Rethinking My Views on Intelligent Design

If people have the audacity to believe someone who tells them man developed from apes or fish jumped up on land and can now walk then believe it.

Education is something that belongs at the state and local level and it should teach evolution but should also teach other theories as well.

Evolution is not being taught as a theory it is being taught as a fact. Creationism is not being taught in many public schools at all. Where did the dirt that formed the world come from. I can’t answer where God came from but your theory is no more likely than mine.

Those on this blog who attack the bible as fiction need to remember the acuracy of bible prophecy. I wish I could find one of my books to prove this but if I remember correct the Bible predicted 500 some years before that a man named Cyrus would be the one to free the Jews and it happened. If you still want more evidence I will share it with you I have a list of proven prophecy that has been fulifilled.

Stephen,

People in Egypt once thought it was scientifically proven that drinking their own urine and eating their own shit was good for them but it turns out they were wrong. People have used science and been wrong before.

Evolution is not science.

Rick Rajter

I have no problem with believing in evolution, the scientific method, and believing in a higher power I call God. I am not one that has to reject a belief in God if I believe in evolution and vice versa.

I do believe, as you do, that a belief in anything based on faith that somehow eludes the scientific method deserves to be taught in philosophy, not in science.

I also cannot see removing anything religious from the history books as this is a part of our human fabric throughout history. One cannot possibly understand history of people and what influenced the course of history without injecting religion into the teachings.

Evolution is the change of species due to adaptation in extreme circumstances. Breeding is evolution. Where the difference lies is in Artificial Selection vs. Natural Selection. Darwin claimed that in certain situations, such as on an island, the isolation and reduced gene pool would develop normal species variants into more niche adapted variants, especially when competition is paramount due to the before said isolation. This theory at its core is backed by quite a bit of testable and replicable evidence, such as virus evolution, fungal evolution, and various plant evolutions in extreme circumstance.

The adaptations of a variant within a species can be very effective at creating kinds of shape, subsistence and behavioral changes. An example would be the difference between a Chihuahua and a Mastiff. Where they are classified as dogs, they could not naturally and successfully interbreed due to size conflicts alone. Given more time, such as could be replicated on single celled scale in far less time, these two “dogs” could be classified as different species, and arguably that classification of difference applies to them now. I say that because where tigers and lions are classified as different species, they can interbreed successfully.

Mutation, also, is provable as it can be seen in single celled organisms in a short time scale. Mutations, usually micro-mutations not macro-mutations, develop during the interlocking of two genetic codes (from both parents) and happen when certain genes are triggered that would not be a “normal” variance of the species, examples would be anemia, strange pituitary activity, and so on. Macro-mutations can be seen in deformations, people who have hair growth all over their bodies, and extreme size difference. Just as in dog breeding, some traits are chosen over others and further mating is encouraged to create offspring with said traits. Natural selection does the same thing by means of isolation, extinction, and competition. If people ran within a range 18 – 21 mph and then there was a monster that could run 20 mph, only a certain variance of people would remain after the others had been caught and eaten. The same thing is happening with all life at all times.

There are certain adaptations like the eyes, as someone had mentioned before, that Darwin was in awe of. But much scientific research has occurred since then and it is shown by evidence that the eye is a trait that is non-existent in a certain range of lesser organisms but then shows up at a basic level in slightly more complex organisms, and that trait shows an incredible range of adaptation and development into even more complex organisms. This is because where a mutation occurred in a microscopic creature in the past, there is a continuation of that successful trait in the variances of that organism, and as that organism faced crisis it was selectively bred by nature in order to survive and branched into other niche adapted species. Thus, since the eye shows up only at a certain complexity level and beyond, it is something that is a very old mutation in natural history but a single mutation none the less. Of course, given the vast amount of time it has had to become even more adapted and complex, the eye is an awe-inspiring organ. However, that does not make it any less natural or explainable by science in reference to natural history.

Evolution is an accepted scientific theory (no theory is ever proven, because science deals only in probabilities) because the use of it in further research fits adequately as more and more evidence inevitably seems to support it. We do not know that there is gravity, we think there is. We do not know that there are atoms, we think there are and can even manipulate those atoms, though they can never be seen. We do not know that evolution is occurring; we think it is and it is the most probable explanation as supported by the evidence. Intelligent design does not fall within these categories because it does not seek explanations by means developing causal theories. It instead seeks to show that such causal theories are irrelevant because there is a designer whose intentions can not be known. This is, by its nature of claiming we cannot know the designer but we can see the design, is less than science. Scientific research finds such walls unacceptable and without catering to an idea of something being beyond science, we now have vaccines, antidotes, cancer treatments, space travel, etc.

If we accepted the concept of Intelligent Design, scientists would be crippled in their hypotheses. All things could be just as easily attributed to a designer. Then science, at its purpose, does not occur. Science does not seek multiple explanations, it seeks the one that makes the most sense and is supported by evidence. That’s just what science is. I must stress that the claims of Intelligent Design advocates are in no way scientific, neither methodologically or intentionally.

Re: Karyotypes resoundingly discredit evolutionary phylogenies.Meiosis/gametogenesis prohibits generation of novel inheritable karyotypes.Synergism of chromosomes in vital functions necessitates inheritance of entire and original karyotypes. So evolution is a lot of nonsense

Wrong. Meiosis, as it is only in refernece to the asexual reproduction of germ cells, still shows mutations occuring, rarely but definately occuring. This is shown by altering an environment to limit survival and thus encouraging certain traits to be neccessary. Even germ cells show variance and that variance can make a difference in species survival. As well, that variance when isolated and encouraged will “evolve” much more quickly due to nature of Meiosis reproduction itself. As far as Gametogenesis, being the production of ovum and sperm via Meiosis, it is an important part of the evolutionary process encoding an individual’s DNA into every sperm or ovum. This is the reason there is even more variance in sexually reproductive organisms, thus sparking more paths for natural selection to take.

Evolution is not a mystical intangible force or pseudo-scientific theory. It is simply a summary of the processes of variance, survival, extinction, and selection. It is at play in a tangible and testable sense. To discredit evolution would require the discrediting of natural selection. The discrediting of natural selection would require the discrediting of artificial selection, and many agricultural methods would have to be abandoned because, even though they work, they wouldn’t apparently exist. This whole chain of argument from the side of Designism (by very semantics, Creationism) is flawed. Objectivity is being pulled from the foundation of science.

@Rick Rajter:
Regarding your post mentioning Darwin and the eye, please next time add the pages that come directly after that quote in which Darwin gives a possible path regarding the evolution of the eye.

It does not follow that the more complex something is, the more impossible it is to happen by natural means. Where some would have issues is in the concept of natural means. Many people don’t believe in “accidents.” Thus, they have a thick wall that prevents them from objective logic.

As well as the link between pirates and global warming, there seems also to be a curious link between poor writing skills (not to mention foul, abusive language) and religious fervor. Doubters should scan the hate mail posted on the Flying Spaghetti Monster site.

DC

How do I accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster into my heart?

Kevin:

“How do I accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster into my heart?”

Just think about Him as much as possible. For everything that happens, don’t accept any explanation other than “It was Him”, and one day you will be touched by His noodly appendage.

Rick:

“Gravity as a model works quite well and should be taught in science.

However, the underlying reason WHY it works has still not been solved by science as a majority.”

It’s simple to explain really.

Intelligent Falling.

Done.

NEXT!

It seems apparent that where so many will welcome the possibilty of an infinite future, so few will accept an infinite past. I would like to add to this thought that in critique of some’s arguments against the Big Bang, there is large evidence to support it in the visible movement of galaxies as observed and measured. What many do not realize is that science has never claimed that the most recent Big Bang was the only one or that all matter in the universe was created out of nothingness. The Big Bang theory claims that matter had condensed at a point before the Big Bang to a dense cluster before exploding outward. No one has claimed in science that said matter was not there beforehand via earlier activity. Also, new theories are being supported by evidence that our “known universe” may be just that, and other Big Bangs may have occured elswhere in space and in the infinance of time.

sorry! I meant just because a theory can’t prove EVERYTHING…I should proof-read as well as spellcheck, I know

Very true, Peter.

In FACT, science cannot 100% prove that any of us actually exist. We could all be figments of the FSM’s imagination (he’s using his noodle). At the atomic level we are mostly empty space anyway, and at the subatomic level scientists’ best guess is that we are composed of “superstrings” (Which sounds remarkably like some common forms of pasta to me).

To correct Descartes: “I think, therefore I am, I think.”

All the way back to the first comment…

Isn’t it more than a little dishonest to only quote this part?
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light…could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree…The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye
could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger
anyone.”

And to totally miss the point that the complete paragraph looks like this,

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

Why leave out the whole point of the passage, which was Darwin actually trying some real science and attempting to counter possible arguments against his theory?

In fact, this seems to be a common tactic of both Creationists and ID advocates. Misquoting and misrepresenting the actual positions held by various scientists in an attempt to discredit widely accepted scientific principles.

Evolution is science, and one of the best supprted theories that the human race has ever developed. That is theory in the scientific sense, and not, as many people seem to believe, theory in the sense of, “An idea I had while drunk”

Rick,

If you can’t believe the eye evolved once than the truth will be even harder for you to grasp. Many biologists believe that eyes have evolved separately as many as five different times.

We can look at organisms with simple eyes or precursory light receptors, and they have many structures analgous to structures in the eyes of more specialized organisms. I agree there would have to be a couple of dramatic structural modifications along the way, but its not unthinkable.

C’mon look at what we know about changes to the inner ear structure throughout reptilian, avian, mamalian, etc. evolution, transition of dental formulas in primate evolution, and my personal favorite, the undeniable evidence from endogenous retroviruses.

Yes many modifications we now see, seem astounding, but that shouldn’t stop us from attemting to explain them and just say “GODDIDIT”.

And using out of context quotes ripped straight from the Discovery Institutes website, is no way to stimulate intelligent discourse on the subject.

Rick, I can’t convert you to evolution for the same reason that you can’t convert me to religion, we speak different philosophical languages. I speak the language of science, which requires as few un-proved assumptions as possible, logic, reproducible and falsifiable evidence etc. You speak the language of faith, which holds unquestionable truths, hunches, feelings. In a sense religion is stronger, since you can’t assail faith with logic, but you can assail logic with other logic.

It’s good that you question things, but you make an exception for God, as befits a religious person. I also question things, but I make no exceptions for God, and when you question religion and science with logic…well, science wins by a landslide.

Of course schoolchildren are taught to accept evolution (and all other subjects, scientific or not) the way Christians are taught to accept the Bible, unquestionable, unshakable fact. This is partly necessary to speed up the learning of the basic concepts of current science, but it has the inconvenience of making many kids uncurious, being that everything is presented like a done deal, not an ongoing battle. It’s what I love about science. Unlike religion, that’s “like it or leave it” science is forever changing, questioning, growing, challenging you to question what came before.

I’d love to think that some nice being in the sky was looking out for me and for the rest of the world, it must be a comforting thought. But for now the best I can hope for is that people from my side of the aisle and from your side can get along with a little more elegance than that shown in, say, congress, or the 700 club. ;-)

I was brought up as a Christian, in a very normal Swedish family. Darwinian “theory”, as you call it, is, if you talk to any biologyprofessor in the world, an actual scientific fact. There’s no gaps in evolution anymore, we did in fact evolve from apes (the missing links between apes and man have been discovered just as Darwin predicted). If you don’t know where the dust that formed our planet came from, I suggest you take an evening class in astronomy (answer to earlier comment).
Being of an IQ above 140, I must think things through before believing in them, there’s fact and there’s fiction. There’s plenty of fiction litterature out there today, doesn’t mean that I believe in them if I read them? The greatest fiction book of all time must be the Bible (no kidding, please hear me out). “Accurate facts” being told over hundreds of years, tend to be told exaggerated and edited, you heard me – edited, just like you do if you want people to be mesmerized from time to time, you have to renew the stories. Miracles which Jesus performed were written down and exaggerated over hundreds of years, if you actually would be able to find the original texts, not fictional but factual texts, I’m betting my “soul” on that it shows no actual miracles but a story about maybe the greatest prophet of the time. There was a lot of prophets around at the time, Jesus had the best ideas so they were remembered and written down.
Anyway, taking the creationism from the Bible literally, disguised as ID or not, is like I would actually stone my sons and daughters for being disobedient pests (it’s in there – if you actually read it, you’ll become an atheist like me a lot faster). How do you take only parts of the Bible literally if you believe in the whole book as a basis of your beliefs? The problem facing our children of today is brain washing, particularly religious beliefs being forced on our children. I believe in science as it has to be proven, stood up to tests and scrutiny. How about the bible, can you actually prove anything written in there? “Just because it is written, doesn’t make it so.” In the early 15th century people wrote that earth was flat and that the sun revolved around earth. Anything else was heresy according to the church, basically the same church of modern christianity today. The bible is much older than the 15th century and you believe the contents? The church has always opposed free thought and freedom of speach, why is that? To keep the people believing of course. In the beginning of christianity in Europe, the bible was written in latin, the only people who knew the contents were priests. To become a believer back then must have been easy, the best parts of the bible were told and miracles are very mesmerizing in a time of dispair. But today, when the bible has been edited further and translated to all different languages, how can you ignore parts of it and take other parts literally?
- My point is ID should never be taught in science since it has nothing to do with science. Religion is a philosophy of life basically, if you feel the need to believe in something larger, as in God or something similar, I don’t mind at all, just keep it away from the school system and consequently my children.

I am a sciences undergrad, and I have loved science my whole life. I am also a very spiritual person, and, in my opinion, science validates the awesome power of the Creator. Furthermore, Creationism is INSULTINGLY LIMITING of the Creator’s power to a humanly comprehensible scale. We’re not supposed to be able to fathom what a million years is, what a billion years is. If it took over a billion years for even the simplest of archaebacteria to appear how could we compete with that with our pathetic (but still amazing) microspheres?

If we assume, for example, that atoms exist, we still have no idea HOW they exist, and if you look way down deep at all the mechanisms and complexities and the time it took for our species to develop its cognizance and the ability to WONDER about these things… Well, the time scale and patience (etc etc) is phenominaly great.

Creationism limits God. Science, whether you believe in a higher power or not, is testable, and on top of that it is really quite amazing.

Thank you so much Rebecca,

You nailed it.

I am also, like others have stated before, an atheist. This is a decision based on my examination and evaluation of my own experiences. In my mind, everything has an explanation of a non-spiritual nature, even if not first apparent. However, I refuse to limit others to my lack of spirituality. I see no valid reason why someone cannot have viable belief in both a god and evolution. I would like to further re-state what you already have. Evolution is absolutely amazing, and the fact that it is tangible and logical makes it doubly so. If I were spiritual, I would be warmed and reassured in my faith, knowing that such amazing happenings have occurred throughout time and space.

On a side note, however, below will be my first, and hopefully last, negative comment. Understand that this is in no way intended towards you, Rebecca. You were eloquent.

I do not appreciate some posters on this forum dictating to me about my future and my level of understanding. Using phrases like “you will see in the end…” and “someday you might grasp…,” is condescending in a way that is almost intolerable for me. I don’t mean to sound over-reactionary, but those of you out there have no idea who I am and what I understand. How dare anyone make rude or vain attempts to belittle me? It is simply uncalled for.

This goes for both sides of the argument. Sorry for the angry tone, but I wanted to convey my point.

It is amazing that people do not realize that a scientific theory has nothing to do with belief or opinion. Scientific theory is a product of analysing data,which comes from repeatable experiment and observable fact.Science is the basis of Critical thinking.Unlike religion science is continually updating itself through new observations. Also Science admits it is wrong,when it has made a mistake and tries to correct its errors.

How many people with an opinion on the Evolution -ID debate have read Darwin’s “Origin of Species”? Read the title .Does it say Origin of life? NO! So evolution doesn’t exclude the possibillity of a superior intelligence. (For that matter how many people have read and researched anything they have opinions on IE :the so called “Patriot Act” which is touted as needed to protect us-while it actually turns the US closer to a police state) Science is what brought us all electronics, medicine,increased food production:in fact almost every man made object that makes our modern age possible exists because of scientific methodology. We won WW2 because our tech level was highest,we live so much longer and more comfortably because of science. It is sad to see my dear USA falling into ignorance while China and india are churning out brilliant scientists. Look at American universities and you will find all tech and science classes dominated by foreign students.The US will slowly fall in power and welth if this continues. It is incredible that people will make statements such as “I thinlk evolution is a matter of what you believe” “No it is not. it is an extrapolation of observable data. Or “I Do not like chemicals on my food” Food is made of chemicals and so are you. To the person who can not believe the eye came from evolution …please do some research…it has been well documented how the eye evolved. Also to those who say evolution has never been observed ….recently scientists have breed a new fruit fly that has markedly different food gathering appendages. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING or ANYONE UNTILL YOU USE CRITICAL THINKING(SCIENCE)TO VERIFY THINGS FOR YOURSELF. Freedom depends on this.When religion or opinion or belief take the place of critical thinking, a police state is right around the corner. Long Live individual freedom

Funny how this has become a biblical debate — that which Christians hold so sacred is merely the 4 books that Constantine felt held similar stories, of the 20 he saw. That’s like taking 20 eye-witnesses, finding 4 that seem to agree, and making a book of them.

Human Evolution (ie not dinosaurs) is based on a collection of bones that would cover a few billiard tables, if piled up in heaps. It’s a little more than 4-in-20 blackbirds cawing the same tune, and may evidence a progression by mutation, it’s not rock-solid.

Our debate is back to a science classroom. Science. That “Scientific Theory” thing. Which one looks more scientific?

I’d like to propose the following theory: Magic Faeries frequently untie my shoelaces.

To Wit:
1. I am careful to tie my shoelaces tightly every morning.
2. I frequently find my shoelaces untied.
3. Magic Faeries have magic powers and are known to be mischievous.
4. Nothing ever directly pulls on my shoelaces.
5. It is ludicrous to assume the cumulative forces of a day’s walking could untie them.
6. I cannot explain exactly how they become untied despite many carefully documented theories which appear to address the general concept.

QED Magic Faeries exist and they are untying my shoelaces.

Some interesting ideas. Is it possible to get notified of future updates from your blog?

Cheers,

Wayne

COME ON PEOPLE, THIS THING IS MADE OF NOODLES AND 2 MEATBALLS. ARE YOU ALL NUTS???? WE’RE BELIEVING PASTA CREATED THE WORLD?! LMAO!!!!!

Also,

taking evolution to be true is not just the domain of atheists, it is also held by deists, christians, muslims, jains, sikhs, buddhists, taoists, confucians, rastafarians … the list goes on – it’s a scientific theory not a religion so don’t attempt to build up a strawman of evolutionist/atheism and attempt to attack that (although to be honest you would still fail miserably)

G

Intelligent Design only exists through (a) ignorance of evolutionary theory and (b) mindless adherence to religion. i have seen people turn to creationism because they are religious and because they DONT UNDERSTAND evolution, not because they have genuine evidence of creationism. I bet none of the people here who have tried to knock evolution do not really know what it is.

(and these inconsistencies in the fossil record ID’ers keep going on about – WHAT inconsistancies?!?!?!?!?!!?!?)

Sunday school already teaches Creationism……..or ID..
But DNA evidence really is the slam dunk, molecular ecology predicts and shows the rate of evolutionary change.

You can see it in weeds, insect pest, fungi, bacteria, rodents, people. Every major group of organisms. Takes about 30-40 years for the weeds to gain resistence.

They already use molecular evidence to convict criminals in the legal system. It’s okay there but not for Biological Science? the same evidence and methods are used in both cases.

Educate yourself if you do not understand Evolution or do not think it is a Science. There are so many questions that can and are answered and the biological scientific revolution is very intensive right now.

Why do you have an appendix? Some Creator’s joke?

there are 4 main tenents:

Vestigal organs
Fossil record
Ontogical similarity
and DNA