darwinism needed. Vastly improbable, but if you allow an infinity of universes, it could happen.

Of course, if you were to suppose that *our* universe came into being that way, then you would also have to suppose it was an "Omphalos" universe in which all the fossils simply poofed into existence in just the right order to make us think evolution had happened... and all the animals bore nested morphological characteristics in just such a way as to make us think evolution had happened... which decreases the probability of this occurrence a googolplex-fold. Surely, of all the possible "instant universes" where intelligent life simply "poofed" into being, it would be far more likely that they would poof into being in a world of no fossil record, no nested hierarchy, and moreover a world where every single species used a completely different biochemistry to propagate itself...

I am basically just rambling a bit at this point. But here's another thing. Darwinism is often supported on the grounds that a complex thing should be explained in terms of simpler elements. In other words, it is apparently easier for us to imagine the a priori existence of an atom, than the a priori existence of an elephant. Darwinism tells us how we can get an elephant from an atom, but it cannot tell us how we got the atom in the first place (though obviously cosmology and physics are taking a whack at that question). But is the existence of an atom really any less of a conundrum than the existence of an elephant? Does the atom get a free pass merely because it is *simpler* than the elephant? Why should that be so? This train of thought leads us almost to collapse the Arguments from Design and First Cause into one and the same thing... which might be satisfying except, of course, that the proposed solution to either argument (God) seems merely a verbal prop, a way of redescribing our ignorance.

[quote] When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?' replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?' I asked. 'He didn't,' said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'

Paley knew that it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for comlex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I like to think that Hume would agree, but some of his writings suggest that he underestimated the complexity and beauty of biological design. The boy naturalist Charles Darwin could have shown him a thing or two about that, but Hume had been dead 40 years when Darwin enrolled in Hume's university of Edinburgh.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the Dover PA lawsuit, and many other states trying to include references of ID into the science class room, I find myself debating this issue a lot. Since 64 percent of Americans believe that ID should be taught alongside Evolution in the science classroom as a valid scientific Theory, I find myself in the minority (this is 2005 right?) believing that ID should not go anywhere near the science classroom, but instead taught in Theology or Social studies.

Aside from the DNA record, Fossil record, “Irreducible Complexity”, young earth/old earth debates, I think the number one point of confusion with the lay person is the Term “Scientific Theory”. Most people just don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “Theory” in the scientific community. It does not mean a guess. It is back upped by lot’s of evidence and data. So in my debates with friends and family members I have come up with a way to really explain this process in a simple and I hope, understandable way.

I call it my Jack and Jill Concept.

Jack and Jill are married. One day jack thinks Jill might be cheating on him, he has no proof, he just has this feeling. I would call this a concept or the beginning of a hypothesis. So acting on his feelings, he starts asking around. Jane tells him she has seen Jill at lunch with another man once or twice at a local Italian restaurant. So now Jack’s concept is turning into a good Hypothesis. But having lunch with someone is no proof of an affair.

Jack gives a waiter at the restaurant a 50 dollar bill and shows the picture of Jill. The waiter says “Ya I have seen her here a few times having lunch with Ken. I think he works for CO.Inc, at least that’s what it says on his ID badge”. After some more investigating, he finds out that CO.inc has offices in the same building that Jill works at. So armed with conjecture and speculation he starts to form a Theory, it’s still a hypothesis, because again having lunch is no proof of an affair. But it’s a good model for building a Theory of the Ken and Jill affair.

After looking thru Jill’s purse one day he finds a matchbook from a local motel. Giving the motel clerk a $100 gets him a look at the guest book. In the book he finds that Ken had a room at the motel, and after showing the picture of Jill, the clerk says he has seen her at the motel". So now he is convinced that Jill is having an Affair. He has all the proof he needs. Based on investigation, logic, assumptions and hard evidence (Jill had the match book in her purse) . But all this is still only a Theory. To almost anyone else, this would not be a theory, we have proof that Jill shared a room with Ken at the motel. We would say she is in “fact” having an affair, and we would most likely be right. Logic and human reasoning tells us this.

But it’s still a Theory, because the definition of an affair in this case is sexual intercourse or some sexual act. Unless Jack burst into the room and caught Jill and Ken in the act, the affair is still just a Theory. They could have been just talking for all we know, unlikely but still a possibility. So it will always remain a Theory unless Jack catches them in the act.

I know this is overly simplified, but it’s the best I could do to explain the Scientific Process, and why the Theory of Evolution is not JUST a Theory, but a Scientific Theory based on facts, data, investigations, assumptions, and observations. It’s not to be dismissed easily with the premise or concept of Intelligent Design. That is based on faith. To compare it to ID would be the same thing as saying, I have known Jill all my life, she would NEVER have an affair, I do not care what proof you have..she is not having one.

Any comments?

Shadowram