Evolution or Intelligent Design? [Archive]

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 13:26

Evolution or Intelligent Design?

It's a while since we had the last debate.

Anyway the answer is Evolution, I find it shocking that the actually teach ID in some schools in the US

Always the one to be controversial, let me give my opinion on this.

First, let me point out that I am writing as a trained scientist, with a PhD in theoretical physics. Second, I'm writing as a natural cynic, someone who takes nothing at face value. Third, let me reassure you that I am writing objectively, not blinded by my own faith.

Science is strict about terminology. Terms such as fact, model, hypothesis, theory, and law have strict definitions. A hypothesis is a good working model that can be used to explain facts and to predict behaviour. A good hypothesis can predict behaviour consistently. When the hypothesis cannot be broken, it emerges as a theory. After hundreds of years have passed, a reliable theory becomes an established law.

By any measure of the scientific method, evolution remains a hypothesis. It is a good working hypothesis, but facts are forever contradicting it. No respectable scientist can honestly claim that it is yet a reliable theory. In this light, we should be open to considering other models and hypotheses. This is why some in the US and elsewhere have proposed teaching an alternative hypothesis: intelligent design. I agree with them wholeheartedly.

The problem here is that the debate focuses on philosophy and not science. Intelligent design smacks of a higher being, a starting assumption that many authorities refuse to allow. When it really comes down to it, this is what the debate is all about. Should educators be allowed to assume the existence of a supreme being when teaching science? Newton did. Pascal did. Rutherford did. Faraday did. Maxwell did. Why shouldn't we?

I get very frustrated when I hear the popular press ridiculing proponents of intelligent design as trying to take us back to the Dark Ages. Far from it! They realise that evolution cannot explain some basic facts and are honestly seeking other hypotheses to explain reality. This has always been the role of science. Galileo was ridiculed and threatened with his life for proposing a model that he honestly believed to be true; time proved him to be right. The proponents of intelligent design, likewise, are facing ridicule as they try to craft a model that better explains the facts.

MacMyDay is being intellectually honest:

Well, it certainly caused some controversy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4545822.stm).

Fraid I'm an atheist, so evolution. I also enjoy Richard Dawkins books too much to change.
He admits his starting assumption. I wish more people would do that.

I know that most people will disagree with me. All I ask is that we consider the facts and not be influenced by the media.

Jayne

23rd December 2005, 13:32

I would say Evolution...just one thing puzzles me, how come we have apes and monkeys, why didn't they turn into people?

Really, there should be no Monkeys if evolution is true :lol:

Jayne

cjd

23rd December 2005, 13:34

"Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin."

I somehow doubt this guy is going to ever pay out; proof to him needs to come direct from God

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 13:35

I am a Coding Monkey!

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 13:36

One other point (can you tell I feel strongly about this? :) )

Our world is governed by a number of scientific constants: the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and so on. Several scientists have pointed out that if any one of these constants is changed by even the smallest amount, the universe would not exist, our solar system would not exist, and life would not exist. This is just one of several interesting facts that led to the current push for Intelligent Design as an alternative hypothesis to evolution.

Jayne

23rd December 2005, 13:37

I am a Coding Monkey!

Just tell us that another million times, think I forgot :roll:

Oh Yes, I remember it's the name of your biz :lol:

Jayne

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 13:42

I don't see any harm in being taught Intelligent Design, but not in a science lesson. It was a part of my A-Level modules and I own a few books where Hume basically destroys the theory, but many of his arguments can be applied to evolution.

It simply makes more sense to base an assumption on empirical data of a theoretical.

cjd

23rd December 2005, 13:53

By any measure of the scientific method, evolution remains a hypothesis. It is a good working hypothesis, but facts are forever contradicting it. No respectable scientist can honestly claim that it is yet a reliable theory.

Well I have a degree in Zoology (If we're putting our marks on the ground :-)) and studied palaeontology and evolutionary theory for two years and I need you to provide evidence for that statement because I have a bit of a problem with it; scientifically speaking!

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 14:06

[quote=goldctrsteve]I have a degree in Zoology (If we're putting our marks on the ground :-)) and studied palaeontology and evolutionary theory for two years and I need you to provide evidence for that statement because I have a bit of a problem with it; scientifically speaking!

For sure, and forgive me for stating things in harsh terms. It's a reaction to the ridicule faced today by anyone who so much as suggests that evolution never happened. It seems that, these days, we have to make extreme statements in order to be heard. In no way do I mean to insult fellow scientists who hold different opinions. I respect them all.

Rather than dive into specific arguments at this forum, let me quote from a reasonably objective website: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php .

"Since Discovery Institute first published its statement of dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 300 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Such prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list of biologists also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others."

...and yes, I realise that they refer to evolution as a theory!

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 14:09

Looking at some of the little monkeys on here I should be pro evolution but I'm not. In his book as well, Darwin actually states that he believes there is a God., or that he couldn't rule a out the fact that a greater being was at work. Can't remember which but he said one of them. hic, hic!
Work that one out!

Nic :wink:

mumper

23rd December 2005, 14:18

MacMyDay wrote:
Fraid I'm an atheist, so evolution.

Evolution for me too but I'm not an atheist, I was brought up a Catholic.

I don't know much about ID as I've only read a little bit about it so for the time being I remain sceptical.

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 14:18

But we don't practice Darwinism, but evolution ;)

The theory has progressed since then into Dawkins own ideology and a colloboration of many others. I'm sure one of the grads will no more info.

Wittgenstein produced one of the most prolific pieces of philosophy in the 20th century that attacked Gods existence through logic, but had a catholic burial.

mumper

23rd December 2005, 14:20

Probably hedging his bets.

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 14:25

Only a guy could start this thread and one wearing a hat as well!

Nic :wink:

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 14:33

Let me throw into the pot some wonderful quotes from Albert Einstein:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"I am convinced that God does not play dice."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."

Hayles

23rd December 2005, 14:37

Fantastic subject! One of my new year objectives is to find a religious person and spend a couple of hours finding out why they 'believe'.

Can someone summarise, in bullet points, reasons to believe in evolution and reasons to believe in ID please?

(Before you say it isn't that simple, try harder!)

Hayles

Agri-Hire

23rd December 2005, 14:38

Evolution is going in reverse and this thread proves it:

Mac was born a man, but chose to be a monkey (evolution going backwards)

Mac the Monkey earlier said:

Don't think my GCSEs could manage to do that.

Yet the other day he said he had three A Levels. (his education is going backwards)

Also, have you noticed how young he looks to be having all that experience? I reckon he started out in business at 35 and is now 19.
(age going backwards)

So a bit of reverse evolution going on here :P

I am sure I saw him in Marks and Spencers last week trying on a school blazer and some grey shorts.

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 14:41

Oi Agri, dont be nasty.

Anyway's where have you been? Noticed your plough has been redundant for a while.

Nic :wink:

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 14:41

My A-Levels weren't in science. I can't see a philosophy, politics or psychology A-Level being able to prove evolution.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 14:46

Can someone summarise, in bullet points, reasons to believe in evolution and reasons to believe in ID please?

Only two bullet points are needed:

- Forget the commentators. Forget prevailing opinion. Put aside the philosophical debate. Instead, just look at the facts. Do they support or contradict either hypothesis?

- A theory can predict behaviour correctly. Can either of the two hypotheses predict something correctly that we have yet to observe?

By the way, it's interesting that you choose the word 'believe'. Someone can accept either hypothesis without it contradicting their 'belief' in a particular world-view.

Hayles

23rd December 2005, 14:54

But which/who's facts should we look at? :?:

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 14:56

Hayles it's simple. Study the bible and then study evolution and make your own mind up.

There is no right or wrong answer, it's a personal choice!

Nic :wink:

Hayles

23rd December 2005, 15:05

So.... do you have to believe in the bible to believe in ID - or can you pick and chose which parts you believe in (which is what seems to happen)?

Do you have to believe in God to believe in ID?

Do you have to believe in the bible to believe in God?

How do you believe in God if you believe in evolution? Surely by believing in evolution you're saying the bible is wrong (so, back to question one).

I'm asking this in a genuine way - not putting either side of the argument down. Just really interested in how and why people have their religious beliefs :D

freecybermag

23rd December 2005, 15:07

For many years now I have been questioning what I believe. I used to believe in evolution but the more I think of it the more I doubt it. It seems logical that we canme from apes but there has to be a starting point somewhere. If you place a small baby on the floor and leave it there for a few weeks when you come back you can guarantee that it didn't survive so how could we have managed to live without the help of a higher being? In evolution why did humans suddenly lose the ability to survuve from young even though for millions of years we apparently were able to do this.
Secondly I can put up with one or two coincidences but if you look at our planet solar system then there are a million or so things people class as coincidences. Like we are the exact distance from the sun. We are protected by Jupiter, Our Earth and it's gasses just happen to be the correct amount, any more and Earth would be inhospitiable. There are to many coincidences for me to beleive in Evolution.
Now religion on the other hand is also something I find difficult. I beleive in God but not the Bible, Kurran (or however you spell it :D ). I beleive that over the centuries Religion has spun in the wrong direction. It became a necessity for power and control. It's been manipulated and the truth has been blinded. Therefore I have no religion.
I have decided to love God and within myself worship him in my own way. I am hoping that when I go to the next level when I die God will love me and not cast me away because I failed to go to church every Sunday etc. I'm sure God will be happy for my love no matter how I chose to show it.

I hope that people wll accpet that these are MY views and not a dig or contradiction to other beliefs. The truth is NO ONE knows what really happened or how it happened.

Cheers

Chris :D

cjd

23rd December 2005, 15:10

There's one thing we must pin down very quickly before we all go barking up random trees.

Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God or Gods. It can not and will not ever say how the universe was created.

All it does is provide a credible theory as to how the diversity of life on this planet has evolved.

(It's important to understand that when a scientist says theory it means it's as near a fact as is possible - not the layman's idea of a theory which we use as no more than a vague idea.)

Evolution gets into trouble only with those that believe strictly in a biblical God who is said to have made the world in 7 days about 5000 (or some such number) years ago. Which is palpable and provable nonsense.

It is perfectly possible to believe in both God and Evolution without any contradition at all and many do.

It is not possible to believe in Evolution and Creationism simultaneously - one is an error - which is what all the hooha is about.

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 15:11

Freecybermag, Im with you. At the end of the day God knows whats in your heart.

Nic :wink:

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 15:13

But which/who's facts should we look at? :?:

OK, if you want to be specific...

1) No single life-form of the billions that have existed since evolution was first postulated has evolved between species.

2) There is no fossil evidence of one species evolving into another. As a simple example, reptiles and mammals have different numbers of upper and lower jaw bones, yet there is no evidence of any creature with evolving jaw bones (and I'd love to watch it eat).

3) Many of the statements we have about the evolution of human life are based on questionable interpretations of teeth or jaw bones (not complete specimens).

4) There is much evidence that contradicts the timeline of evolution, such as the coexistence of human and dinosaur footprints in the same strata.

5) In favour of intelligent design, I would propose the existence and remarkable coincidence of scientific constants (as mentioned previously).

Unfortunately, we're not going to resolve anything in this discussion. Each of us will, understandably, post information that supports our viewpoint. The debate will continue for years. My hope is that we'll want to get at the truth and not let majority opinion go unchallenged.

Incidentally, my local county tried to add stickers at the front of evolutionary textbooks that read as follows:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The national media ridiculed the county school district, and the local courts ruled against the stickers. How can anyone, in all good conscience, disagree with the statement? I'm sorry, but true science appears to be the victim in society's debate on this subject.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 15:14

So.... do you have to believe in the bible to believe in ID - or can you pick and chose which parts you believe in (which is what seems to happen)?

Nope. It's a matter of science.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 15:18

Top Hat

23rd December 2005, 15:25

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 15:27

Starts at Genesis ends at Revelations!

Nic :wink:

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 15:39

The VERY BIG problem with intelligent design is that it simply defers the BIG question.

How did complex life come into being?

Evolution - huge amount of time, titchy tiny steps = complex biological beings

ID - complex beings created complex beings, so how did the first set of complex beings come into existence? Evolution? ID? God?
I agree completely. It's all depends on your world-view.

We have to accept that we are bound within the dimension of time. Should we assume that all life forms are? Is it possible that a life form could exist outside of time and therefore had no need to come into existence? Unfortunately, smart as we are, we can't think outside the realm of our current existence.

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 15:41

Unfortunately, smart as we are, we can't think outside the realm of our current existence.

Don't generalise, Steve ;)

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 15:44

Unfortunately, smart as we are, we can't think outside the realm of our current existence.

Don't generalise, Steve ;)
OK - you're right. I should base my statements on facts. I can't think outside the realm of my current existence. The evidence might prove that others can.

cjd

23rd December 2005, 15:46

Evolution gets into trouble only with those that believe strictly in a biblical God who is said to have made the world in 7 days about 5000 (or some such number) years ago. Which is palpable and provable nonsense.

I was guilty of stating things in an extreme way earlier. Now I suggest that you are too. See what happens when we debate this topic? :)

Evolution is in trouble among some of the world's leading scientists - contrary to what the popular press would have us think.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the only critics of evolution are creationists; there are many real scientists who have trouble with the theory. That's how science progresses.

I was trying (and obviously failing) to make the point that between Darwinism and Creationism only one can be true. And we can prove beyond doubt that the creationists view of the world is wrong.

Now that doesn't make Evolution right but it does make creationism wrong.

At a general statement level, the theory of Evolution is accepted by an overwhelming proportion of the world scientists - sure you can find dissenters and sure you can find problems with the evidence but given what we know now evolution gets my vote against the next best alternative - Which is what? God put us all here fully formed?

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 15:48

Evolution is complete rubbish. Accept it

Nic :wink:

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 15:50

I was only kidding, Steve. Just if you go down the 100% correct term of speaking of a subject, there are no "you's" but purely "I's" and nothing can ever be achieved for everything becomes an assumption and a subjective stance. Then you achieve nothing.

cjd

23rd December 2005, 15:52

Evolution is complete rubbish. Accept it

Nic :wink:

You know, put like that it's really obvious....... ;-)

Admiral Collections

23rd December 2005, 16:00

Cjd were u being sarcastic?

Nic :wink:

multilingual

23rd December 2005, 16:02

Is there any other subject that can draw together so many different points of view and present them as fact? :)

The "human tail" is just one example of what evolutionists call a "vestigial organ." As the name suggests, these organs are supposed to represent useless remnants of what were once functional and useful organs in our primitive ancestors. As recently as 1971, the Encyclopedia Britannica claimed that there were more than 100 vestigial organs in man. Even critically important organs such as the thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood. As biomedical science has progressed, there are fewer and fewer claims of functionless organs. Despite their diminishing numbers, vestigial organs are still mentioned in textbooks as one of the strongest evidences for evolution and against intelligent design by a Creator. The most frequently cited examples of vestigial organs in man are the coccyx and the appendix.

The human coccyx, or "tail bone," is a group of four or five small vertebrae fused into one bone at the lower end of our vertebral column. Most of us never really think about our "tail bone" until we fall on it. Evolutionists are dead certain that the coccyx is a vestige of a tail left over from our monkey-like ancestors. The coccyx does occupy the same relative position at the end of our vertebral column as does the tail in tailed primates, but then, where else would it be? The vertebral column is a linear row of bones that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.

Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the "inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.

Another common evolutionary claim found in textbooks is that the human appendix is really a vestigial cecum left over from our plant-eating evolutionary ancestors. The cecum is a blind-ending pouch near the beginning of the large intestine which provides additional space for digestion. In some plant-eating animals, such as cows, the cecum contains special bacteria which aid in the digestion of cellulose. The appendix is clearly not a vestigial cecum because almost every mammal has a cecum and many of these also have an appendix! Man, for example, has both a cecum and an appendix -- neither is vestigial or useless. The appendix, like the once "vestigial" tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary "left over," many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice.

There are organs in the body which have no known function in the adult but are still not vestigial in the evolutionary sense. For example, poorly developed and inactive mammary glands are found in adult males of all mammals, including man. Even evolutionists do not believe that these rudimentary glands are vestigial mammary glands left over from female ancestors of males, nor do they believe that males once nursed their young. There is a much better explanation for the male mammary gland. Males and females develop from nearly identical embryos which, at an early stage of development, become either male or female under the influence of genes in the sex chromosomes. The same parts of an embryo may produce either male or female sex organs and mammary glands. In humans, almost every component of female sex organs can be found in a rudimentary form in the male; and the reverse is also true. Thus, the presence of rudimentary organs in the adult do not tell us something about evolution, but rather tell us something about embryology.

In conclusion, the "vestigial" status of many organs has often been merely a way of covering up our ignorance of their true function. Unfortunately, there is little inclination to investigate the functional significance of organs believed to be "useless." There are now few, if any, organs that are considered to be functionless in both embryo and adult. Even if vestigial organs were to exist they would not provide evidence for evolution but rather for devolution. The problem for evolutionists is not how useful organs are lost, but how evolution produces new useful organs with all their integrated complexity. It is here that we find true evolutionary tales.

These are not all my own words, just copied a few from different articles, but just goes to show how we can all take science and use it in any way we choose.

JB

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 16:09

between Darwinism and Creationism only one can be true.
Nope. It's possible that neither one is true.

we can prove beyond doubt that the creationists view of the world is wrong.
I would agree if you clarify the following starting assumptions:

1) By creationism, you mean the literal Ussher view that the world is no more than 5,000 years old.

2) The methods we use for dating are valid beyond recent history. Frankly, we have no way of knowing this for sure; for example, we must assume that the percentage of helium gas in the earth's atmosphere has always been the same.

However, we're discussing Intelligent Design, which is something quite different. The assumption here is that the laws of science and the facts as we see them point to some incredible coincidences. The laws of statistics imply that such coincidences could never happen by chance, hence intelligence of some type must have been involved.

By the way, the most common argument used against critics of evolution is that anything can happen in millions of years. That's just a cop-out, because it's saying that we can never know.

Let me repeat again that I really do respect your opinion, and I'm not writing these messages in an attempt to persuade anyone of anything. All I'm trying to do is overcome the popular misconception that evolution is fact. It's a useful tool for studying science, but it needs to be put into context. I welcome the existence of other theories because they will, in the end, further the cause of science.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 16:19

Incidentally, is everyone aware that the brontosaurus never existed? The creature was fabricated by a scientist trying to outdo a competitor. This doesn't stop the authors of many science textbooks from still mentioning the creature. This is another example of how society latches on to something interesting and refuses to let go when the facts prove awkward. That's not true science.

fastfences

23rd December 2005, 16:32

Incidentally, is everyone aware that the brontosaurus never existed?

Huh? So 'Dino' wasn't real? :wink:

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 16:36

So 'Dino' wasn't real? :wink:
Oh no! I hope I haven't ruined your Christmas.

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 16:41

This is another example of how society latches on to something interesting and refuses to let go when the facts prove awkward. That's not true science.

Exactly what Freud's argued about the existence of God.

multilingual

23rd December 2005, 16:46

What about the Babelfish?

That proves that God exists and so therefore he doesn't.

QED

:wink:

JB

cjd

23rd December 2005, 16:58

[quote=cjd]between Darwinism and Creationism only one can be true.
Nope. It's possible that neither one is true.

That was sloppy of me, you are correct. But I think you have chosen to point out my laxness rather than take on my argument which was that you can't 'believe' in both creationism and darwinism because they are contradictory.

we can prove beyond doubt that the creationists view of the world is wrong.
I would agree if you clarify the following starting assumptions:

1) By creationism, you mean the literal Ussher view that the world is no more than 5,000 years old.

Yes of course, that's what I said earlier ;-)

2) The methods we use for dating are valid beyond recent history. Frankly, we have no way of knowing this for sure; for example, we must assume that the percentage of helium gas in the earth's atmosphere has always been the same.

Now you're being naughty - are you suggesting that the margin for error in our measurements is so great as to make it possible that the earth is no more than 5,000 years old? Nah!

However, we're discussing Intelligent Design, which is something quite different.

Yes, it is, I just think it's really important to dismiss the fairy stories of the true creationists and to make it clear that Evolution does not rule out the existence of a God before we get into that one.

The assumption here is that the laws of science and the facts as we see them point to some incredible coincidences. The laws of statistics imply that such coincidences could never happen by chance, hence intelligence of some type must have been involved.

By the way, the most common argument used against critics of evolution is that anything can happen in millions of years. That's just a cop-out, because it's saying that we can never know.

I hesitate to say it, but that seems to be a misunderstanding of statistics - The law of truly large numbers says that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen- the fact that our universe conforms to the requirements of life could just be one of them.

Let me repeat again that I really do respect your opinion

and me yours - for as long as we attack the argument not the arguer we'll have a ball.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 17:24

Now you're being naughty
I have been known...

are you suggesting that the margin for error in our measurements is so great as to make it possible that the earth is no more than 5,000 years old? Nah!
If the percentage of helium in the atmosphere has changed by even a small percentage over the last few millions of years, one mainsteam method of dating becomes suspect. If the percentage of radioactive carbon in plant structures has changed over the last few thousand years, another method becomes suspect. There are plenty of similar assumptions that underlie every method of dating, and we have no way to prove that those assumptions are valid. It's reasonable to assume that the environment today has not changed over millions of years, but it's also reasonable to challenge the assumption. This means that we should take dates quoted by scientists with a pinch of salt (now there's a scientific approach!).

The law of truly large numbers says that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen- the fact that our universe conforms to the requirements of life could just be one of them.
That's often stated, but it's a circular argument: The chance is remote, but we're here so it must have happened. It's important to point out that some of the probabilities involved in evolutionary thinking are stupendously large (or do I mean small?). I am billions of times more likely to die in the next five minutes of internal combustion (ala one of Dickens' novels) than that some of the coincidences involved in the evolution of life could ever happen by chance.

By the way, what's that smell....

Top Hat

23rd December 2005, 17:48

It's important to point out that some of the probabilities involved in evolutionary thinking are stupendously large (or do I mean small?). I am billions of times more likely to die in the next five minutes of internal combustion (ala one of Dickens' novels) than that some of the coincidences involved in the evolution of life could ever happen by chance.

I disagree, evolution is not random, mutation is random, evolution is not.

Once you have simple organic molecules evolution from inevitable.

And life took a billion year to start on earth, and there are billions of planets, so the chance of life starting on just 1 planet is billions X billion which is a very large number.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 18:09

And life took a billion year to start on earth, and there are billions of planets, so the chance of life starting on just 1 planet is billions X billion which is a very large number.
...but it's still very very small when you compare it to the chances that human life evolved from a primordial soup. A billion times a billion is 10 to the power of 18. For some aspects of evolution, we're talking about numbers hugely greater than that.

On top of that, basic scientific laws imply that everything tends to randomness and not to order. Unlike Newton's Laws (which were modified by Einstein's relativity), the Laws of Thermodynamics remain unchallenged.

I'm in danger of boring the socks off everyone here so I should probably not post too much more.

mumper

23rd December 2005, 18:10

Does the brontosaurus know it never existed?

Steve & cjd, your verbal sparring is extremely interesting with both of you making good thought provoking points. I now know just a little more about ID which has me thinking - assuming for the moment that ID and not evolution is how things started - my question is WHY?

Why would some superior force or being want to 'help us along' so to speak? Does anyone have any theories on what their or its motive might be.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 18:14

Why would some superior force or being want to 'help us along' so to speak? Does anyone have any theories on what their or its motive might be.
It's appropriate that you ask this question at Christmas time. Still, answering it really would start a contentious debate, so I'm going to pass! :)

cjd

23rd December 2005, 18:22

are you suggesting that the margin for error in our measurements is so great as to make it possible that the earth is no more than 5,000 years old? Nah!
If the percentage of helium in the atmosphere has changed by even a small percentage over the last few millions of years, one mainsteam method of dating becomes suspect. If the percentage of radioactive carbon in plant structures has changed over the last few thousand years, another method becomes suspect. There are plenty of similar assumptions that underlie every method of dating, and we have no way to prove that those assumptions are valid. It's reasonable to assume that the environment today has not changed over millions of years, but it's also reasonable to challenge the assumption. This means that we should take dates quoted by scientists with a pinch of salt (now there's a scientific approach!).

This is a little off topic but I'm seeing a trend here.

You seem to be saying that because there is a margin of error in all the many methods we adopt to determine the earth's age that there is reason to think that it could be no more than 5000 years old.

Now that's not just bad science that's an attempt to mislead - stop it at once!

'Strewth, there are living trees almost 5000 years old

http://www.terrain.org/essays/14/cohen.htm

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 18:24

ALMOST 5000? They could have been designed and planted there ;)

Now I'm just sh** stirring. ;)

mumper

23rd December 2005, 18:29

Now I'm just sh** stirring.

Yep, but nicely done :D

Jayne

23rd December 2005, 18:38

Has know-one see the film Evolution..we come from worms out of space :lol:

Jayne

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 18:42

This is a little off topic but I'm seeing a trend here.

You seem to be saying that because there is a margin of error in all the many methods we adopt to determine the earth's age that there is reason to think that it could be no more than 5000 years old.

Now that's not just bad science that's an attempt to mislead - stop it at once!

'Strewth, there are living trees almost 5000 years old

http://www.terrain.org/essays/14/cohen.htm

Aha, but scientists must challenge everything. How can anyone be sure that a tree is 5,000 years old? Was anyone there when it was an acorn? Has anyone kept detailed records of its growth over time? No! We have to make assumptions. In this case, the dating method is probably based on carbon dating, and that method rests on certain assumptions. Can anyone prove they are accurate? No, they cannot! I'm not trying to mislead - I'm trying to think critically and point out that every so-called statement of fact about the earth's history is open to challenge.

As for the earth being 5,000 years old, that - in my humble opinion - is based on an invalid interpretation of bible verses. Still, I would point out that it's as valid for someone to claim authority from ancient writings as it is to assume an existential world (i.e., that things today are the way they have always been). Proponents of both views, in the end, are relying on faith.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 18:47

Has know-one see the film Evolution..we come from worms out of space :lol:

Jayne
Some other stange theories have been published in the annals of science. One guy believes that apes evolved from man, for example. I think I'd believe in worms before believing that the PG Tips chimps evolved from me - Planet of the Apes notwithstanding.

Coding Monkey

23rd December 2005, 18:49

How can we know we exist? This debate is redundant until such questions are answered, as everything which is therefore a product of such thought, which until proven through a system of deducation, is only a mere assumption. The thought of the theory cannot be proven!

Arghhhhh. The end is nigh!

cjd

23rd December 2005, 19:47

Aha, but scientists must challenge everything. How can anyone be sure that a tree is 5,000 years old? Was anyone there when it was an acorn? Has anyone kept detailed records of its growth over time? No! We have to make assumptions. In this case, the dating method is probably based on carbon dating, and that method rests on certain assumptions. Can anyone prove they are accurate? No, they cannot! I'm not trying to mislead - I'm trying to think critically and point out that every so-called statement of fact about the earth's history is open to challenge.

hmm - tree growth is seasonal, the growth produces anular rings which can be measured without controversy and is actually used to calibrate and corroborate carbon dating.

"A bristlecone older than "Methuselah" was cut down in 1964 by Donald R. Currey, then a geography graduate student after his coring tool broke while performing research in an area now protected by Great Basin National Park in Nevada. The rings of the tree, named "Prometheus", were counted as 4844, and later as 4862, but they were counted 2.5 m above the germination point, and adding in years with missing rings and the time for it to reach 2.5 m tall, the estimated full age of the tree was over 5000 years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

There comes a point when challenging facts becomes just mischievousness......

Hayles

23rd December 2005, 20:13

Please carry on, this is great reading.

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 20:28

There comes a point when challenging facts becomes just mischievousness......

That's me, for sure.:)

But where are the solid facts upon which evolutionary thinking is based (which is the subject of this thread)? You mention rings to prove a tree's age, but where is the evidence that one species can evolve to another? Why does the fossil record not back up evolutionary claims? Where is there an example of the law of entropy failing so that order can evolve from chaos, and complex life forms from elemental life forms? When it comes down to it, evolution rests on very tenuous foundations.

I agree that no other hypothesis does any better. I'm not claiming that something should be taught in its place. I'm frustrated, however, that attempts to teach an alternative approach alongside evolution are met with howls of outrage. What's so wrong with teaching Intelligent Design? Why has evolution become a holy grail? Is it because modern society is so scared to admit that there might be an outside intelligence?

As a natural skeptic, I am always suspicious when society protects something without good reason. Think of the reaction against Capernicus when he challenged the view that the earth was at the centre of the universe. The powers that be felt that their authority would be undermined by the radical view that the earth may be just an insignificant planet in a large universe. So why the irrational defence of evolution? Is it that the prevailing philosophy of the day is concerned that man may be pushed from his pedestal?

The debate goes on...

cjd

23rd December 2005, 21:58

[ You mention rings to prove a tree's age, but where is the evidence that one species can evolve to another? Why does the fossil record not back up evolutionary claims? Where is there an example of the law of entropy failing so that order can evolve from chaos, and complex life forms from elemental life forms? When it comes down to it, evolution rests on very tenuous foundations.

Before we rush forward into the next argument - which I'm keen to get around to too - let's just close off the last so we can stand on firm ground.

We're now happy allowing the earth to be a little older than the necessary age to accept the biblical interpretation of the facts? (I'm allowing a several hundred million years margin of error over a 5,000 year time span, and presenting, as exhibit A, a living organism of about that age.)

Assuming that we can erradicate the pure creationist view, we can move on to talk about what evidence supports evolution and whether ID is an equivalent theory to evolution.

But we might be talking to ourselves, it gets to be hard work if you confine yourself to argument, evidence and fact instead of statements of befief and opinion ;-)

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 22:35

We're now happy allowing the earth to be a little older than the necessary age to accept the biblical interpretation of the facts? (I'm allowing a several hundred million years margin of error over a 5,000 year time span, and presenting, as exhibit A, a living organism of about that age.)
No, I'm not happy with just accepting the statement that the earth is billions of years old, and the sheer volume of writing in support of that view leaves me unconvinced (which just goes to show how arrogant I can be :) ). I admit that the earth might be a little older than 5,000 years, but I'm reserving judgment beyond that. If the existentialist assumption is valid, which is very questionable, there is some evidence that the earth is very old; however, it's largely speculation. Who was there? Who really knows? There is no incontrovertible proof. It's a matter of faith on your part if you believe it. I prefer to sit on the fence at this point.

Assuming that we can erradicate the pure creationist view, we can move on to talk about what evidence supports evolution and whether ID is an equivalent theory to evolution.
The radical view of creationism, i.e., that the earth is 5,000 years old, is a little difficult to accept, I agree. However, let's not write off scientists who believe in creationism (and they do exist) as whackos. Many believe in an older age for the earth. They do have evidence to support their views, so why not listen? For example, since there is no fossil evidence that creatures evolved from one species to another, creationists claim that species were created. That's a justifiable conclusion. You have faith in existentialism; they have faith in a creator. Both choices are equally valid.

As for intelligent design, this is something else again. This proposal is supported by an increasing number of scientists who are disillusioned that facts on the ground keep contradicting evolution. Their starting assumption is that an outside intelligence created the conditions needed for life. That's a valid starting point.

But we might be talking to ourselves, it gets to be hard work if you confine yourself to argument, evidence and fact instead of statements of belief and opinion ;-)
You're quite right. This debate has gone on for centuries and involved far greater minds that ours (I speak for myself, at least). The prevailing philosophy of the age likes to write off all views in favour of evolution, and it excludes all other views from the educational debate. In my opinion, evolution, intelligent design, and even creationism are supported by facts, so they should each be taken seriously by the scientific community.

I repeat my earlier question: Why has society made evolution some kind of holy grail?

Jayne

23rd December 2005, 22:39

In the Victorian times, an average woman's height was around 4' , each generation is getting taller...so isn't that evolution :D

Jayne

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 22:44

In the Victorian times, an average woman's height was around 4' , each generation is getting taller...so isn't that evolution :D

Jayne
The point is, though, Jayne that a female human is a female human is a female human. There is no indisputable evidence to prove that a female human became a female chimpanzee. In fact, there is no evidence at all that one species has ever evolved into another species - none.

By the way, thank goodness for the existence of male and female (another mystery in the annals of evolution). Wouldn't life be dull if we were all neuters!?

Jayne

23rd December 2005, 22:47

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You have an answer to everything Steve, how do you fit all those brains in :lol:

Can I have some.

Jayne

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 23:17

You have an answer to everything Steve
That doesn't make me right, though - as my wife rightly reminds me.

Jayne

23rd December 2005, 23:20

No agreed, but it does make you very interesting :D

Oh and Merry Christmas Steve :D

Jayne

Cornish Steve

23rd December 2005, 23:29

Merry Christmas to you too and to anyone else who had the stamina to make it this far through the thread!

DotNetWebs

24th December 2005, 00:00

What a great thread! Not what I would normally expect to read on a business forum. I have just skipped through it after arriving home from a Christmas drink so excuse me if this has been covered before. (or my reply is rambling due to excesses of alcohol)

You say there is no proof in the fossil record that one species evolved into another. This may be true but there is certainly proof of the relative ages of the species. Even if you don't try to estimate precise ages the proof is there that marine creatures arrived several orders of magnitude before us. That is why I cannot take Creationists seriously who would have us all believe that the Earth and everything in it was created in 7 days etc. If there was Intelligent Design it was certainly taken place gradually over many eons.

I personally have read most of Richard Dawkins books. I am convinced of the arguments of evolution, assuming you have some sort of self replicating organism to start with. I am less convinced of the chances of such an organism randomly arising from the 'Primordial Soup'

DotNetWebs

24th December 2005, 00:10

Just to add to the above:

One of the best, IMHO, books I have read on the subject is:

Paul Davies: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/068486309X/qid=1135386587/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/026-7698816-6054833

I am not saying I believe everything I read in this book but it is certainly an interesting, thought provoking, read.

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 01:22

You say there is no proof in the fossil record that one species evolved into another. This may be true but there is certainly proof of the relative ages of the species. Even if you don't try to estimate precise ages the proof is there that marine creatures arrived several orders of magnitude before us. That is why I cannot take Creationists seriously who would have us all believe that the Earth and everything in it was created in 7 days etc. If there was Intelligent Design it was certainly taken place gradually over many eons.

I personally have read most of Richard Dawkins books. I am convinced of the arguments of evolution, assuming you have some sort of self replicating organism to start with. I am less convinced of the chances of such an organism randomly arising from the 'Primordial Soup'
One scientist about a century ago - I think his name was Eddington - suggested that the universal constants may not be constants. Instead, he suggested that they are now on the tail of an asymptote. This is a fascinating idea. Just imagine the implications if every constant (speed of light, gravitational constant, electric constant, magnetic constant, Planck's constant, etc.) was 10x or even a 100x greater a few thousand years ago. What would this do to our thinking about ages of species? Suddenly, the creationist's view that marine creatures preceded man by just a few days becomes believable. And since we were never there, who's to say this guy's idea isn't right?

Of course, I'm now speculating just like hardcore evolutionists speculate - there's no proof either way - but it's fascinating stuff.

One of the best, IMHO, books I have read on the subject is:

Paul Davies: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life
I'm going to ask my wife to buy it for me for Christmas. That'll solve one problem; now I just have to figure out what to buy for her.

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 02:11

At risk of boring everyone even more, let me return to Hayles' request: "Can someone provide reasons to believe in evolution or to believe in ID." One of the most powerful arguments for ID and against evolution is the phenomenon of irreducible complexity. In a nutshell, this means that some components of living organisms (such as the human eye) only have meaning when thousands of individual components work together in concert. In itself, each component performs no useful function. In other words, the complex item cannot be reduced to a collection of meaningful elemental items. How on earth could such complex items ever evolve randomly? Let me quote a passage from a relevant website:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than one millionth of a microgram, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "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."

I challenge any evolutionist to provide a credible answer to the problem of irreducible complexity.

mumper

24th December 2005, 08:19

cjd

24th December 2005, 08:41

No, I'm not happy with just accepting the statement that the earth is billions of years old, and the sheer volume of writing in support of that view leaves me unconvinced (which just goes to show how arrogant I can be :) ). I admit that the earth might be a little older than 5,000 years, but I'm reserving judgment beyond that. If the existentialist assumption is valid, which is very questionable, there is some evidence that the earth is very old; however, it's largely speculation. Who was there? Who really knows? There is no incontrovertible proof. It's a matter of faith on your part if you believe it. I prefer to sit on the fence at this point.

If we can't get beyond agreeing that the earth is no older than 5000 years old we might as well abandon the chase. I can't let you sit on the fence on such an indisputable scientific position. If you can't agree that the earth is older than it is possible to be for the bible stories to be literally true your arguments are just argumentative and not evidence based science.

[note - I am not asking you to accept that the earth is 5 billion years old (yet) - just that it is old enough to prove the bible wrong and I'm not calling scientists who believe in creationism 'whacky' (yet) and the fact that some of them might believe it is irrelevant to the argument]

DotNetWebs

24th December 2005, 09:38

One scientist about a century ago - I think his name was Eddington - suggested that the universal constants may not be constants. Instead, he suggested that they are now on the tail of an asymptote. This is a fascinating idea. Just imagine the implications if every constant (speed of light, gravitational constant, electric constant, magnetic constant, Planck's constant, etc.) was 10x or even a 100x greater a few thousand years ago. What would this do to our thinking about ages of species? Suddenly, the creationist's view that marine creatures preceded man by just a few days becomes believable. And since we were never there, who's to say this guy's idea isn't right?

You don't need scientific constants to work out the relative age of species. Any amateur geologist can work this out by looking at sedimentary formations.

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 14:48

You don't need scientific constants to work out the relative age of species. Any amateur geologist can work this out by looking at sedimentary formations.
The point is that, if the constants are increased 10x, then time is increased by 10x. If the constants changed in different ratios, time from earth's perspective could change many times faster than relative time. (In a sense, this is similar to Einstein's view on time.) Do you see the point? While it doesn't change the proposed order of species, it most definitely changes the time frames.

In the end, all of our arguments rest on certain assumptions. I'm just pointing out that we must have faith in those assumptions for current thinking to hold true. It's fair for others to build hypotheses on different assumptions.

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 14:55

If we can't get beyond agreeing that the earth is no older than 5000 years old we might as well abandon the chase. I can't let you sit on the fence on such an indisputable scientific position. If you can't agree that the earth is older than it is possible to be for the bible stories to be literally true your arguments are just argumentative and not evidence based science.
I really don't mean to sound argumentative. I'm just trying to point out that scientists must have faith in something. The mainstream assumption is that everything has always been the way it is today. This means that the universal constants are unchanged, that the composition of the earth's atmosphere is unchanged, that the temperature is largely unchanged, that chemicals react the same way, and that no external force acts on the earth's changes. Science has to assume something but, in the end, it's a matter of faith.

The point I am making is that it's reasonable to build hypotheses on a different set of starting assumptions. The ID proponents change just one assumptions from the list: They are willing to consider that an external force acted.

In many ways, I'm a mainstream thinker; however, as a scientist, I was trained to challenge everything. I'm not claiming that the earth is 5,000 years old. I'm just pointing out that no one can claim it is billions of years old without having as much faith in existentialism as others have in a creator.

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 15:00

No, I'm not happy with just accepting the statement that the earth is billions of years old, and the sheer volume of writing in support of that view leaves me unconvinced

Steve, as you are confident enough in yourself to dispute what has long been accepted by most as the truth about the earth's age(and I do mean confident not arrogant) I have a question that has bugged me for a long time and I would value an opinion from you, and it is a serious question not a joke.

People usually refer to the wind 'blowing' - but how do we know it's not being 'sucked' out somewhere?
:) This is an excellent point. Some of the terms we use in daily life have connotations that we often don't think about. Others include sunrise and sunset, which take us back to a long-gone era.

As you rightly point out, the wind is simply the movement of air from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure. Depending on your perceptive, it is blown (from high pressure) or sucked (from low pressure).

cjd

24th December 2005, 15:43

I'm just pointing out that no one can claim it is billions of years old without having as much faith in existentialism as others have in a creator.

I've said about 3 or 4 times now that I'm not asking you to agree that the earth is billions of years old - that is another issue entirely.

I'm asking you to agree that it is provably older than the bible says it is.

And you've dogded it again.

The point is that you'd be hard pushed to find any scientist 'whacky' or otherwise claiming that the earth is only 5,000 years old - it's as demonstably wrong as saying it's flat or at the centre of the universe - it's plain anti-science.

It seems you have an extraordinarily high standard of proof requirement for obvious and known facts whilst having an extreemly low standard of proof requirement for any theory that may throw doubt on a standard scientific theory. Now why might that be ;-)

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 19:09

It seems you have an extraordinarily high standard of proof requirement for obvious and known facts whilst having an extreemly low standard of proof requirement for any theory that may throw doubt on a standard scientific theory. Now why might that be ;-)
I'm sorry if I come across that way; I try to be fair and objective. It's just that there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are just willing to go with the flow that I naturally react against it. Even in your message you refer to 'obvious and known facts'; it's almost natural to say these things. The truth is, however, that no one knows the age of the earth for sure because no one was there. :)

Back to the real issue in hand: Is ID a credible alternative to evolution? I'd like to repeat questions that went previously unanswered:

1) What is evolution's answer to the problem of irreducible complexity?

2) Why does the fossil record not back up evolutionary claims that one species evolved into another?

3) Where in the natural world is there an example of the law of entropy failing so that order can evolve from chaos, and complex life forms from elemental life forms?

4) Why has evolution become as much a holy grail as the flat earth society was to previous generations?

5) Do evolutionists have as much faith in existentialism as creationists do in a creator?

No avoiding the questions, please. :) ...and since it's almost upon us, Merry Christmas!

cjd

24th December 2005, 20:30

I try to be fair and objective. It's just that there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are just willing to go with the flow that I naturally react against it. Even in your message you refer to 'obvious and known facts'; it's almost natural to say these things. The truth is, however, that no one knows the age of the earth for sure because no one was there.

Um no. I am saying that you are absolutely not being fair and objective. You have now avoided answering a basic and critical question with fundamental relevance to evolution several times so what are we to assume? I'm now forced to think that you somehow can't accept some scientific facts that are non-controversial for religious reasons.

You simply can not skirt round this issue:

Even in your message you refer to 'obvious and known facts'; it's almost natural to say these things. The truth is, however, that no one knows the age of the earth for sure because no one was there.

It quite simply is not in dispute that the earth is more than 5000 years old except by literal believers in creationism. There is no science, at all, anywhere, that says different. Prove me wrong.

I'd love nothing more than to discuss the work done on irreducable complexity - it's a great and intereseting argument but I feel that all I'd be doing is making PR for the creationists.

Time to come out of your closet I think.

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 21:22

Thanks for your patience with me. I've looked back through this message thread to find the question that you believe I am avoiding. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'll phrase it this way: Is the earth provably older than 5,000 years?

As a scientist, I repeat my answer - no, it is not! We can prove that the earth is not at the centre of the universe; there are several ways to do that. We can prove that the earth is not flat; I've circled the globe many times already. We cannot, however, prove that the earth is more than 5,000 years old. Tell me what experiment could ever prove it with certainty? We can't go back in time, so we have to infer based on certain assumptions. Inferring is not proving.

Is it reasonable that conditions today (as defined earlier) have existed for, say, 10,000 years? Yes, it is. If this assumption is true, we can infer that the earth is at least 10,000 years old. Have conditions remained the same for one million years? Who knows, but let's say that it's 99% likely. Have conditions remained the same for 100 million years? Again, who knows? Let's say it's 90% likely. Have they remained the same for a few billion years? Frankly, no one has a clue. To believe it, you must have faith in your assumptions.

From the perspective of ID, do we know for sure that no external force has acted on the earth for a billion years? No, we don't - and many speculate that a meteorite acted and caused the downfall of dinosaurs. Do we know that an intelligent force created conditions suitable for life? No, we don't. However, there's considerable evidence to support the assumption, the universal constants and irreducible complexity being just two of them. Can a supporter of ID prove that the hypothesis is true? No way... but neither can the evolutionist. We have to stick with our hypotheses and further develop them to fit the facts. The answer is not for governments, the popular press, or even for mainstream science to step in and declare that only one hypothesis is allowed. That's going back to the Dark Ages.

You have now avoided answering a basic and critical question with fundamental relevance to evolution several times so what are we to assume?
I hope I've answered the question this time.

I'm now forced to think that you somehow can't accept some scientific facts that are non-controversial for religious reasons.
Not at all. I'm coming at this as a scientist who insists on remaining true to the scientific method. I would point out that we are not arguing over facts; we're arguing whether prevailing majority opinion should be allowed to dictate that a working hypothesis is fact.

There have been some excellent articles in scientific journals about the scientific method and how too many of the profession start with a conclusion and then try to fit facts to it. (I don't mean to imply that you are one of them, because you're not; however, some individuals look for public acclaim - as in the case of the inventor of the brontosaurus.)

It quite simply is not in dispute that the earth is more than 5000 years old except by literal believers in creationism. There is no science, at all, anywhere, that says different. Prove me wrong.
I hope I made my case. Maybe we are differing on a point of terminology. My point is that no one can prove with certainty that the earth is old. The best we can do is have faith in our assumptions and infer that it is.

I'd love nothing more than to discuss the work done on irreducable complexity - it's a great and interesting argument but I feel that all I'd be doing is making PR for the creationists.
Now you're becoming fixated with creationists and their 5,000 years! I really am not promoting any one view over another, just trying to give alternatives to evolution the right to make their case. Today's society is vitriolic in its attack against anyone who so much as questions that evolution is not "a fact". (I'm not inventing this; this is what judges have been saying in the US.) By the way, you have been polite and gracious in all your responses, for which I'm grateful.

Time to come out of your closet I think.
I'm not hiding in one. The truth is that I am a Newtonian on this. Sir Isaac Newton once wrote that there will always be things that we do not know; I fully agree with him. Based on the evidence, I am tempted to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design as equally valid to the hypothesis of evolution.

Jayne

24th December 2005, 21:25

lol Steve, they're getting longer :lol:

Jayne

Cornish Steve

24th December 2005, 21:33

Thank goodness the system counts number of posts and not number of words. :)

multilingual

24th December 2005, 22:11

Far be it fo me to stick a humble spanner in the the works, but aren't geologists also men of science?

I say that because the Natural History Museum is full of rocks and fossils that date back millions of years.

There are some basic accepted rules to rock formation, and certain sedimentary rocks take thousands, or even millions of years to form.

I fail to see where this argument stacks up, unless you are saying that some other force formed the rock and tried to make it look like it was old.

I doubt if anyone in their right mind belives that the world is less than 5000 years old.

DotNetWebs

24th December 2005, 22:26

Exactly the point I was trying to make

Cornish Steve

25th December 2005, 01:30

I say that because the Natural History Museum is full of rocks and fossils that date back millions of years.

Aaaarghhh! :) What right does a museum have to state, as if a fact, that a rock is millions of years old? Did they pick it up on a time machine? No! They inferred it based on dating methods that rely on a number of key assumptions. By trusting in those assumptions, they make the claim. By trusting in different assumptions, I could make a different claim. How many times have we heard scientists arguing publicly about the age of certain rocks?

I would remind you of a famous incident when the size of the universe doubled overnight because someone realised that an assumption was wrong in his hypothesis. It made the news headlines.

By the way, I always felt a little sorry for the 18th century mathematician who spent years calculating pi to many thousands of decimal places, only for someone to point out that he made an error quite early on.

Maybe we should end this thread now. The last thing I want to do is to upset anyone, especially on Christmas Day. :) Many thanks to everyone - and especially to cjd - for being so good-natured as we discussed this topic. I have enjoyed the banter; I hope others enjoyed it too. I respect your views, and I hope mine don't seem so extreme after all. In closing, all I ask is that we question everything we hear and not simply accept things because they're the prevailing view. Most great discoveries were the result of challenging the status quo.

DotNetWebs

26th December 2005, 13:49

I take you point that we cannot prove (with 100% certainty) that the Earth is not older than 5000 years) But nothing can be proved 100%. All we can say it that things are beyond reasonable doubt. How do you know that you have circled the Earth many times? How do you know it was not a clever illusion setup by the intelligent people that designed us? Any one see Space Cadets this month?

I believe, as most Earth Scientists believe, that the Earth is greater than 5000 years old. We make these assumptions based on observations of processes that are shaping the face of the Earth TODAY. One year ago today a section of sea floor measuring several hundred miles across was raised some 40 feet. This resulted in the terrible Tsunami that claimed so many lives. This occurred due to plate tectonics. Plate movements have been measured for the last few decades, we know the rate the plates move, we also know (without reasonable doubt) that the plates where once in other positions, we know (without reasonable doubt) how long it would take for the plates to move to the positions they are today.

We know from observing processes that are occurring TODAY how long sedimentary rocks take to form. We know that we find less primitive species in the older rock formations and we know we find the more advanced species in the newer rock formations. You do not need any scientific constants or clever mathematics to work this out. You could describe the time that is required in terms or human lifetimes. If you do this you will find that you would need many more generations for the Earth to form than have elapsed since the act of 'creation' in the bible.

I am sure you will argue that the Earth could of been 'designed' to look like it is that old, but if you do you have to accept that you cannot 'prove' that you have circled the Earth. If you follow this to its logical conclusion you will end up with no faith in science at all. And If you had no faith in science at all you would not climb on to an aeroplane in the first place!

Cornish Steve

26th December 2005, 17:37

Since you asked me questions, I am taking the liberty to extend the thread. I hope others don't mind.

I take you point that we cannot prove (with 100% certainty) that the Earth is not older than 5000 years
Thank you for your honesty. As we discuss these issues, it's all too easy to simply dig in our heels.

But nothing can be proved 100%.
The laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell's laws, Newton's Laws (ignoring Einstein's modifications for the moment), and others can be assumed to be true laws. They explain all the facts, and they can be used to predict behaviour. I don't dispute these at all.

How do you know that you have circled the Earth many times? How do you know it was not a clever illusion setup by the intelligent people that designed us?
Because flights are predictable and, as you point out later, we risk our lives (e.g., by flying on planes) when testing theories all the time.

I believe, as most Earth Scientists believe, that the Earth is greater than 5000 years old.
I do too - but that doesn't make it a 'fact'.

One year ago today a section of sea floor measuring several hundred miles across was raised some 40 feet. This resulted in the terrible Tsunami that claimed so many lives. This occurred due to plate tectonics. Plate movements have been measured for the last few decades, we know the rate the plates move, we also know (without reasonable doubt) that the plates where once in other positions, we know (without reasonable doubt) how long it would take for the plates to move to the positions they are today.
Yes, and by assuming that conditions have not really changed throughout the earth's history, we can infer a great age. I don't dispute this at all.

You could describe the time that is required in terms or human lifetimes. If you do this you will find that you would need many more generations for the Earth to form than have elapsed since the act of 'creation' in the bible.
If you have faith in your starting assumptions, I still agree with you. You put your argument very well.

I am sure you will argue that the Earth could of been 'designed' to look like it is that old
No, I won't argue for this.

If you follow this to its logical conclusion you will end up with no faith in science at all.
Not at all. Fundamentally, I am a scientist at heart, and I have great respect for the body of science that has developed through the centuries. The credibility of a law (or theory or hypothesis) depends, however, on its ability to explain the facts and to predict behaviour. Evolution still fails on both counts.

Let's put it another way. I'm willing to risk my life by riding on a plane. I am testing the laws of aerodynamics. The plane's guidance system relies on radio transmissions, so I'm testing Maxwell's laws. The plane is powered by jet engines, so I'm testing the laws of thermodynamics. As a 6-million miler, I've tested these laws many times.

If it could be done, would anyone be willing to risk their life on the hypothesis of evolution? If not, why does the 'establishment' insist on calling it a 'fact' and to disallow alternatives?

Jayne

26th December 2005, 17:49

Oh Steve, you love getting your teeth into a good debate, don't you...I feel like you are really enjoying yourself :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad you are happy :D

Jayne

Cornish Steve

26th December 2005, 18:11

Oh Steve, you love getting your teeth into a good debate, don't you...I feel like you are really enjoying yourself :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad you are happy :D

Jayne
Yes, I do - sorry. :) Although I do try, but sometimes fail, to restrict myself to topics about which I have something useful to contribute - although you have every right to question that.

Jayne

26th December 2005, 18:17

Carry on Steve, was only pulling your leg :lol:

Because pulling your leg is what makes me happy :lol:

Jayne

DotNetWebs

26th December 2005, 21:26

I would be interested to know what the laws of aerodynamics are?

Before I became a software developer I was (and still am) a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. I understand how aeroplanes work. I risked my job and my conscience every time I certified an aircraft fit to fly but I have yet to read conclusive proof how EXACTLY an aeroplane flies.Nobody has yet proved 100% conclusively how a wing derives lift. The argument comes down to Bernoulli Vs Newton. Most people who teach theory of flight fall into one of these camps. There are example of this all over the internet. Here are two examples for starters:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/airfoil.html

http://www.f1-country.com/f1-engineer/aeorodynamics/bernoulli.html

You fly in aeroplanes, I certify them, can either of us say with 100% certainty how EXACTLY the aeroplane is held in the air. How do you know that all the laws that you quoted will not be proved wrong some day. As you point out Einstein proved that Newton's law's do not hold true for ALL circumstances.

I don't disagree with any of the facts you state. I do not consider myself able to argue with you scientifically as you are academically far more qualified than I am. As a physicist you have chosen a discipline where you are able to produce experiments that can attempt to prove theories. Earth scientists, because of the huge time frames involved, and because you physicists have not yet invented a time machine, do not have that luxury. It all comes down to common sense really. This debate has come about because some schools in the US tried to stop the teaching of Darwin's THEORY (i.e it does not pretend to be a law). If there was a referendum on which theory should be taught, (to your children), on the Nation Curriculum, Creationist or Evolutionary, which would you choose?

Cornish Steve

27th December 2005, 02:43

This debate has come about because some schools in the US tried to stop the teaching of Darwin's THEORY (i.e it does not pretend to be a law). If there was a referendum on which theory should be taught, (to your children), on the Nation Curriculum, Creationist or Evolutionary, which would you choose?
I'm sure the popular press presented it this way, but allow me to explain what really happened.

Our local school board, supported by the state superintendent of schools, voted to add stickers inside the front cover of textbooks on evolution. The purpose was to inform students that, contrary to popular belief, evolution is not a fact. The stickers read as follows:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Personally, I find this statement reasonable, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone could object to it. Nonetheless, the PC brigade jumped all over it. CNN brought it to national attention, civil liberties groups brought a legal case against it, and the school board was ridiculed. The issue was brought before a judge who ruled that the stickers were unconstitutional - deciding that they violated the principle of separation of church and state.

A school board in Pennsylvania tried to go a little further by adding ID to the curriculum. It's interesting that the judge's written opinion uses arguments we have read in this thread:

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view and not a scientific theory. It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

As I've written several times (yawn from other forum members :) ), ID is not creationism; ID assumes that an outside intelligence influenced conditions such that life could exist on earth. Unfortunately, the 'establishment' is fixated on Christian fundamentalists and seems to have drawn a Maginot Line around evolution. It's become a holy grail, and no one is allowed to question its credibility.

Yes, I am arrogant in the extreme. Yes, I am a born contrarian. Yes, I am in the minority (based on the poll, about 20%). Nonetheless, I am a scientist who remains true to the scientific method. To repeat an earlier quote, "evolution is a theory in crisis", and we should have the guts to accept it.

So, to answer your question, evolution remains a valuable tool and should be taught in schools. In addition, however, we should allow alternative hypotheses to be taught to students. Intelligent Design has increasing support and can explain many of the facts that evolution cannot. Why is everyone so scared of it?

DotNetWebs

27th December 2005, 15:35

The incident I was reffering to was this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/417996.stm

The statement that was on the stickers you refer to I believe is reasonable as is the assumption that "an outside intelligence MAY have influenced conditions such that life could exist on earth". My worry would be, if I had children in one of these schools, is that this could be a back door into teaching creationism and religious fundamentalism.

Cornish Steve

27th December 2005, 16:04

Isn't this news article interesting? It just goes to show how much influence the media have when reporting a story. Based on the article, it seems that a school board in Kansas decided to promote micro-evolution instead of traditional evolution. Micro-evolution recognises that the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution between species, so it proposes evolution within species.

Even though only one school district did this, out of many thousands of districts in the state, what is the headline? "Kansas rejects theory of evolution." This is a nice piece of hyperbole for starters!

Then the article cleverly establishes the inevitable link to creationists to scare everyone: "The decision is being seen as a victory for the supporters of creationism who believe the world came into being more or less as described in the Bible and who refuse to accept Darwin's teaching as scientific fact." Notice the subtle inference that evolution is really a fact.

Now read the reaction of a die-hard evolutionist: "We're going back to the 1880s. It does make us look to the people in the rest of the country that we're a bunch of hicks." Now that's going to shame parents into rejecting the proposal, so pressure builds to reject it.

Can you see why, as a scientist, I become so frustrated? This is nothing more than manipulation of the news to besmear anyone who claims that evolution is not a fact.

The statement that was on the stickers you refer to I believe is reasonable as is the assumption that "an outside intelligence MAY have influenced conditions such that life could exist on earth".
I think so too, but the national press, the civil liberties union, and several big guns in the establishment launched a vitriolic and quite personal attack against members of our local school board. It took guts for them to propose the sticker in the first place; they're now facing pressure to resign. Doesn't such character assassination just smack of Galileo's time?

My worry would be, if I had children in one of these schools, is that this could be a back door into teaching creationism and religious fundamentalism.
This is the real issue! The press makes a giant fuss every time a school board has the courage to question evolution; in response, the PC brigade scares parents into thinking that their children are about to be forcibly turned into miniature fundamentalists who believe the earth is flat. Rather than look at the facts, what do most parents do? They believe what they hear on the news!

If public schools started to teach religion in the science classroom, they would be sued before anyone could say "Jack Robinson". It's not going to happen. By cultivating the perception that anyone who promotes an alternative to evolution must be a 19th century bigot, however, die-hard evolutionists are well on their way to shaming everyone into accepting evolution is fact.

Farewell to the scientific method!

cjd

27th December 2005, 16:54

Our local school board, supported by the state superintendent of schools, voted to add stickers inside the front cover of textbooks on evolution. The purpose was to inform students that, contrary to popular belief, evolution is not a fact. The stickers read as follows:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Personally, I find this statement reasonable

It is not reasonable and has been shown in your courts not to be so. The school governers who tried to inflict this fake science on the kids were eventually fired by the kids families.

It's disingenous in the extreem to suggest that 'it's reasonable' when evoultion is the only subject targeted by the creationists - they could just as easily said it about quantum theory, the history of ancient Egypt and statistics but they haven't because they only feel threatened by evolution. Just like their relatives were threatened by Galileo and Copernicus.

It was done for religious, not scientific, reasons.

Cornish Steve

27th December 2005, 17:06

It is not reasonable and has been shown in your courts not to be so.
What's unreasonable about the statement? It's perfectly logical and true in every respect. There's nothing deceptive about it.

The school governers who tried to inflict this fake science on the kids were eventually fired by the kids families.
Well, it's my local school board, and it's my local state superintendent. I can assure you that they are still there. We'll see, when the next elections come up (because they are elected officials), whether they remain in place.

It's disingenous in the extreem to suggest that 'it's reasonable' when evoultion is the only subject targeted by the creationists - they could just as easily said it about quantum theory, the history of ancient Egypt and statistics but they haven't because they only feel threatened by evolution. Just like their relatives were threatened by Galileo and Copernicus.
Quantum theory is actually a good comparison. My PhD was in magnetism. At the time, quantum theory was used to explain magnetic behaviour. In addition, something called the RKKY model was taught in parallel. Neither model explained true behaviour exactly, but they were both useful. There's no reason why alternative theories should not be taught alongside evolution. Unlike quantum theory, the history of Egypt, and statistics, evolution is under attack because, as someone else put it, it's a "theory in crisis". More and more facts are found to contradict it.

It was done for religious, not scientific, reasons.
Just what the popular press would like you to believe! Where is religion in the sticker statement? Religion was brought into the legal case by the prosecution in order to protect its holy grail.

Rob Holmes

27th December 2005, 18:13

Heres an interesting fact...

On the first ever lunar landing the spacecraft was kitted out with extra wide feet and other gadgets, why?

Because the scientists assumed evolution and made the following calculations based on evolution..

Dust travels through space and settles on the moon at a certain constant rate. This they said was a proven scientific fact. So, because they assumed evolution was true and this dust had been settling on the moon at a constant rate for the last x million years they cleverley calculated that the dust on the moon would be 64 feet thick.

In fact when the space craft landed they found it to be under 1 inch thick.

Rob

Top Hat

27th December 2005, 21:06

Top Hat

27th December 2005, 21:07

cjd

27th December 2005, 21:09

In the end it's a political issue. ID was developed by people working for the creationist foundation. It's the first rule of journalism 'consider the source'; with the corollory 'whose paying them to tell me this?.

ID had some decent arguments and if they were from unbiased sources they would have been written up, subjected to peer review and published. There would then have been 10 to 20 years of batting about by the experts in the the area until it was either assimilated into the knowledge base or dismissed as wrong.

And no-one outside the expert area would have know anything about it. Just as they don't know anything about the literally millions of other issues in the development of scientific knowledge.

The ONLY reason this is in the public sphere is because this branch of science contradicts Christian fundamental belief and the creationalists need to get their beliefs into American schools - not into science - but into schools.

It's as simple as that.

And, by-the-way; who said and how is 'evolution in a crisis'?

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 01:12

In the end it's a political issue. ID was developed by people working for the creationist foundation. It's the first rule of journalism 'consider the source'; with the corollory 'whose paying them to tell me this?.
We're not looking into journalism here; we're looking into science. The fact that a number of creationists have jumped onto the ID bandwagon is irrelevant. As you encouraged me earlier, let's keep to the facts.

A number of respected academics support the ID hypothesis. As I mentioned previously, one interesting website belongs to the Discovery Institute ( http://www.discovery.org ), to which many university fellows and researchers belong. The organisation states up-front that it is not religious, and the material at its site proves the point.

The ONLY reason this is in the public sphere is because this branch of science contradicts Christian fundamental belief and the creationalists need to get their beliefs into American schools - not into science - but into schools.
Now you are straying from the facts and pursuing the tactics of the popular media: "Let's just link ID to Christian fundamentalists who believe the earth is flat. That'll scare 'em all away!" That's not going to work here. :)

You accused me earlier of avoiding your questions. I made a point to go back and answer them in detail. Now I'm going to accuse you of avoiding my questions. Let's focus on just two of them:

1) What is evolution's answer to the problem of irreducible complexity?

The mousetrap is a very simple example of this phenomenon. Imagine that each element of the mousetrap - the base board, the spring, the latch, etc. - evolved independently. In order to create a mousetrap, evolution must somehow put the pieces together with the specific purpose of catching a mouse. Examples of irreducible complexity in nature (such as the human eye) contain many thousands of elements; the absence of just one of them would mean the complex item could not perform its function. How can evolution explain this phenomenon?

2) Why does the fossil record not back up evolutionary claims that one species evolved into another?

For over a century, many thousands of scientists from almost every country on earth have searched for evidence to back up the claims of evolution - and they're still searching. Where is the creature with jaw bones in transition from a reptile to a mammal? Where is the evidence to prove that one species really did evolve into another?

And, by-the-way; who said and how is 'evolution in a crisis'?
I quoted the phrase in a previous message. It's also the title of a book by Michael Denton: "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 04:57

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 04:58

Having read it all I firmly believe that evolution is the only reasonable explanation.

If a designer, came along and fiddled with life on Earth, then they themselves evolved on some distant planet, so ultimately evolution would still be responsible for life on earth.

It would make a great TV program 'Evolution on Trial'

Traditional court room style program with experts for and against.

I think the outcome would be a majority verdict in favour of evolution.

So that makes it true does it?

Truth by majority vote?

If a designer, came along and fiddled with life on Earth, then they themselves evolved on some distant planet, so ultimately evolution would still be responsible for life on earth.

So how would the distant planet have been created? By a big bang? Ok then what banged in big bang and who made the atmosphere they banged in?

Just keep working back and working back and working back...

I guess the creationalist goes back to 'In the beginning God created...'

and the evolutionalist goes back to... everything was created from absolutely nothing - the worlds, moon, sun, millions of stars appeared from nowhere, nothing caused them to appear - they just appeared from nowhere and because of nothing. This includes whole universes and galaxies coming out of nothing and appearing in a space that wasn't there before.

Both take faith - debatable which takes a bigger faith.

Rob

fastfences

28th December 2005, 07:20

This has been an interesting and informative post, but it has not changed my view that I am a product of 'Intelligent Design.' :wink:

Cheers, Nigel

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 09:30

I know its not evolution, but for those who find evolution hard to stomach.

Think for a moment about the miracle that is making babies, you start with a egg and sperm, cells divide and 9 months later bingo it’s a baby

So that something going from simple beginnings (a couple of cells) to a fully formed complex human being

And yes I know its not evolution

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 09:34

Whats evolution got to do with space dust?

It shows the age of the moon which could possibly have consequences on whether evolution between species has enough time (if say the moon had only been around for 5-10,000 years)

Rob

I suspect it shows the NASA engineers had not a clue how deep the dust was so were extremely cautions and made big feet

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 09:36

Hayles

28th December 2005, 10:19

Anyone else see 'Digging for Jesus' last night? There's no archaeological sites at Bethlehem. Nothing, no sign of a town or any buildings dating back to Jesus's time. However, there were plenty of other finds in areas a few miles from Bethlehem that did date to the right time showing that those places were inhabited, but not Bethlehem... :?:

Asteeleleith

28th December 2005, 13:44

Does intelligent design not simply state that evolution is a fact?

If this is the case, then i have to argue against it. I stronly believe in evolution myself. I feel it explains a lot. Also goes to show that as the climate and consitions have changed on the earth, so creatures have evolved to survive.
It is however pure conjecture. we have no proof that is this what it is. The theory of Evolution is based upon observations. There is no scientific experimental data to back it. Hence it is a hypothesis.

As for trapping space dust. We scientsts do this because it is virgin matter. unchanged since the creation of the solar system. It is therefore of interest to scientists as its analysis could tell us something about how solar system was created, and from what :-)

Al

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 16:32

As for trapping space dust. We scientsts do this because it is virgin matter. unchanged since the creation of the solar system. It is therefore of interest to scientists as its analysis could tell us something about how solar system was created, and from what
A few years back, headlines around the world proclaimed that we now have proof there is life on Mars. The argument went as follows:

1) A scientist found evidence in a rock, found somewhere up north, that it might once have contained a bacterium.

2) Other scientists believed that the rock was originally from Mars.

La voila - there is life on Mars!

I actually had a letter published in the Economist about this. In essence, I made the following points:

A) There was no bacterium in the rock today; it was conjecture that there ever was.

B) No one has ever been to Mars, so how can anyone claim that this rock came from there?

C) How is the rock supposed to have travelled from Mars to Earth? We've never witnessed a phenomenon that achieves this.

Unfortunately, we believe what we want to believe - or what the media invites us to believe. This is one reason why ID is having trouble gaining acceptance: the media ridicules it.

Also, we live in an age of personalities and fame. Many scientists hope for that 'break' that will make their name a household word. The temptation is to dream up an idea and then fit the facts to it, and that - unfortunately - has been at the root of many so-called discoveries recently. This is the complete opposite of the scientific method. True science is a wild adventure in which we look for facts and then build models around them.

ID tries to explain the facts, not avoid them.

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 16:46

Think for a moment about the miracle that is making babies, you start with a egg and sperm, cells divide and 9 months later bingo it’s a baby

So that something going from simple beginnings (a couple of cells) to a fully formed complex human being

Interesting - but think about it.. the cells were created by 2 people far more complex than an egg and a sperm.

If you work it backwards to the very beginning (there must have been one) - according to evolution something like you described must have happened for things to multiply - maybe the 1st cell was a-sexual and reproduced itself. Or maybe there were 2 cells that in the whole universe co-incidently met and reproduced ??

Just trying to be logical!

Rob

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 17:00

In the end it's a political issue.

Hmm I think I disagree on this particular issue with you.

IMHO really it's a belief choice with massive consequences not a political issue.

The REAL reason people won't even entertain the idea of ID or creationalism is because it entertains the idea that there might be a God and if there is a God it means people have BIG decisions to make in their life.

It's far less hassle in life to say theres no God and we all evolved from nothing to a rock and eventually life evolved from the rocks that came from nowhere. Even if it sounds a silly theory most feel ok with it as it's the majority. Bit like the story of the Emperor who wore no clothes.

Rob

creospace

28th December 2005, 17:32

I don't think we're from monkeys but generally speaking evolution could be all part of inteligent design?

It depends if you see the biblical story as a metaphoric representation of what happened and went wrong rather than a literal happening.

Just thoguht I'd throw that one in as a creationist :)

Gary

Asteeleleith

28th December 2005, 17:36

The debate regarding life on mars has been raging since the dawn of day.

Percival lovell who observed the canals on mars, later ot be confirmed as opitcal illusions.

HG well's war of the worldshas also loved to fanatsis on this.

The truth is no evidence for this has yet been found. Two probes called Spirit and opportunity are i believe still exploring mars at this time nad have been for the past year or so.
There are going to be other probes sent, who i believe it will be the job to finally anwer this question once and for all.
Though it is worth nothing here that the planey can plumbet to -140 to 15C. a tad cold for anything to survive in?
Plus the air is mainly CO2.

Al

Asteeleleith

28th December 2005, 17:37

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 17:55

Just thought I'd throw that one in as a creationist
Oh no, he said the word. He believes in an invisible friend and he's going to teach us that computer viruses are a plague from God. Call the BBC. Call Sky News. Call the civil liberties groups. Where can I find a lawyer?

Sound familiar? :)

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 19:04

A few years back, headlines around the world proclaimed that we now have proof there is life on Mars. The argument went as follows:

...snip...

And it was a good example of scientists trying to make a name for themselves, and other scientists, stopping and saying this is wrong.

In other words science won, common sense prevailed, scientific knowledge was challenged found to be wrong and corrected.

This happens all the time, sometimes science take steps forward, sometimes backwards (though I think the trend is forwards)

Evolution, 150 years ago was the minority view it was hearsay, but has now become the majority view, accepted by most of the scientific community.

Kids to bed then I will give you some cast iron examples of evolution in action.

Asteeleleith

28th December 2005, 19:26

i can see this debate raging on into the middle of the next milenium lol

Al

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 19:45

And it was a good example of scientists trying to make a name for themselves, and other scientists, stopping and saying this is wrong.

In other words science won, common sense prevailed, scientific knowledge was challenged found to be wrong and corrected.

Well, yes and no. The popular press continued to pour out stories about life on Mars, followed by a series of articles that built on their newly invented 'fact'. Stories appeared in the papers, on the major news channels, and so on. I'm sure that a sizable number of people now believe that we've proved there's life on Mars.

Mind you, a sizable number of people believe they saw Elvis at the local supermarket last week. :)

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 19:47

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 19:49

I'm enjoying this good natured debate, only on UKBF

So lets have some cast iron examples of evolution in action, so you can shoot it down :wink:

Bugs, let start with head lice a few years ago slap on some chemicals and bingo they were dead, but slowly they have developed resistance to the chemicals, we have to keep changing the chemicals, attacking a different part of the lice's life cycle, or using stronger/different chemical.

In other words the average head lice today is different to the average head lice of a few years ago, and to the head lice's advantage, testable quantifiable evolution in action (this is making me itch).

Bacteria, same thing over the past 60 years or so have become resistant to many anti bacterial drugs to the point where we may be facing a drugs crisis in the future. Bacteria have through the selection pressure of anti bacterial drugs evolved, they are now different.

Flu occasionally mutates (evolves!!!)

HIV regularly mutates

Domestic animals (and I know this is not evolution) have, because of selective breeding have changed immensely, look at the variety of domestic dog.

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 19:55

Kids to bed then I will give you some cast iron examples of evolution in action.

Cool, just before you do have you got time for a quick squizz here to see what sort of evolution you are talking about: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

Rob
Unfortunately, this guy mixes science and religion (just as he claims that evolutionists mix science and religion). Given the environment we are in today, this undermines his credibility.

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 19:56

Skimming through that tophat they are all Microevolution (Variations within kinds) - headlice have not changed into a different animal, and the diseases have built up resistances and have different strains but I don't see..

Proof for bugs changing into cats
HIV changing into Diptheria
Flu changing into chickenpox etc etc

So yes your examples are of micro-evolutions i.e. mutations of a kind or species evolving but only into a variant of the same kind or species

Rob

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 19:58

Unfortunately, this guy mixes science and religion (just as he claims that evolutionists mix science and religion). Given the environment we are in today, this undermines his credibility.

I guess so - I've not heard all he says but I think the mixing bit is a fair summary.

My response would be that if a religion claims it's God to have created the world there is arguably a crossover. Particularily in what assumptions are made in scientific experiments.

Is that what you meant?

Rob

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 20:06

Skimming through that tophat they are all Microevolution (Variations within kinds) - headlice have not changed into a different animal, and the diseases have built up resistances and have different strains but I don't see..

but surely macroevolution x 1000 = evolution

Proof for bugs changing into cats

Obviously bugs can't change into cats, only into slightly different bugs, isolate one bunch of bugs, let the other change, give it enough time and you have 2 different kind of bugs.

creospace

28th December 2005, 20:07

Rob Holmes

28th December 2005, 20:15

but surely macroevolution x 1000 = evolution

Yes but not changing of species just a changing within species - similar things happen with humans e.g. someone who handles hot things all day will develop thicker skin on their hands - but they stay human :) - I take mini-matrixx swimming alot but I don't grow gills, and he wasn't any closer to growing gills when he was born. If he keeps swimming then I'll put money on his children not having gills like a fish too - see how weak the evolutionary theory is?

Obviously bugs can't change into cats, only into slightly different bugs, isolate one bunch of bugs, let the other change, give it enough time and you have 2 different kind of bugs.

Yes but again they are still bugs. Evolution says bugs changed into other kinds of animals and other species.

Rob

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 21:01

It's only fair that I provide some evidence in support of Intelligent Design instead of simply asking for evidence to support evolution. Forgive the length of this post, but here are just some of the many examples of evidence. Let's start with the universe as a whole:

1) If the gravitational force was slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all stars would be more massive than our sun and would burn too rapidly to support life on orbiting planets. If the force was slightly weaker, all stars would have less mass than our sun and would produce none of the heavy elements needed to build planets.

2) If the strong nuclear force was slightly stronger, there would be a shortage of hydrogen, and the other elements necessary for life, in the universe. If the force was slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not form, and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.

3) If the weak nuclear force was slightly stronger, neutrons would decay more rapidly, and no helium would be produced during the big bang. If the force was slightly weaker, the big bang would convert most of the hydrogen into helium, making life impossible.

4) If the electromagnetic constant was slightly larger, atoms could not share electrons and molecules would not exist. If the constant was slightly smaller, few electrons would be captured by nuclei and atoms would not exist.

5) A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron, and this governs electron orbits. If the ratio was different, molecules would not form.

6) The ratio of photons to baryons in the universe is approximately a billion to one, which means that the universe is very entropic. If the level was slightly larger, no galactic systems would form. If the level was slightly smaller, the universe would be devoid of stars.

7) If the mass of the universe was slightly larger, too much deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life. If the mass was slightly smaller, no helium would be generated from the big bang.

8) If the universe was not as uniform as it is, it would have developed into a collection of black holes. If the universe was more uniform, stars etc. could never have formed.

9) Quarks decay at the rate of once per proton for every 10 to the power of 32 years. If greater, the resulting radiation levels would be too lethal for life. If less, there would be insufficient matter in the universe for life to exist.

10) The average distance between stars, about 30 trillion miles, affects the orbits of planets. If the average distance was slightly larger, rocky planets like the earth would never form. If slightly smaller, gravitational interaction would destabilise planetary orbits.

11) The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature conditions on planets. The very gradual increase witnessed in our sun is just what is needed for life on earth.

Now let's move on to the solar system:

12) If the system was supported by more than one star, tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits. Of course, without a star, there would be no heat or light - and hence no life.

13) If our sun's distance from the centre of the universe was greater, it would contain too few heavy elements. If it was closer to the centre, its density and radiation levels would be too great for life.

14) If the mass of our sun was greater, it would burn too fiercely. If it was less, ultraviolet radiation would be insufficient to make sugars and oxygen.

15) If our sun was either redder or bluer, photosynthesis would be insufficient for life.

16) If the earth's gravity was stronger, it would retain too much ammonia and methane. If it was weaker, the atmosphere would lose too much water.

17) If the earth was closer to or farther from the sun, it would be too warm or cold for the necessary water cycle.

18) If the axial tilt of the earth was different, surface temperature differences would be too great to support life.

19) If the rotational period of the earth was longer, temperature differences would be too great. If shorter, wind velocities would be too great.

20) Without our large moon at the distance that it is, our climate would be unsuited for life or tidal effects would be too strong.

21) If the earth's magnetic field was stronger, electromagnetic storms would be too severe for life. If weaker, it would not protect us from the sun's harmful radiation.

22) If the earth's crust was thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust. If thinner, volcanic activity would be too violent to support life.

23) If the ratio of light absorbed versus reflected at the earth's surface was different, either a permanent ice age or permanent greenhouse effect would develop.

24) If the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the earth's atmosphere was different, advanced life functions would not proceed at the necessary rate.

25) If the amount of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere was greater, we'd have a permanent greenhouse effect. If less, heat would not be retained.

26) If the amount of ozone in the atmosphere was greater, surface temperatures would be too low. If there was less ozone, the resulting radiation would be lethal for life.

27) If the atmospheric electric discharge rate was greater, fire would destroy the planet. If it was less, there would be too little nitrogen in the atmosphere.

28) If the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere was greater, plants and hydrocarbons in general would burn up. If there was less oxygen, animals would not be able to breathe.

Add to this some amazing facts:

- The maximum density of water occers when it is a liquid (4 degrees C). This means that ice floats on water. It's the only known substance for which this is true, and it means that ice floats on water. If not, water-borne life would not survive.

- Only amino acids with left-handed configurations can be used in a protein.

We would go on and on, but I hope it's clear that there's a wealth of evidence to support Intelligent Design.

In the meantime, we're still waiting for evolutionists to explain such basic problems as irreducible complexity and a complete lack of evidence in the fossil record.

The debate continues...

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 21:06

My response would be that if a religion claims it's God to have created the world there is arguably a crossover. Particularily in what assumptions are made in scientific experiments.

Is that what you meant?
A big majority of commentators on this subject write off anyone who starts quoting bible verses, which is what Dr. Dino does. It's a pity, because he didn't have to do this. Prevailing opinion is that someone must be an atheist, or at least neutral, in order to make credible scientific claims; others are simply biased. I'm not saying this is fair, but it's the way things are played out.

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 21:09

but surely macroevolution x 1000 = evolution
Nope. Just about everyone agrees with micro-evolution. This is what the school board in Kansas was proposing be taught in schools.

Obviously bugs can't change into cats, only into slightly different bugs, isolate one bunch of bugs, let the other change, give it enough time and you have 2 different kind of bugs.
But there remains no evidence - none - that one species evolved into another.

Cornish Steve

28th December 2005, 21:11

Oh no, he said the word. He believes in an invisible friend and he's going to teach us that computer viruses are a plague from God. Call the BBC. Call Sky News. Call the civil liberties groups. Where can I find a lawyer?

Sorry I don't get ya?
In the public debate about evolution, the media writes anyone off who uses the C word. Any public challenge to the 'fact' of evolution results in the news outlets going crazy and lawsuits being filed. I was just trying to be ironic - and I failed! :)

Top Hat

28th December 2005, 21:24

]Obviously bugs can't change into cats, only into slightly different bugs, isolate one bunch of bugs, let the other change, give it enough time and you have 2 different kind of bugs.
But there remains no evidence - none - that one species evolved into another.

Donkeys, Horses and Mules
A donkey and a horse can have a baby, but it sterile, so the genes will never again mix.

The species have separated (or is just about to happen) give or take a few thousand years.

Thats the closest you can get to species actually separating, because it takes such a long time.

DotNetWebs

28th December 2005, 22:03

I take mini-matrixx swimming alot but I don't grow gills, and he wasn't any closer to growing gills when he was born. If he keeps swimming then I'll put money on his children not having gills like a fish too - see how weak the evolutionary theory is?

'evolutionary theory' does not say mini-matrixx will turn into a fish if he goes swimming a lot. Darwin's theory suggests that evolutionary changes occur due to random genetic disorders that occur BEFORE birth. These genetic changes will OCCASIONALLY give some advantage to the creature in life that may then be passed on to it's offspring. A simple analogy would be that if a hundred million mini-matrixxs were born, one of them, through a random genetic disorder, MIGHT have lungs that survived SLIGHTLY longer when immersed in water. i.e this individual might not drown quite as quickly as his peers. This would have absolutely no consequence whatsoever if we continue to live our lives as modern land based humans. If however, through climate changes over many millennia, humans found themselves regularly immersed in water (perhaps through tsunamis etc.) mini-matrixx and anybody else carrying the same genetic disorder would have a SLIGHTLY increased chance of survival.mini-matrixx would therefore be more likely to breed (and therefore pass on this genetic disorder) than his peers. Over time this would leave more people with the same genetic order in the population. Over an even greater amount of time this genetic mutation would become the norm and humans would have a greater resistance to drowning.

I might not have explained this particularly well but I don't think even Steve will argue with above in principal. What takes a greater leap of faith is that similar genetic mutations could result in mini-matrixx having a slight ability to extract a small portion of his Oxygen from water instead of air. If this mutation was passed on over many generations a mini-matrixx might evolve that extracted more oxygen from water than from air. i.e his lungs would have turned into gills.

cjd

28th December 2005, 22:20

Some Stuff to understand about Intelligent Design before we get into Detail

Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument that says that naturalistic (ie evolutionary) explanations of some biological structures (such as the eye) are not possible and therefore an intelligence must have created them.

Recently, fundamentalists have begun a campaign to promote their beliefs using scientific argument and PR to attack the way evolution is taught in school (pretty much only in the USA and then only in some states). They founded the Discovery Institute which the main ID scientists work for; particularly influential are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology.

It is important to know who funds researchers, as we know from our experience of those working in the pay of cigarette and drug companies. However, in this case there is little research that needs to be confirmed as the argument is based mainly around known science – it’s the use that the knowledge is put to that needs to be interpreted.

The argument is used almost exclusively by people who believe that God created man in his own image; ie as is. However, if the argument succeeds, the conclusion can not be that God created man; only that God is one possible creator. Aliens can’t be ruled out.

Evolution does not deny the existence of a Creator. It has nothing to say about how life started, only that once it did start, it followed an evolutionary path. Many people who ‘believe’ in evolution also believe in a God, as did Darwin. It is not contradictory.

Evolutionary theory is not a ‘theory’ as the layman uses the word; it is a huge body of information that, when taken as a whole, points to an almost certain conclusion that evolution is a fact. When you get into the detail there are a myriad holes, missing parts and frustrations which can be worried at by critics, but no one has yet found a fundamental flaw with the theory; in fact, with the growing knowledge of genetics, evolution has moved into an even stronger position as the only explanation of how species came about. ID’s job is to find the flaw. Fair enough, that’s what science is all about; but after this much time and evidence it has to be a blockbuster of an argument, backed by convincing evidence to overturn it.

……..I was going to get onto the arguments, but I’ve come over all unnecessary. I’ll have a pop at them tomorrow if I get the time…….

Jayne

28th December 2005, 22:35

Years and Years top people have been trying to figure all this stuff out, I very much doubt that the answers will ever be found...ever, ever, ever :D

Some even believe Aliens landed in Egypt and we all started there from the pyramids, who knows? Monkey men, worms, maybe we were the dinosaurs :lol:

This will go on for ever.

Jayne

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 00:25

It is important to know who funds researchers, as we know from our experience of those working in the pay of cigarette and drug companies. However, in this case there is little research that needs to be confirmed as the argument is based mainly around known science – it’s the use that the knowledge is put to that needs to be interpreted.
So, can I write off evolution as biased simply because many of its most ardent supporters are atheists? No. Likewise, we shouldn't dismiss ID simply because some of its supporters hold a different faith. Let's trust one another to be intellectually honest.

The argument is used almost exclusively by people who believe that God created man in his own image; ie as is. However, if the argument succeeds, the conclusion can not be that God created man; only that God is one possible creator. Aliens can’t be ruled out.
I'm trying hard to avoid philosophy in this debate. I'm considering ID based on its ability to explain the facts on the ground.

Evolutionary theory is not a ‘theory’ as the layman uses the word; it is a huge body of information that, when taken as a whole, points to an almost certain conclusion that evolution is a fact.
Now, here I must take issue with you. There is a lot of information - evidence, hard facts - available. Several attempts have been made to explain the evidence and the origins of life. The most frequently espoused view - and the one supported by a large majority - is evolution, which has reached the status of a good working hypothesis. It is being further developed because some new facts are contradicting it in its current form. Intelligent Design is an alternative and emerging hypothesis - accepted by only a handful of scientists today - that attempts to explain the evidence in a different way. It's important to note that, despite claims to the contrary, neither hypothesis meets the requirements of a scientific theory. Facts are explained by theories; in itself, no theory is a fact.

no one has yet found a fundamental flaw with the theory
There are plenty. I've pointed out a few already. There are flaws in ID too. To my mind, the two hypotheses are equally valid.

evolution has moved into an even stronger position as the only explanation of how species came about. ID’s job is to find the flaw.
That's an unfair characterisation. Some recent developments help to close holes in evolution; others reveal new flaws. Forgive the pun, but it's an evolving hypothesis - which is what it should be. ID's job is not to point out the flaws; it's an alternative hypothesis that goes some way to explain facts that evolution cannot explain.

after this much time and evidence it has to be a blockbuster of an argument, backed by convincing evidence to overturn it.
Very true. The vitriolic and almost childish attacks on ID by the media are not going to help. What scientist wants to begin her career by aligning herself with ID, only to face ridicule and personal attack? We must reclaim the objectivity and respect that is characteristic of good science.

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 02:06

A donkey and a horse can have a baby, but it sterile, so the genes will never again mix.

The species have separated (or is just about to happen) give or take a few thousand years.

Thats the closest you can get to species actually separating, because it takes such a long time.
The horse and the donkey are indeed different species, and they can produce hybrid (sterile) offspring. This doesn't prove, however, that one species evolved into another.

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 02:30

I remember being fascinated as a child by tales of the incubator bird. To me, this bird's lifecycle represents a huge challenge to evolutionary thinking. Here's a modified excerpt from a website. Isn't it amazing?

The three to four pound incubator bird of Australia is unique among birds. All birds use body heat to incubate their eggs except the incubator bird. Instead, they pile up great heaps of debris which serve as incubators; the warmth of the fermenting compost provides the heat.

After testing the nest to be sure it is adequate for incubating her eggs, the female lays 20 to 35 eggs at the rate of one egg every three days for up to seven months. Each egg weighs about half a pound and is as large as an ostrich egg. Upon completion of her laying task, she leaves the nest, never to return.

At this point the male begins to perform his job of managing the incubation of the deeply buried eggs. For incubator bird chicks to survive they require a precise temperature of exactly 91°F. It is the male's responsibility to ensure that the temperature of the mound will not vary more then one degree on either side of 91°F. Some scientists think the bird's thermometer is in its beak. Others believe its tongue can distinguish 91°F and a few tenths of a percent above and below.

To maintain the temperature, the male digs down into the nest and checks the temperature. On hot days, he may pile extra sand on top of the nest to shield it from the sun. He may even rearrange the entire pile of rotting leaves and grasses several times a day. On cooler days, he will push material off the top of the nest to permit more sunlight to penetrate the decaying organic material. Or, to keep the humidity at 99.5% around the eggs, he may dig conical holes toward the eggs to get more moisture deeper into the nest. One centimeter of fresh material added to the mound can increase core temperature about 1½°C.

The father provides fresh air for the chicks as he daily digs down to the eggs. To allow the chick to get air inside the shell, its egg has thousands of pores in its thick shell. These are conical in shape, with the narrowest part of the cone facing the chick. As the chick grows, it cannot get enough air through the bottom of the cone so it begins to remove the inside layer of the shell. As it thins out the shell the holes get bigger (moving up the cone) and the chick can get more air.

Once the chicks dig out of the nest, they are on their own. They are not fed or cared for by either parent. When they are mature, the male will build a huge nest as an incubator for his mate's eggs. He will build this huge, precise mound without any instruction from his parents. This is not learned behavior.

How could the incubator bird even exist? How could a bird evolve the ability to precisely measure temperatures with its beak or tongue? How would the incubator bird know it needed the ability to keep its eggs at 91°F? The chicks would get too hot or too cold and die before he figured it out. And dead creatures do not evolve into higher forms.

SillyJokes

29th December 2005, 07:21

The argument that there is no proof of evolutions also applies to ID - where is this intelligent being now - there is no proof it ever existed.

However if it were possible to conduct an experiment over the length of time it is necessary to pass for evolution to take place then we could set about proving it.

Evidence on the Galapagos of distinctly different finches indicates it is possible and as agreed above it is possible to change animals even over a short period such as breeds of dogs.

While a chiuhaua is the same species as a great dane only a cruel person would suggest breeding the two together.

Top Hat

29th December 2005, 08:54

cjd

29th December 2005, 10:15

How could the incubator bird even exist? How could a bird evolve the ability to precisely measure temperatures with its beak or tongue? How would the incubator bird know it needed the ability to keep its eggs at 91°F? The chicks would get too hot or too cold and die before he figured it out. And dead creatures do not evolve into higher forms.

This is a form of the ID argument called Irreducible Complexity. We find what to us look like frankly preposterous animals and then say to ourselves how can something as specific as that just evolve?

Having spent 3 years studying weird animals I can tell you there's no shortage of strange adaptations to circumstances and utterly weird beasts that you can point a finger at and say 'that's bloody impossible'.

So the ID argument says' that is just too weird, there's no way that could have evolved step by step; something designed it and put it here fully formed’.

The argument is the same when used about specific organs like the eye. It says that the eye is a complex organ that serves a specific function but science can not show an evolutionary path from an eyeless animal to the eyed animal.

It claims that eyes are binary - you have one or you don't - and there's no advantage in spending a few million years evolving one because until it is there, fully formed and working, it's a waste of resource and provides no survival advantage. So it would not and could not develop.

It’s not a new argument; Darwin faced it and it is the basis of the ‘Watchmaker Theory’ where we look at the insides of a watch and see that it is so complicated that we know the parts did not fall into place by chance – they had to be designed.

This time around it is being put by well informed scientists funded by the creationists in a detailed way. And it does require an answer.

The trouble is it has been answered - it’s just that the creationists don’t like it.

For example. Much work was done by the ID people, specifically Behe, on the flagellum – the whip like organ attached to some bacteria which it uses for getting around. It’s a microscopic structure but fiendishly complicated, requiring many tiny intricate parts to make it work. Without any single one of these bits the whip would not work and the ID chaps say that as it requires all of them and as each part on it’s own has no survival value you can’t derive the evolutionary steps to get to the working end point.

Well in response, the real experts working in the realms of bacterial flagella showed how this could happen by both a direct route (beginning with H. J. Muller, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, in 1939) and an indirect route – which Behe had totally failed to consider.

The ID trick is to pick on every single ‘I don’t understand it’ animal or biological mechanism and declare that evolution could not build it therefore God did. When science provides answers they either say ‘you can’t prove it’ (because their standard of proof appears to require a human witness of it happening) or they move on to the next strange beast.

It’s a good tactic if you believe that the bible explains life on earth but if you’re a scientist it’s a hoax.

(Oh and btw – the originator of these arguments notably the flagellum argument, Behe, does not deny evolution; he accepts a form of ‘conventional’ evolution. He just says that the original components of the bacterium were designed but after that evolution got on as ‘normal’).

DotNetWebs

29th December 2005, 10:23

Darwin faced it and it is the basis of the ‘Watchmaker Theory’ where we look at the insides of a watch and see that it is so complicated that we know the parts did not fall into place by chance – they had to be designed.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140144811/qid=1135855652/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-8909148-4702857

An excellent book by Richard Dawkins that tackles this argument.

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 14:41

While a chiuhaua is the same species as a great dane only a cruel person would suggest breeding the two together.
You can be relied upon to conjure up funny images! Which dog would be male, and which would be female?

cjd

29th December 2005, 15:01

So, can I write off evolution as biased simply because many of its most ardent supporters are atheists? No. Likewise, we shouldn't dismiss ID simply because some of its supporters hold a different faith. Let's trust one another to be intellectually honest.

We don't write it off but we should question it's motives. It's whole purpose for being is to promote the Christian view of the world. It is highly unlikley that they will ever publish anything that aids to the evolutionary debate; this is not independant thinking. And it's not 'some' supporters, it's pretty much only the supporters of creationism that work to defend it.

This is from the wiki on the Discovery Institute:

"The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, George Gilder, and Stephen C. Meyer as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis...........By 1995 Chapman and Meyer received a promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the conservative Christian MacLellan Foundation. This was used to fund the institutes's Center for Science and Culture, then called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which went on to form the motive force behind the intelligent design movement. "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says William A. Dembski, who, during the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 could not secure a university position, receives what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year through the institute."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

It was this guy that came up with the No Free Lunch mathematical argument against evolution. This was interesting at first but then found to be just wrong for a couple of reasons but mainly because it fails to take into account interaction (competition) with other animals or environment.

I don't regard this chap as having much scope to think freely on the issue. Now that wouldn't matter too much if his work was subject to peer review before publication and in the normal scientific way but it's not.

It fully funded by the Institute so it get's published and promoted and used in their propaganda. As the arguments are far too dificult for the layman to understand they just stay out there as fact.

It's worth reading that wiki as it shows motive behind the movement - they produce credible sounding scientific argument in order to persue their own political ends - but it's not real science; it's a con.

Quite smart really.

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 15:27

Once again, your argument is well put. I think we've made a lot of progress in this thread. Rather than simply producing good sound bites (which seems to be the most common way to discuss anything these days), everyone is posting thoughtful and reasoned arguments. This is why I am enjoying the debate. Thank you.

The argument is the same when used about specific organs like the eye. It says that the eye is a complex organ that serves a specific function but science can not show an evolutionary path from an eyeless animal to the eyed animal.

It claims that eyes are binary - you have one or you don't - and there's no advantage in spending a few million years evolving one because until it is there, fully formed and working, it's a waste of resource and provides no survival advantage. So it would not and could not develop.
Well put. I would point out, though, that deferring the answer to "millions of years" is often a cop-out. If there's no evidence or convincing argument, it's all too easy to simply claim that "anything's possible in a few hundred million years". This becomes nothing more than an act of faith.

Well in response, the real experts working in the realms of bacterial flagella showed how this could happen by both a direct route (beginning with H. J. Muller, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, in 1939) and an indirect route.
I promise to be unbiased in my choice of words if you do the same. The term 'real expert' implies that some experts' opinions are worthy of listening to whereas other experts should be dismissed. I might call different people the 'real experts', and we then fall into a subjective argument.

The ID trick is to pick on every single ‘I don’t understand it’ animal or biological mechanism and declare that evolution could not build it therefore God did. When science provides answers they either say ‘you can’t prove it’ (because their standard of proof appears to require a human witness of it happening) or they move on to the next strange beast.
It's not a trick at all. It's pointing out that there is no convincing explanation and no hard evidence to back up the conjecture. This is what science is all about. One standard of proof is evidence. Anyone can invent an explanation. (This reminds me of the steady state theory of the universe that I was taught at university. Someone simply invented the idea that matter is spontaneously created - at a rate at which no one can expect to see it. Anyone can invent an explanation like this.)

(Oh and btw – the originator of these arguments notably the flagellum argument, Behe, does not deny evolution; he accepts a form of ‘conventional’ evolution. He just says that the original components of the bacterium were designed but after that evolution got on as ‘normal’).
Which is a valid position. Whereas the establishment would like us to believe that evolution is fact and any other view is modern-day heresy, scientists hold many different views - and some of them combine existing hypotheses. This is great.

I'd be interested to hear a summary of evolutionists' answer to irreducible complexity. Can you summarise it in a couple of paragraphs?

cjd

29th December 2005, 15:54

It's only fair that I provide some evidence in support of Intelligent Design instead of simply asking for evidence to support evolution.

Oh no! You can't use this schoolboy trick! It depends on the masses not understanding the laws of large numbers again. Of course conditions are right for us - If they weren't we wouldn't be here having the argument! How could it be different? Just because it seems like long odds against, from where we are now the odds are 100% in favour.

"The sun will be unable to support life on this planet some day. It is already unable to support life on several other planets. What does this fact prove about design? Nothing. The axis of the earth has been different and will be different again. Someday this planet will be uninhabitable. What does that prove about design, intelligent or otherwise? Nothing. We can't deny that if millions of factors did not occur, we wouldn't be here. So what? Many of these factors did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future on this planet. There was a time when there was no life on this planet and there will be a time when no life exists here in the future. There was a time when this planet did not exist and there will be a time in the future when it will not exist. What does that prove about design? Nothing. There are countless planets that exist which do not have the conditions necessary for life. What do they prove about design? Nothing."

Apart from the snake eating it's own tail problem, it also says nothing at all about evolution. Suppose God did design the universe exactly right for evolution to happen?

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 16:07

Of course conditions are right for us - If they weren't we wouldn't be here having the argument! How could it be different? Just because it seems like long odds against, from where we are now the odds are 100% in favour.
This is the age-old circular argument: "The odds on evolution are incredibly small, but it must have happened this way because we exist!" It's usually coupled with the statement that anything's possible in hundreds of millions of years. It may convince some people, but it doesn't convince the smart people who frequent this forum. :)

It seems that we each accuse the other of bias and circular arguments (I could point out the many atheistic groups that fund evolutionist doctrine just like you point out the Christian groups that support ID). That's fair, and maybe others in the forum could help to keep us honest. I'd rather get down to brass tacks.

Another issue we should cover at some point is human personality.

- I am a connoisseur of classical music. From where does music, and beauty in general, evolve? It has nothing to do with survival.

- I can hold political opinions and we can debate this topic. From where does such intelligence evolve?

- I can love people so strongly that I would give my life for them. This contradicts survival of the fittest (unless those who love are weak).

SillyJokes

29th December 2005, 17:02

sigh, being good at music and dancing makes you a more attractive mate, there was a thing on the BBC.co.uk about this this week. Being good at politics also makes you a better leader therefore more mates. Are you going to argue with that?

What advantage does believing in ID give you? Perhaps if it gives you an advantage over others of your species (who are not smart enough to frequent this forum) the human race will all end up thinking the same way in a few millennia.

The people you love so strongly are who? your wife and her children, your off spring? Of course you would lay down your life to ensure your genetic material carried on into the next generation.

cjd

29th December 2005, 17:25

I'd be interested to hear a summary of evolutionists' answer to irreducible complexity. Can you summarise it in a couple of paragraphs?

Apart from 'it's a steaming pile of horse sh1t' you mean :wink:

The irreduceable complexity arguments are, by their nature, particular. The ID guys looks for a new and difficult example of evolving from A to Z then possit it as a 'proof' of ID.

There are literally millions of things they could pick because, of course, not every organism or componant part of an organism has been analysed in this level of detail.

As is normal in science, the scientists then look at the particular A-Z problem and provide explanations about how it could have evolved.

The ID guys back away and look for another problem to pose. In the meantime the damage is done as the Discovery Instute's PR machine has been able to publish another "evolution in crisis" piece of nonsense to promote it's cause.

For example, the bacteria flagellum.

"This flagellum is a tiny propeller attached to the back of some bacteria. Spinning at more than twenty thousand r.p.m.s, it motors the bacterium through its aquatic world. The flagellum comprises roughly thirty different proteins, all precisely arranged, and if any one of them is removed the flagellum stops spinning.

In “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe maintained that irreducible complexity presents Darwinism with “unbridgeable chasms.” How, after all, could a gradual process of incremental improvement build something like a flagellum, which needs all its parts in order to work? Scientists, he argued, must face up to the fact that “many biochemical systems cannot be built by natural selection working on mutations.” In the end, Behe concluded that irreducibly complex cells arise the same way as irreducibly complex mousetraps—someone designs them.

Behe speculated that the designer might have assembled the first cell, essentially solving the problem of irreducible complexity, after which evolution might well have proceeded by more or less conventional means."

So Behe puts the argument and the scientists ponder it. They put forward several different ways that Darwinian evolution can build irreducibly complex systems.

"Elaborate structures may evolve for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function. Who says those thirty flagellar proteins weren’t present in bacteria long before bacteria sported flagella? They may have been performing other jobs in the cell and only later got drafted into flagellum-building. Indeed, there’s now strong evidence that several flagellar proteins once played roles in a type of molecular pump found in the membranes of bacterial cells."

Another but this time direct route:

"Suppose a part gets added to a system merely because the part improves the system’s performance; the part is not, at this stage, essential for function. But, because subsequent evolution builds on this addition, a part that was at first just advantageous might become essential. As this process is repeated through evolutionary time, more and more parts that were once merely beneficial become necessary"

The analogy:

"We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice. But no one would be surprised if, in fifty years, computers that rely on G.P.S. actually drove our cars. At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement."

Behe did the same with blood clotting proteins suggesting that beacuse the process needed 20 proteins to work they could not have evolved through natural selection pressures. With this one he shpot himself in the foot because we actually know a huge amount about blood clotting processes and can give a fairly clear genetic explanation of how the different proteins would have evolved.

Anyway you probably see the dilemma; it is easy to dig out examples of complex things and challenge the evolutionists to prove how they evolved. When an answer is given move on to the next.........

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 19:04

I'd be interested to hear a summary of evolutionists' answer to irreducible complexity. Can you summarise it in a couple of paragraphs?

... you probably see the dilemma; it is easy to dig out examples of complex things and challenge the evolutionists to prove how they evolved. When an answer is given move on to the next.........
But right now, I'm trying to understand the evolutionists' argument in support of just one. Let's keep using the analogy of a mousetrap, because it is easy to visualise.

If I understand your argument correctly, the mousetrap could come into existence for reasons other than catching mice. After a while, a creature realises that the mousetrap is good at catching mice and then uses it for that purpose. If this is so, how and why did the irreducibly complex mousetrap evolve for other purposes?

If the flagellum consists of thirty different proteins in sequence, I can understand Behe's point. Assuming there are only 30 proteins in existence, the chances of it evolving randomly is 1 in 30^30. In other words, the process would have to randomly generate a trillion new protein combinations for every second that the earth has supposedly existed in order to find it. Clearly, I must be missing something in your argument.

cjd

29th December 2005, 21:32

If I understand your argument correctly, the mousetrap could come into existence for reasons other than catching mice. After a while, a creature realises that the mousetrap is good at catching mice and then uses it for that purpose. If this is so, how and why did the irreducibly complex mousetrap evolve for other purposes?

If the flagellum consists of thirty different proteins in sequence, I can understand Behe's point. Assuming there are only 30 proteins in existence, the chances of it evolving randomly is 1 in 30^30. In other words, the process would have to randomly generate a trillion new protein combinations for every second that the earth has supposedly existed in order to find it. Clearly, I must be missing something in your argument.

The major fallacy is the assumption that the moustrap has unique parts that are only useful in a moustrap. Of course all the parts are used by very many contraptions in very many different circumstances to very many different purposes. The mousetrap was not made from stuff that didn't pre-exist and have to be invented sequentially.

The other fallacy is that the process is random. Mutation is random, selection of the mutations that are beneficial to survival is not random

So you can put away your calculator; it doesn't work that way.

To get to the heart of each irreduceable complexity argument requires detailed knowledge of the organism or mechanism singled out which is totally beyond us here. But we do need to know that the argument has been answered for both the flagella and blood proteins and the rest. But that can't satisfy ID because they don't want the answer.

ID will come up with the next and the next and the next because ID has no theory of it's own, provides no evidence of its own and offers no answers of its own. It can criticise then move on. Now why is that?

It's because it is not a science; at its core is a religious belief that is not susceptable to scientific solutions to natural problems.

Cornish Steve

29th December 2005, 21:49

To get to the heart of each irreduceable complexity argument requires detailed knowledge of the organism or mechanism singled out which is totally beyond us here. But we do need to know that the argument has been answered for both the flagella and blood proteins and the rest. But that can't satisfy ID because they don't want the answer.
No, I'm looking for the answer - because I've never heard one. What I'm reading is that the answer is beyond us and cannot be summarised for the lay person to understand. This sounds like many of the mathematical models of the universe that I once studied - based on maths and hardly a hint of evidence.

So now we have three arguments in defence of the flaws in evolution:

1) It must be true because we're here arguing about it (a circular argument)

2) Chance can produce anything from nothing if there's billions of years in which to do it

3) Difficulties can be explained away by coming up with complex explanations that the lay person cannot understand.

:)

ID will come up with the next and the next and the next because ID has no theory of it's own, provides no evidence of its own and offers no answers of its own. It can criticise then move on. Now why is that?
It's the purpose of science to challenge every flaw. This is how we make progress. You seem to find this process distasteful.

It's because it is not a science; at its core is a religious belief that is not susceptable to scientific solutions to natural problems.
I can, and have, said exactly the same about evolution. You have to have faith in something because, as Newton pointed out, there will always be things we do not know. This is why it's not right to claim that evolution is a 'fact' and to reject without good cause alternative hypotheses.

SillyJokes

29th December 2005, 23:27

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 01:07

I was wondering, Steve, what is your view on Geological change?

Would you reject the idea that sediment can be laid down and then changed into rock, bent and bowed into hills and mountains, weathered and eroded and eventually changed back into sediment?
I'm not really an expert on geology, so I'm sure others will put me in my place on this one. Here are some snippets of information, however, that I've gleaned over time:

1) There are several geologic layers; however, they are sometimes found in the 'wrong' sequence, which is interesting. To explain why layers are sometimes reversed, I've heard it proposed that plate pressure pushed parts of the earth's surface up vertically and the section of land then fell over. Erosion then destroyed the new upper layers. Where the order is 'wrong' for several square miles, though, other explanations are needed. The point is that, although there are well-defined layers, there are exceptions around the world.

2) Rob's earlier point about the amount of dust found on the moon is quite valid. NASA did indeed expect to find many feet of dust based on its calculations. It was a surprise to find less than an inch. This has important implications when it comes to interpreting the geology of the earth - both for age and for processes.

3) Many different processes can sometimes create the same effect. For example, coal can be formed as a result of applied pressure over long periods of time. It can also be formed in a matter of days in a laboratory. It's therefore important to keep an open mind about the processes involved in the earth's history.

4) As with evolution, everything is open to conjecture and interpretation. By accepting the existential view, we can infer many things. By doing that, however, we must have faith in our assumptions. It's valid for others to accept different assumptions.

Since others keep making this as much a religious debate as a scientific one, let me throw some fat on the fire! :twisted: There are a number of scientists who honestly believe that there really was a worldwide flood on earth. Again, this is dismissed as fantasy by the establishment and the popular media, but we shouldn't rush to dismiss it. There are several reasons for giving this view a second glance:

1) Almost all ancient cultures include writings of an ancient and universal flood; it's not just the Christian bible. The stories are quite similar across all versions.

2) Details of the accounts are often consistent with modern science. For example, one account claims that a rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood. It also claims that no rain had ever fallen on earth before the flood. This is a remarkable correlation.

3) The flood accounts refer to water coming from under the ground as much as from above. If this is the case, the effects on the earth's crust, the geologic layers, etc. would be profound. (It would also completely undermine our methods of dating rocks.)

I'm not espousing any personal view on this, just pointing out that alternatives to mainstream thinking are useful and promote good science. They help to keep us honest. We shouldn't just ridicule such thinkers and dismiss them as crackpots. Let's give them the chance to promote their ideas.

Can't wait to see the reaction to this post. :wink:

Rob Holmes

30th December 2005, 05:38

The geological layers is an interesting one.

It's one of the evolutionary theories that is a self perpetuating loop.

I've snipped this from a site that explains what I understood a little more clearly..

<snip>
Most people do not know that most rock layers are “dated” by the fossils they contain. Scientists will choose a special reference fossil called an “index fossil.” Then they assume that the “simple” index fossils were the oldest. Finding one of these “oldest” index fossils in a layer identifies that layer as the “oldest.” They then assign a date to that rock layer (based on the theory of evolution) and record that date on their geologic time scale. They continue this process with the “more complex” index fossils—assigning each increase in “complexity” to a younger rock layer until they complete filling out the geologic time scale.
</snip>

So basically the argument put forward for geological layers is a self pertetuating loop.

They assume evolution as the most simple animals are 'generally' in the lower layers of rock with the larger and slightly more complex fossils in the top. Then they say evolution must be true because of this.

What they don't mention (and as Steve points out) is that in only a few places around the world are the geological layers ever in the right order. And also it's not really mentioned that in alot of areas complex fossils have been found side by side with simple fossils.

Actually the fossils mixing and the smaller less complex fossils being at the bottom is far easier understood in the context of Noahs flood. As the flood waters rose the simpler and smaller animals got caught and drowned first then as the waters rose higher and there were mud waves etc etc the next group of animals got caught and so on and so on until the most agile animals which would have climbed hills etc to escape would have got caught.

The flood perspective also takes into account the mixing of complex and simple fossils. Imagine as the flood waters rose some animals both simple and complex structured would have got trapped in caves etc etc - then they would have all died together and hence their fossils are now appearing side by side.

Rob

SillyJokes

30th December 2005, 09:28

With coal so readily made in the lab it is a wonder we are bothering to extract it from the ground!

Heaven forbide I would turn this into a religious arguement. I simply felt that geological change also takes place over a long period, however the processes which govern and drive it are more easily measured and proven.

Someone who cannot accept geological change may find themselves compromised when applying a similar mindset to evolution.

Geological time started before life on earth. Rock formation has been going on a very long time and cycle goes at different paces.

Old rocks get folded and re folded. Older fossils get incorporated into newer layers as they are carried there through the powers of erosion (erosion and weathering being processes thoroughly scientifically proven).

As an aside on the subject of floods.. these still happen today every year. It is only that our world has better communication and transport - we can see the actual extent of the waters and understand it is not a global thing.

The population of the earth has until recent centuries been far less than current. Any kind of series of localised floods might indicate to the local people that the whole world had a bit of a water problem. For instance the mediterranean sea has dried and reflooded many times which must have been a catastrophy for the peoples living around it.

cjd

30th December 2005, 11:56

It seems jolly reasonable to declare that ID is only interested in challenging evolutionary arguments to establish the truth or get to the facts or put the other side of the argument.

But there are problems with this:

1 They have no theories of their own that are open to science based criticism. Their answer is that a Designer (ie God) put all the building blocks here - this is a religious belief which is not open to rational challenge.
2 Although few of the ID scientists argue that species were put here 5000 years ago fully formed, they are very loath to admit that it is scientifically impossible that it happened that way. They would be hard pushed to find any scientist willing to produce any scientific evidence that this is the case as it quite plainly not; but it doesn’t prevent most of them believing it and that pollutes their thinking and pushes their standard of proof beyond that of science. There are quite prepared to believe any criticism of evolution as valid; regardless of it scientific merit.
3 ID’s strategy is to undermine evolution by throwing up a number of arguments and publishing them widely but without following the scientific model of peer review and criticism. Each argument has an answer but the answers somehow never satisfy because the ID standard of proof seems to rely on an eye witness (earth is older than 5000 years) or the ability of the layman to understand extremely specialised knowledge requiring a lifetime of study (the development of microscopic structures in bacteria flagella or how DNA can build 20 marginally different proteins so that blood can clot). If an argument becomes self evidently facile (statistical data about a universe perfectly design for its inhabitants) it is ignored but not removed from the ID mantra. And so on to include gaps in fossil record, witness of one species turning into another etc all have answers; none of which can ever satisfy a believer.

None of this would matter much because there’s only a handful of scientists working in this area and sooner or later they’ll give up or become irrelevant because there’s nothing behind their argument. Such is the nature of science and scientists – they bicker and counterclaim and move on as better ‘truths’ are found.

Sometimes the outsider is right and science is the better for it. But never has a religious belief benefited science, it always the case that as our knowledge of the natural world advances archaic belief structures (Noah’s flood!) move back into myth were they belong.

However, ID is a politically motivated and funded pressure group whose published intention is to get creation taught in American schools (their ‘Wedge Strategy’). The followers of ID are asked to get onto school boards and lobby schools. There are almost no scientists working on ID that are not funded by the Creationist’s Discovery Institute or that are not religious based thinkers themselves.

This is not science, it’s a religious movement and it’s trying to get into your schools.

DotNetWebs

30th December 2005, 13:16

Having been on many geology field trips, in my experience, taken over a large area, most of the rock formations are in the right order. You may find some local folding but usually by studying a cross section the folded rocks you can work out the way they were orientated before the folding occurred.

Studying rocks in the field gives you an idea of the immense time that must have been involved in forming these rocks. A good example of this, local to me, is the Chalk formations of the south coast.

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/chalkformationfossils.htm

Chalk is made of the fossilised remains of microscopic sized plankton. You can see a highly magnified picture in the link above. If you stand on top of Beachy Head there is a placard that shows the estimated time it would have taken for the chalk to have formed. This is based on the rates at which similar organisms accumulate in sediments TODAY. I cannot remember the exact figure but I know that in the period of a single Human lifetime only a few centimetres would have formed. Standing at the top of several hundred feet of chalk, knowing what it is made of, is quite humbling, it really does put things into perspective.

I am sure there were great floods in ancient times but how can a single flood explain a global fossil record that mostly consists of MARINE creatures?

Rob Holmes

30th December 2005, 13:23

This is not science, it’s a religious movement and it’s trying to get into your schools.

Like we've said before both evolution and ID require a faith in something.

Both are faith based (call it religious if you like) and yes both are trying to get into schools.

The faith is one part BUT science should confirm or deny the outworking of the faith. It seems a close run thing - ID cannot be written off by intelligent people looking for truth, neither can 5 out of the 6 different categories of evolution.

Both theories have to be considered if you are trying to get to the bottom of a fact - my gut feeling is I don't really care the age of the earth - I (and the earth) will not be insulted at any figure given :)

Would anyone mind if creation/Intelligent design was true? If so why?

Rob

DotNetWebs

30th December 2005, 13:36

cjd

30th December 2005, 14:01

Like we've said before both evolution and ID require a faith in something. Both are faith based (call it religious if you like) and yes both are trying to get into schools.

This is most certainly NOT the case. Science does not require faith, it requires evidence and proofs. Science is the opposite of faith. Faith only requires a statement of belief "I believe God exists" That statement is beyond science.

As far as I'm concerned faith and religion can be in schools and here in the UK it is. What you can not do though is dress faith up as science; that's an insult to both.

The faith is one part BUT science should confirm or deny the outworking of the faith. It seems a close run thing - ID cannot be written off by intelligent people looking for truth, neither can 5 out of the 6 different categories of evolution.

Science has absolutely NOTHING to say about faith. People believe what they believe, science can not prove the existence or non-existence of a God or whether that God is Jewish, Catholic or Muslim. It's not science's job to get involved with the 'irrational' (strict meaning, no offense intended)

Both theories have to be considered if you are trying to get to the bottom of a fact - my gut feeling is I don't really care the age of the earth - I (and the earth) will not be insulted at any figure given :)

I've tried to explain why this argument is not reasonable although it sounds as though it is - there is only one macro scientific view of evolution (but of course, an enormous number of differing views within it). The ID arguments have been considered and shown to have no scientific merit - the rest is politics.

To engage in this argument you must care about the age of the earth because if you don't you are saying that you are not interested in pursuing facts that might contradict Biblical events.

Would anyone mind if creation/Intelligent design was true? If so why?
Rob

That's the whole point; it is impossible to prove ID to be true because it is not a scientific theory that anyone can back with evidence. It says a Designer made life on earth (meaning God). That is beyond science and can not be proved. ID makes no attempt to provide its own theory or hypothese that can be tested. It merely critices evolution because it explains why a Designer was not necessary.

Would anyone mind? Wow.

You mean if the 4 horsemen of the Apocaypse came down from the sky and anounced the end of the world and the Lord sat on a cloud a declared judgement day?

I guess they'd mind. But that's sort of proof ID need to get me taking it seriously.

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 14:27

With coal so readily made in the lab it is a wonder we are bothering to extract it from the ground!
It's very expensive to create coal in the lab - but it does prove that coal can be either very old or very young.

The point is that we can't just assume an old age for every phenomenon.

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 14:47

They have no theories of their own that are open to science based criticism. Their answer is that a Designer (ie God) put all the building blocks here - this is a religious belief which is not open to rational challenge.
Just as evolution is, in the end, a religious belief. Claiming that something came from nothing over billions of years is not open to rational challenge either.

There are quite prepared to believe any criticism of evolution as valid; regardless of it scientific merit.
Now we get into opinion. I could make the exact same statement against critics of ID: "they are quite prepared to believe any criticism of ID as valid, regardless of its scientific merit."

Each argument has an answer but the answers somehow never satisfy because the ID standard of proof seems to rely on an eye witness (earth is older than 5000 years) or the ability of the layman to understand extremely specialised knowledge requiring a lifetime of study (the development of microscopic structures in bacteria flagella or how DNA can build 20 marginally different proteins so that blood can clot).
Most things, in the end, can be explained in terms understood by the layperson. Saying that something is too complex for mere mortals to understand is a cop-out. If there's an answer to the problem of irreducible complexity, let's hear it.

If an argument becomes self evidently facile (statistical data about a universe perfectly design for its inhabitants) it is ignored but not removed from the ID mantra.
What's facile about it? The twenty-odd points I mentioned in an earlier message seem quite convincing to me.

And so on to include gaps in fossil record, witness of one species turning into another etc all have answers; none of which can ever satisfy a believer.
The complete absence of evidence doesn't seem to bother evolutionists - because they believe in their 'religion'. It ought to bother objective scientists though.

None of this would matter much because there’s only a handful of scientists working in this area and sooner or later they’ll give up or become irrelevant because there’s nothing behind their argument.
Time will tell. I just hope that the establishment will take alternatives to evolution seriously so that they can be funded, work can be reviewed seriously (and not just dismissed), and the current slanging match dissipates. If ID proves to be groundless, good. If evolutionary thinking in its current form proves to be groundless, good. Science moves on.

This is not science, it’s a religious movement and it’s trying to get into your schools.
Absolutely not true. As I mentioned in a previous message, the laws in the US are such that no one can teach religion in a public school. If religion tries to encroach into the classroom, judges will throw it out. Unfortunately, clever prosecution lawyers use this fact to prevent discussion of anything but evolution today. With the establishment so protective of its holy grail, reason flies out the window.

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 14:54

Slightly off topic and I am sure that Steve will tell us that some of the physics is way off, as are some of the special effects, but has anyone seen the film Contact:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/

For a Hollywood film it is quite intelligent, IMHO. It has a very good underlying theme that tackles Religion vs. Science, in the end the two become quite blurred.
Yes, I did see the movie. Carl Sagan was quite anti-religious, and this is one reason why the 'bad guy' was a preacher. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the movie because it points out how discoveries can sometimes be covered up by the establishment. The use of prime numbers to prove intelligence was a good idea.

Whatever happened to the scientists who claimed to have discovered cold fusion? Were their claims dismissed by credible scientists, or were they suddenly cloaked in secrecy?

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 14:56

Standing at the top of several hundred feet of chalk, knowing what it is made of, is quite humbling
I agree. I had the same experience atop the Grand Canyon. Also, I still take a window seat on planes because some of the sights are just terrific.

Have you ever read the plaque at the top of Snowdon?

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 15:01

cjd

30th December 2005, 16:34

Whatever happened to the scientists who claimed to have discovered cold fusion? Were their claims dismissed by credible scientists, or were they suddenly cloaked in secrecy?

Cold fusion, like ID, was bad science but unlike ID it was bound by the scientific method so their experiments and methodologies were published, other scientists tested them and eventually, through proper peer review and test it was found to be an error.

I keep repeating this; science is evidence based it does not require faith. It can be tested and repeated. ID can not.

(Please don't say you have to have faith to believe in science, you don't - a complete disbeliever in science can put a lit piece of magnesium into a bottle of oxygen and get the same result every time and if he's prepared to do the work be taught the chemical reactions involved and from it extrapolate how combustion works with other metals and gases - it does not need faith - it is testable.)

On the 'if the layman can't understand it it can't be true' issue; I can't believe how crass that is. It's almost not worthy of response. Try applying that rule to gravity, special relativity, quantum theory or even a bloody television set. Almost every scientific concept is beyond the 'layman' at the detail level but we don't suggest that the TV was made by a God just because we don't know the ins and outs of a cathode ray tube.

If you need to go beyond the mousetrap explanation of irreduceable complexity you have to do the work or remain a skeptic out of ignorance and prejudice - you can not have it both ways.

Just as evolution is, in the end, a religious belief. Claiming that something came from nothing over billions of years is not open to rational challenge either.

I will keep repeating this in the hope that it gets through eventually. Evolution does not have an opinion about God (except that Darwin said he had an inordinate fondness for beetles as about 80% of insecta are beetles). Evolution does not, can not and never will, throw any light on how the universe started, that too maybe beyond science or at least our brain to fathom out. All it claims to do is provide a mechanism for how life developed on earth.

It is 100% wrong to call evolution a religious belief as all it's hypotheses can be tested and do not require belief.

Evolution does not claim something came from nothing. That is God's territory. If you can show me anywhere that any (non ID) scientist has said that evolution explains how something came from nothing I run naked through National History Museum shouting "Dinosaurs are just figments of Darwin's God hating mind"

Rob Holmes

30th December 2005, 16:39

I keep repeating this; science is evidence based it does not require faith.

Most scientific experiments are based on assumptions.

The assumptions are guided by a faith in evolution or intelligent design.

Rob

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 17:02

Evolution does not have an opinion about God
Many scientists have faith in God. Isaac Newton was convinced that behind the apparent disorder around him there must be order (because he believed in a God of order). Because of this, Newton became the founder of modern science. There are many other examples, including Einstein. I agree that, on the surface, belief is independent of science (something that Pascal proposed). Nonetheless, ideas as far-reaching as evolution have to build on an underlying philosophy because it can't be built solely on evidence.

Every scientist must have faith. For example, we have faith that experiments are repeatable. We have faith that universal constants won't change. We have faith that chemicals will react in a particular way. In the case of evolution, scientists have faith that things have always been the way they are today. They have faith that species can evolve through mutation, even though there's no evidence to prove evolution across species.

It is 100% wrong to call evolution a religious belief as all it's hypotheses can be tested and do not require belief.
Thanks for having the integrity to refer to evolution as a hypothesis.

cjd

30th December 2005, 17:03

Most scientific experiments are based on assumptions.

The assumptions are guided by a faith in evolution or intelligent design.

NO, NO and thrice NO!

You can have any assumptions you like - scientists call them hypothese. The assumptions are then tested against evidence and re-tested by other scientists. If the assumptions hold under test there's a reasonable chance the theory stands. False or unproveable assumptions will not pass scientific tests.

The assumption (hypothesis) that God made the earth and all that live in it can not be tested by science. The assumption that if I hit my finger with a hammer it will bruise (and I will swear) can be tested and proven right or wrong. The assumption that the earth is older than a strict interpretation of the bible says it is, is testable and proved beyond scientific doubt.
The assumption that god made Adam and Eve is not testable but other evidence suggests that it is a daft idea. etc etc

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 17:10

You can have any assumptions you like - scientists call them hypotheses.
Hypotheses are built on assumptions. The two are quite different. It's important that we get terminology right in this debate or it's going to cause confusion.

The assumption (hypothesis) that God made the earth and all that live in it can not be tested by science.
Neither can the assumption that conditions today have existed without significant change since time immemorial. Neither can the statement that creatures evolved across species. Neither can the assumption that there was a big bang. You base hypotheses on these assumptions and, at the most basic level, you have faith in your starting assumptions.

Coding Monkey

30th December 2005, 17:18

I think the problem you're suffering is by the use of the word "assumption", because Steve is using it an almost Descartian basis that everything must be assumed. Each technique used to "prove" a theory is merely an assumption that the equipment is actually giving a correct reading and referring to what you believe it is. Therefore, it is only an assumption that you know the age of a tree on the basis of its ring, because you've found it on 100 trees, does not mean it is the same for them all.

Perhaps if you used a different terminology you could pass beyond this stage

DuaneJackson

30th December 2005, 17:36

A hypothesis can never be proved. .

It can be proven untrue, but never proved absolutely true.

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 19:00

The assumption that if I hit my finger with a hammer it will bruise (and I will swear) can be tested and proven right or wrong. The assumption that the earth is older than a strict interpretation of the bible says it is, is testable and proved beyond scientific doubt.
With respect, no it's not!! We can infer it's the case based on certain assumptions, but it can't be proved.

This is the crux of our disagreement. I agree that you can perform experiments to support most hypotheses and theories. You can burn magnesium, you can hit yourself with a hammer, and so on. No one disputes that these experiments are valid; you can build a strong case in support of most theories.

The problem comes when one of the dimensions is time. Evolution is crucially dependent on time. We can't travel back in a time machine, and we can't conduct experiments that take millions of years. Because of this, much of evolutionary thinking remains unprovable (or undisprovable if there is such a word). It's for this reason that evolution becomes a matter of faith. This is why some people refer to evolution as a religion.

cjd

30th December 2005, 19:04

ffs. You wanted a layman's version of science, I allow assumption to equal hypothesis just to get the global argument across then you complain of terminological inexactitude.

No one but no one, in real life, doubts that if they hit their thumb with a hammer 99 times that on the hundredth time it will hurt - we draw conclusions from experimental evidence.

Science hypothesises that if 99 times the thumb hurts like hell when hit with a hammer then on the hundredth occasion it will too. We then hit the thumb and find - **** that hurt. Case proven m'lud. Anyone who does not belive the experimental evidence can repeat it for themselves. That's science.

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 19:09

cjd

30th December 2005, 19:23

Hence, you cannot prove or disprove evolution; it becomes solely a matter of faith. Others put their faith elsewhere.

Nope. Dead wrong.

It is not a matter of faith it's a matter of science. If you choose to look at the science under-pinning evolution (and there's mountains of it from many disciplines) from an objective viewpoint and just put aside faith for a while you will find the evidence overwhelming.

You do not put your faith up to the same standard of testing that you insist on for evolution; why is that do you think?

Coding Monkey

30th December 2005, 19:25

I think this thread is evolving into an argument

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 19:33

I think this thread is evolving into an argument
I agree. We can't seem to get beyond this point about evolution requiring faith. There's no point flogging a dead horse.

I've noticed that the percentage of people selecting evolution in the poll has dropped to 70% (and I haven't rigged anything, honest!). :)

Hayles

30th December 2005, 20:04

I wish I could evolve to understand half the things you guys have been saying :wink:

However, you've both been very successful in one thing at least........ leaving me more confused about what I believe than I was before!

Thanks for that :cry:

Hayles :lol: :lol:

Jayne

30th December 2005, 20:33

Hayles

30th December 2005, 20:42

Me too Jayne - well I did but now I find myself arguing for both sides!!

If these guys can come up with good reasons to believe both sides, what chance have us mere caterers got of knowing the truth?!

I never did get an answer (apart from MacmyDay) on why the Tsunami happened. I really would be interested in your replies please?

Hayles

ewan

30th December 2005, 20:58

Coming from the point of view of someone still at school, I'd hate the idea of ID being taught in a science class. It doesn't belong anywhere near a biology lesson, RS/RE maybe, but certainly not science!

Science could be called a faith, but it is backed up by real-life experience and proven experimentation. ID tries to say that you can't prove anything like evolution simply because it is not as simple as, say, the "fact" that there is a sun.

I personally think that religion is a great hinderence on the progress of modern man. It is something that as been made up, not discovered, and will ulimately benefit certain people more than others. It is in the end just wishful thinking. The suffering experienced by so many in the world speaks volumes against what the ID-backers are arguing for. Come on, at the end of the day they are arguing that the intelligent thing is god, its just creationism reincarnated.

There is an interesting article in the chrismas special of the new scientist magazine which goes into great detail about how the universe could have been formed, and how we may be able to find a message in the universe "from god". All of whats in the article is theory, but it helps make us realise how little we know about the universe in which we live, and how many different possibilities for, well, everthing, there is. Order this back-issue if you've got some spare time, its worth a read.

Cornish Steve

30th December 2005, 21:53

There is an interesting article in the chrismas special of the new scientist magazine which goes into great detail about how the universe could have been formed, and how we may be able to find a message in the universe "from god". All of whats in the article is theory, but it helps make us realise how little we know about the universe in which we live, and how many different possibilities for, well, everthing, there is. Order this back-issue if you've got some spare time, its worth a read.
Thanks for the recommendation, Ewan. I shall try to buy a copy.

Rob Holmes

31st December 2005, 12:18

<thread split>

Carry on here for the Intelligent Design / Evolution thread or

here: http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=7986
for the thread questioning why there is suffering in the world.

Rob

cjd

31st December 2005, 13:43

ewan

31st December 2005, 15:49

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825311.600.html

Its worth the three quid to read all the articles ever printed online. Theres loads about intelligent design and region-science discussions.

cjd

31st December 2005, 16:35

Just occurred to me that as this is a UK forum, people here may have no clue why this is an issue, because over here it isn't. It's a seperation of church and state thing for the Yanks.

New York Time
22nd December 2005

By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Not only were they voted off the school board by an exasperated public last November, but this week a federal district judge declared their handiwork unconstitutional and told the school district to abandon a policy of such "breathtaking inanity."

A new and wiser school board is planning to do just that by removing intelligent design from the science curriculum and perhaps placing it in an elective course on comparative religion. That would be a more appropriate venue to learn about what the judge deemed "a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory."
The judge in the Pennsylvania case, John Jones III, can hardly be accused of being a liberal activist out to overturn community values - even by those inclined to see conspiracies. He is a lifelong Republican, appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has been praised for his integrity and intellect. Indeed, as the judge pointed out, the real activists in this case were ill-informed school board members, aided by a public interest law firm that promotes Christian values, who combined to drive the board to adopt an imprudent and unconstitutional policy.

Judge Jones's decision was a striking repudiation of intelligent design, given that Dover's policy was minimally intrusive on classroom teaching. Administrators merely read a brief disclaimer at the beginning of a class asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact; that there were gaps in the evidence for evolution; and that intelligent design provided an alternative explanation and could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. Yet even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion, the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.

The case was most notable for its searching inquiry into whether intelligent design could be considered science. The answer, after a six-week trial that included hours of expert testimony, was a resounding no.

The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that could not be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design - the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems - has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have a designer.

The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial. Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham.

Cornish Steve

1st January 2006, 18:21

For those interested in a quick 'layman's' backgrounder in the evidence for evolution this is as good a link as I could find. (It's a summary of a standard undergraduate text in easy chunks and presentation form).

It takes about 10 minutes to go through it.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution2.asp

If anyone would care to do the same for ID we might get back on track.
I've posted a lot already of evidence already and some relevant links. Here are some more:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/index.htm

For credible arguments from both sides, here's another:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Finally, for the views of a British professor (with whose comments I entirely agree), take a look at this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html

In fact, let me quote from this article in the Guardian:

Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.

He said the scientific community was slow to accept minority views, but argued that introducing intelligent design might inspire students to help develop the theory. "It seems to me in many respects the cards are stacked against radical, innovative views getting a fair hearing in science these days," he said.

Cornish Steve

1st January 2006, 18:43

Just occurred to me that as this is a UK forum, people here may have no clue why this is an issue, because over here it isn't. It's a seperation of church and state thing for the Yanks.
It's become this, yes, but that's because all of the evolutionists and most of the ID proponents make it so. In some cases, I agree with the statement made in the NY Times article that school board members are reckless; they do try to bring religion into it. There's no way this will pass the court system (and neither should it). In the case of my own local board (the ones who proposed the sticker in textbooks), I believe the proposal was reasonable and the establishment and media nixed it for political reasons. They turned it into a religious issue; in the ensuing vitriolic attacks, the scientific argument became lost.

Maybe I can further clarify how the separation of church and state works in the US. It was originally intended to ensure that the government cannot interfere with local churches (remember that many of the original emigrants from Europe were fleeing religious persecution). It soon became a two-way thing so that religion could not influence government. The government must treat all religions equally. Personally, I agree strongly with this principle. I only wish it was true in Ireland and in Northern Ireland, for example.

Nowadays, however, there is increasing discontent among the American public that "freedom of religion" is being turned into "freedom from religion", which is something quite different. I am likewise concerned. There have been silly examples of how some government departments have run amok. For example, one person living in public housing (basically a council house) was told to take down a sign on his front door which read "God bless this house". In courthouses around the country, the Ten Commandments are being forcibly removed. Christmas trees are banned from government buildings and property; and so on.

CJD, in all honesty, it's very difficult to separate science from religion when it comes to evolution vs. ID. I know you don't agree with me, but they both rely on faith. I've tried hard to put the case for ID based on science (because I believe there is a case to be made), but society doesn't view it that way. Until the occasional Christian zealot stops linking ID with the bible (upon which comments the media pounces with great delight), there's little hope of ID being taken seriously.

Because ID can explain many facts that evolution cannot, I don't think it will go away any time soon. At some point, a more well-known scientist is going to champion the cause (or a similar hypothesis), and maybe then it will be taken more seriously. My guess is that ID will get a better hearing in ten years' time.

Do you think our thread will still be going by then? :wink:

ewan

1st January 2006, 19:18

It would certainly be strange to see other religions ontop of christianity supporting ID... lets hope that never happens!

Cornish Steve

1st January 2006, 19:23

It would certainly be strange to see other religions ontop of christianity supporting ID... lets hope that never happens!
In the end, Ewan, the hypothesis is based on good science: "Consider the facts, and forget the presuppositions." It takes courageous people to challenge the status quo. It takes even more courage to risk ridicule and to challenge the establishment. However, this is what Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and others all did in their time. Unfortunately, it's so much easier just to go with the flow and to allow ourselves to be spoon-fed.

Let's see how this plays out over time. If I was a gambling man, I'd put money on ID becoming more accepted by the scientific community in the next couple of decades.

creospace

1st January 2006, 19:26

It would certainly be strange to see other religions ontop of christianity supporting ID... lets hope that never happens!

Why? Not really sure of the authors intent with your statement but as a christian I dont' think christianity has any exclusivity over ID?

Gary

ewan

1st January 2006, 20:00

It is my belief that it was a Christian(s?) who tried to reinvent creationism in a whole new, perhaps believable way, and came up with ID. I could always be wrong, but this is so much as I know.

Of course not all Christians will agree with ID, but I think that ID is primarily based within Christian circles. I haven't really heard of any open support from people of other religions yet.

creospace

1st January 2006, 20:10

ID - GOD same thing to me, I don't mind using / hearing either terms to be honest.

Re other religions I think islam believes the same and short of a small google i'm sure other 'eastern' religions belive the same.

Gary

cjd

2nd January 2006, 11:56

CJD, in all honesty, it's very difficult to separate science from religion when it comes to evolution vs. ID. I know you don't agree with me, but they both rely on faith. I've tried hard to put the case for ID based on science (because I believe there is a case to be made), but society doesn't view it that way. Until the occasional Christian zealot stops linking ID with the bible (upon which comments the media pounces with great delight), there's little hope of ID being taken seriously.

Evolution relies on evidence not faith.

I don't 'believe' in evolution like some people believe in a biblical god. Evolution is a rational model of how life developed on earth that can be tested. Belief in Gods can not be tested. It is quite wrong to equate the two. If a better scientific explanation comes along I'll adopt it when the evidence tips over into that direction. I doubt a believer in God would do that.

I'd be quite happy to accept ID if the evidence suggested it - but it plainly doesn't and the blatent political intent behind it spoils the science.

Because ID can explain many facts that evolution cannot, I don't think it will go away any time soon. At some point, a more well-known scientist is going to champion the cause (or a similar hypothesis), and maybe then it will be taken more seriously. My guess is that ID will get a better hearing in ten years' time.

ID does not explain a single fact. It doesn't even attempt to provide its own explanation. At no point in this thread have any ID theories been provided. What ID does is criticise evolutionary argument. (A valid thing to do). That's a very important point that is deliberately dodged by ID proponants - it does not provide an alternate theory.

ID just says that evolution can not explain X (where X = bacteria flagella, blood clotting molecules etc - even tho' then does, but that's another issue) and therefore there must be another cause (ie God did it)

The other important point is that the proponants of ID accept evolution themselves (they have to, they are scientists and they know the evidence is overwhelming and that there is no alternate theory that can explain it). Their critical issue is not with the mechanisms of evolution, Speciation, Competition, Survival of the Fittest, Mutation etc) it is with the start of the process.

The ID argument is primarily about how it all started in the beginning - the fundamental building blocks of life - NOT the way those blocks went on to build species.

Do you think our thread will still be going by then? :wink:

Nope, ID will be dead and buried by the US courts in the next couple of years. It has very little scientific merit so it will also die out because the Creationist's funding of it will stop as it is now harming their cause.

But don't worry, the religious right wing will come up with something else just as daft.

cjd

2nd January 2006, 12:10

In the end, Ewan, the hypothesis is based on good science: "Consider the facts, and forget the presuppositions." It takes courageous people to challenge the status quo. It takes even more courage to risk ridicule and to challenge the establishment. However, this is what Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and others all did in their time. Unfortunately, it's so much easier just to go with the flow and to allow ourselves to be spoon-fed.

The overwhelming conclusion from the science community is that ID is bad science.

This is not science (the rational) challenging the Church (the irrational) as it was with Galileo et al. This is the Church pretending to be rational challenging science and state and loosing at both.

(btw - Einstein didn't challenge the establishment. He came up with a brilliant new theory that explained the universe in a way that had widespread application. It was widely adopted very quickly.

ID provides no new scientific ideas and has no theory of its own which can be used or tested.

Even if it were true, it would be useless as all it says is 'God must have done it'.

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 14:52

Evolution relies on evidence not faith.

I don't 'believe' in evolution like some people believe in a biblical god. Evolution is a rational model of how life developed on earth that can be tested. Belief in Gods can not be tested. It is quite wrong to equate the two.
We're never going to agree on this, and we've gone around in circles. I assure you that I have no more or less faith in the assumptions underlying ID as you do in the assumptions underlying evolution. We build our hypotheses on the same evidence, and our assumptions are equally valid. Neither set of assumptions can be proved to be true, so we both must have faith. Let's agree to differ on this.

I'd be quite happy to accept ID if the evidence suggested it - but it plainly doesn't and the blatent political intent behind it spoils the science.
Why do you say that? I accept that evolution provides a reasonable explanation of many facts while it is contradicted by others. If you consider some of the points raised in my previous messages, you would have to admit the same about ID. Forget the political intent of certain groups. Let's not be distracted; I'm talking science here and the increasingly forgotten scientific method.

ID does not explain a single fact. It doesn't even attempt to provide its own explanation. At no point in this thread have any ID theories been provided. What ID does is criticise evolutionary argument. (A valid thing to do). That's a very important point that is deliberately dodged by ID proponants - it does not provide an alternate theory.

In this discussion, I've quoted pages and pages of explanations, evidence, ideas, etc. that underlie ID. Without asking us all to start reading textbooks, what more information are you looking for?

1) There's the remarkable coincidence of the universal constants, for which I provided almost 30 observations in support of ID.

2) There's the lingering problem of irreducible complexity, for which I've yet to see a credible explanation from evolutionists (and for which Darwin's own comments are damning).

3) There's the complete lack of evidence in the fossil record for evolution between species after more than a century of searching.

4) There's the fact that no one can produce a time machine so no one can prove or disprove any hypotheses about the origins of life.

ID can explain the first point: An outside intelligence created the unique set of conditions needed for life to exist on earth. This is valuable to science because, instead of pursuing random experiments, we can focus on areas where design may be a factor. It brings focus to our work.

ID can explain the second point: Certain components of life (e.g., the human eye, the human heart) were designed simply because there's no way statistically that such complex items, consisting of thousands of elements each without meaning in themselves, could form by chance. This is valuable to science because we don't have to waste time trying to come up with elaborate and speculative explanations for irreducible complexity.

ID provides a framework for explaining the third point: Mechanisms other than random mutation could have been involved in the development of complex life forms. This is valuable to science because it cuts the cords that currently tie the hands of scientists working in this field. We don't have to waste another century trying to prove a hypothesis; we can return to the scientific method and just look for real facts in an unbiased way.

ID is just an unprovable as evolution, so no one can get around the fourth point. In the end, we must have faith in our underlying assumptions. Evolutionists have faith that something complex can be created from nothing; ID supporters have faith that an outside intelligence created the conditions necessary for life.

The other important point is that the proponants of ID accept evolution themselves (they have to, they are scientists and they know the evidence is overwhelming and that there is no alternate theory that can explain it). Their critical issue is not with the mechanisms of evolution, Speciation, Competition, Survival of the Fittest, Mutation etc) it is with the start of the process.
There's nothing wrong with this; it's the spirit of science. Start with the facts and go from there; don't start with someone's hypothesis and try to prove it to be true. Proponents of both ideas certainly don't have to believe in evolution; the evidence is not overwhelming. However, they are being intellectually honest in trying to move science forward. They challenge everything, and they're not willing to just accept majority opinion.

The ID argument is primarily about how it all started in the beginning - the fundamental building blocks of life - NOT the way those blocks went on to build species.
To some extent, this is true. However, as I mentioned above, it's important to cut the cords that bind scientists from thinking freely today. Also, we must stop proclaiming evolution as fact and make it clear to everyone that it's hypothesis. Also, we should not be afraid of teaching alternative hypotheses alongside evolution in schools and universities. Bowing to the establishment and forbidding alternatives is what delayed the emergence of several great new theories in scientific history.

ewan

2nd January 2006, 15:15

Look steve, I have reasons against all of what you have said for ID in your last post.

You said:

1) here's the remarkable coincidence of the universal constants, for which I provided almost 30 observations in support of ID.

Re: Please do spend the £3 required to read NewScientist articles online. There are many tens of articles discussing how the universal constants could be as they are. Anyway, whos to say that there aren't another few billion universes, but only ours is suitable for life - this theory is being tested more and more now, but ID is just a cheap way of saying "oh I don't know what happened, god must've done it"

2)There's the lingering problem of irreducible complexity, for which I've yet to see a credible explanation from evolutionists (and for which Darwin's own comments are damning).

Re: Evolution produces incredibly complex beings quite naturally. Throughout the history of the earth, through several mass extinctions, there has been several occasions where complex life has been formed from very simple organisms. To survive, it is often better to be reletively simple in the long run (how long have bacteria been around?) but every now and again there is a complex organism that will evolve to take advantage of a niche environment or time. Modern humans would probably not have done quite so well a few million years back for example. If an evolutionary scientist had time to sit down and talk through the facts, they'd be quite please to prove you wrong, but I'm sure many scientists are getting tired of the ludicracy of this debate.

3) There's the complete lack of evidence in the fossil record for evolution between species after more than a century of searching.

Re: You clearly have not been looking. Take modern humans, who evolved reletively recently. We can track their evolutionary progress right back to being apes, really, can you argue with that, would god have created some apes that could walk on two legs in between for fun?

4) There's the fact that no one can produce a time machine so no one can prove or disprove any hypotheses about the origins of life.

Fossils are one way which we can travel in time. Since when did god leave a rock with his reasons for the begginings of life written all over them?

I have to say, your point here completely ignores the facts:

ID can explain the second point: Certain components of life (e.g., the human eye, the human heart) were designed simply because there's no way statistically that such complex items, consisting of thousands of elements each without meaning in themselves, could form by chance. This is valuable to science because we don't have to waste time trying to come up with elaborate and speculative explanations for irreducible complexity.

If you continue to refuse to accept scientific evidence which we can see all around us, sure, this debate can never be resolved.

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 16:34

cjd

2nd January 2006, 16:54

We're never going to agree on this, and we've gone around in circles. I assure you that I have no more or less faith in the assumptions underlying ID as you do in the assumptions underlying evolution. We build our hypotheses on the same evidence, and our assumptions are equally valid. Neither set of assumptions can be proved to be true, so we both must have faith. Let's agree to differ on this.

It doesn't matter what we agree on, nor does it matter what degree of faith either of us have in anything. This is a simple (possibly deliberate) missunderstanding of what science is.

Science does not have 'faith'. A scientist's assumptions are not matters of belief they are straw men waiting to be proven right or wrong. It a useful trick to say that they have faith in their assumptions so that it can then be compared to a religious belief but it is wrong to do so.

Nor are all assumptions equally valid. There is no equivallence in the argument between ID and evolution, there are no more than a handfull of serious scientists arguing the case for ID while on the opposite side is 150 years of multi-disciplinary research; to claim they are equally valid is deliberately misleading.

As far as your other points are concerned.

1) here's the remarkable coincidence of the universal constants, for which I provided almost 30 observations in support of ID.
You appear to have missed my earlier post on this so I'll put it at the end of this one. This argument is actually quite vile as it sets out to deliberately mislead.

2) There's the lingering problem of irreducible complexity, for which I've yet to see a credible explanation from evolutionists (and for which Darwin's own comments are damning).
When I first read the detailed work of the Behe etc about irreduceable complexity I got quite excited by it - it appeared to put forward new information that the science as we knew it couldn't explain. I really wanted it to have some worth because it opened up a whole can of worms. Unfortunatley, science answered it and it is no longer regarded serously. I've provided the evidence and argument. If you remain unconvinced - like you are unconvinced that the world is older than 5000 years - then your standard of proof lies beyond a scientific explanation and you must look elsewhere.

3) There's the complete lack of evidence in the fossil record for evolution between species after more than a century of searching. I haven't tackled this one here yet it's true - but it's so batty I didn't really think I need to spend the time. Maybe if you explain exactly what you are expecting to see here I can help out - so long as you're not expecting to be provided with a photograph, witnessed by a panel of judges, of a dog turning into a horse.

4) There's the fact that no one can produce a time machine so no one can prove or disprove any hypotheses about the origins of life.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live. But at least we now have the standard of proof that you require before you are prepared to accept the evidence. It is, after all, that you have to put your own hand into the wound. I do admit defeat here - if you won't accept the time machine of the fossil record, I can't build you an alternative.

The 'it can't all be a coincidence' argument.

Oh no! You can't use this schoolboy trick! It depends on the masses not understanding the laws of large numbers again. Of course conditions are right for us - If they weren't we wouldn't be here having the argument! How could it be different? Just because it seems like long odds against, from where we are now the odds are 100% in favour.

"The sun will be unable to support life on this planet some day. It is already unable to support life on several other planets. What does this fact prove about design? Nothing. The axis of the earth has been different and will be different again. Someday this planet will be uninhabitable. What does that prove about design, intelligent or otherwise? Nothing. We can't deny that if millions of factors did not occur, we wouldn't be here. So what? Many of these factors did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future on this planet. There was a time when there was no life on this planet and there will be a time when no life exists here in the future. There was a time when this planet did not exist and there will be a time in the future when it will not exist. What does that prove about design? Nothing. There are countless planets that exist which do not have the conditions necessary for life. What do they prove about design? Nothing."

Apart from the snake eating it's own tail problem, it also says nothing at all about evolution. Suppose God did design the universe exactly right for evolution to happen?

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 16:57

Please do spend the £3 required to read NewScientist articles online.
I'm going to, and thanks for the recommendation.

Anyway, whos to say that there aren't another few billion universes, but only ours is suitable for life - this theory is being tested more and more now, but ID is just a cheap way of saying "oh I don't know what happened, god must've done it"
Remember that appealing to billions of years and billions of universes is the great cop-out (see previous messages). That's saying that something can't be explained so let's convince everyone of big numbers so they let go of reason. Also, I'm not just saying "god must've done it". ID simply assumes that there is an aspect of design in the universe. This is exactly what great scientists of the past (such as Newton) assumed. By making that assumption, we can overcome certain hurdles in existing hypotheses and move the cause of science forward to the next level.

Evolution produces incredibly complex beings quite naturally. Throughout the history of the earth, through several mass extinctions, there has been several occasions where complex life has been formed from very simple organisms. To survive, it is often better to be reletively simple in the long run (how long have bacteria been around?) but every now and again there is a complex organism that will evolve to take advantage of a niche environment or time. Modern humans would probably not have done quite so well a few million years back for example.
Let me ask you to do me a favour. Look back at your paragraph and find the number of statements that are pure conjecture and cannot be proved. I'll start with a few of them:

1) Evolution produces incredibly complex beings quite naturally.
2) Several mass extinctions.
3) Complex life has been formed from very simple organisms.
4) To survive, it is better to be relatively simple.
5) Bacteria are simple.
6) A complex organism will evolve to take advantage of a niche.
7) The earth is millions of years old.

I agree that phrases like this appear in textbooks all the time, but we're being duped! Can anyone provide just one piece of firm evidence (and I mean real evidence, not conjecture) to back up even one of these claims? If they are honest, the answer is 'no'. As a scientist, I will not allow prevailing opinion to cloud my thinking. I'm looking at the facts as they really are.

Fossils are one way which we can travel in time. Since when did god leave a rock with his reasons for the begginings of life written all over them?
By making a number of assumptions, we can infer age. We cannot prove it.

I have to say, your point here completely ignores the facts:
I'm willing to be proved wrong. Name one fact that contradicts my statements? Where is the example of a fossil with a number of upper and lower jawbones somewhere between a reptile and a mammal? Where is the example of an eyeball that is useless but contains 80% of the elements needed? Let's be specific. Quote from whatever sources you like. You've got over a hundred years of collected evidence to choose from. Tell me of just one example?

I know I must come across as arrogant in the extreme sometimes. Nonetheless, I ask everyone to challenge prevailing opinion - in all aspects of life. It's how we grow and how we move on. Facts are one thing; opinions are something quite different.

cjd

2nd January 2006, 17:12

The overwhelming conclusion from the science community is that ID is bad science.
I seem to remember that similar words were once applied to Copernicus. Just because a big majority of people believes something does not make it right. Science must remain objective and not allow itself to be driven by majority opinion.

You are mischeivously wrong again. As a matter of fact it was Galileo that caused the main controversy (but that's not the main point) He was a good scientist; his science offended the church and threatened to overturn some fundamental faith based beliefs. The church fought the battle, not with argument and evidence but with threat of torture and death.

ID is the church still trying to cling on to irrational belief structures but failing because it's arguments fail. If there was any hint of good science backed evidence for ID there would be hundreds of scientists trying to make a name for themselves doing it. We no longer burn people at the stake for putting forward theories - science welcomes them.

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 17:17

You are mischeivously wrong again. As a matter of fact it was Galileo that caused the main controversy (but that's not the main point) He was a good scientist; his science offended the church and threatened to overturn some fundamental faith based beliefs. The church fought the battle, not with argument and evidence but with threat of torture and death.

ID is the church still trying to cling on to irrational belief structures but failing because it's arguments fail. If there was any hint of good science backed evidence for ID there would be hundreds of scientists trying to make a name for themselves doing it. We no longer burn people at the stake for putting forward theories - science welcomes them.
You're right. Galileo and Copernicus both faced incredible opposition because they challenged accepted thinking of the day. I repeat: This is exactly what ID is doing right now. It's facing the same barrage of ridicule and its proponents are facing personal attack.

Scientists will work on alternative ideas - if they are funded! Right now, the principle of separation of church and state is being used by civil liberties groups in the US to prevent this from happening. As usual, the establishment gets its way. Time will be the final judge on this practice.

ewan

2nd January 2006, 17:38

I could go on forever, but Steve, if you are unwilling to accept either my or cjd's points, there really is no point. You are displaying an unwillingness to look at the facts that simply cannot be argued out of someone without wasting hours of the other person's time.

NewScientist is a great magazine. The debates about ID are perfectly fair, but in the end the overall conclusion is that ID is against any kind of science and should be prevented from entering into the realms of science entirely. It is a twisted definition of a theory with absolutely nothing to back it up.

I'll just go ahead and answer some of your questions on evolution:

1) Evolution produces incredibly complex beings quite naturally.
2) Several mass extinctions.
3) Complex life has been formed from very simple organisms.
4) To survive, it is better to be relatively simple.
5) Bacteria are simple.
6) A complex organism will evolve to take advantage of a niche.
7) The earth is millions of years old.

Heres a proof for each:

1) This has been described correctly. Not believing this goes against the theory of evolution completely.
2) These are incredibly clear on the fossil (and many other) record(s). Please don't tell me you are one of the people who thinks god put fossils down just to fuel human's curiosity or something.
3) There are many stages inbetween single celled organisms and complex life-forms. You really do need to expand your knowledge of biology and evolution.
4) Simple life forms, it has been shown, typically last much longer than complex ones. They can adapt to new environments typically much better.
5) The things that make up bacteria are, I agree, not simple. These things have come about through evolution though, and once some mutant combination of chemicals was able to create the first variety of bacteria, this was more successful than the pre-bacterial organisms. This is evolution in action.
6) A complex organism, as said above, may be successful in one environment, but it will typically not be able to adapt to other environments as well as simple life forms. Humans are an exception only because of our ability to create technology and tools to help us.
7) Please don't start reading noah's ark.

cjd

2nd January 2006, 17:52

Scientists will work on alternative ideas - if they are funded! Right now, the principle of separation of church and state is being used by civil liberties groups in the US to prevent this from happening. As usual, the establishment gets its way. Time will be the final judge on this practice.

ID is being funded almost exclusively by the Discovery Institute which is itself funded by the US Christian rightwing. This is a fact which they do not deny.

Separtion of Church and State is an issue peculiar to the USA. Believe it or not - but note that I can prove it ;-) - science is also done outside the USA too and even so the ID argument has not been developed further. The only reason it hasn't been taken seriously is because it is not serious science.

Comparing the ID argument and any of the scientists proposing it with Galileo (whose work created modern science and astronomy) is like drawing a comparison between me and Einstein - utter ********.

It's a useful PR trick but there is no equivalence.

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 18:00

1) This has been described correctly. Not believing this goes against the theory of evolution completely.
This is exactly the point. I'm not willing to accept views and opinions that are spoon fed to me because they represent majority opinion. You can't simply claim I am wrong because my view "goes against the theory of evolution". You must make your case based on the facts. I'm quite open-minded and teachable.

2) These are incredibly clear on the fossil (and many other) record(s). Please don't tell me you are one of the people who thinks god put fossils down just to fuel human's curiosity or something.
You should reread some of the earlier messages about having to make assumptions. Someone once told me that if you assume blindly, you simply make an "ass out of u and me".

3) There are many stages inbetween single celled organisms and complex life-forms. You really do need to expand your knowledge of biology and evolution.
But there is no evidence - zip - of one species evolving into another. I've stated this many times in this debate, and no one has yet provided an example to contradict the claim. (Your comment about my lack of knowledge is valid: My BSc and PhD are in physics; the awards I won were all in physics; you can criticise me for not having studied biology; nonetheless, you must build your case on facts.)

4) Simple life forms, it has been shown, typically last much longer than complex ones. They can adapt to new environments typically much better.
Is this you saying so? or quoting someone else who says so? It's pure conjecture.

5) The things that make up bacteria are, I agree, not simple. These things have come about through evolution though, and once some mutant combination of chemicals was able to create the first variety of bacteria, this was more successful than the pre-bacterial organisms. This is evolution in action.
Be careful, Ewan. As a scientist, I'm going to question the foundations upon which you build your claim. Show me the evidence that "these things have gone through evolution".

6) A complex organism, as said above, may be successful in one environment, but it will typically not be able to adapt to other environments as well as simple life forms. Humans are an exception only because of our ability to create technology and tools to help us.
Prove it!

7) Please don't start reading noah's ark.
While you are being very polite in your arguments, you can see how easy it is to try to discredit a hypothesis by ridiculing it? This is exactly how the establishment is trying to brush ID under the carpet.

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 18:08

Based on a majority view (which, for once, I am prepared to accept :)), I'm not going to contribute further to this debate. I'm genuinely grateful for the good nature in which it was conducted. I, for one, learned a lot.

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=52455#52455

cjd

2nd January 2006, 19:04

chicken !

(I'm just getting round to reading your ID links (which so far seem to go against you - looks like Behe is comprehensively stuffed in the Natural History paper). But the IDnetwork.org link must have evolved into something else or run out of funding 'cos it's broken ;-)

Cornish Steve

2nd January 2006, 19:08

chicken !
Wow - I just evolved!

cjd

2nd January 2006, 19:24

I think you're being unnecessarily cruel to yourself - most people would regard that as devolution; but maybe in your case.....;-)

bci

2nd January 2006, 20:53

Intelligent Design? Maybe - but it could only have been a beta release at best!
A design now superceded and abandoned!

bci

24th January 2006, 20:17

On BB2 this Thursday ......

<<<<<<<
Horizon examines the scientific claims for intelligent design and explores a battle that could shape the future of scientific understanding for years to come.
<<<<<<<

cjd

24th January 2006, 20:32

Well that should be worth watching - even tho' they're more tabloid than they used to be.

bci

24th January 2006, 20:49

Sorry, meant to say on BBC2 ...
http://www.tvguideuk.co.uk/tvlistings/index.php?column1=bbc1&column2=bbc2&column4=ch4&day=today

Cornish Steve

25th January 2006, 00:08

It's a shame that I won't be able to see it. Can someone provide a precis for me?

DotNetWebs

25th January 2006, 00:15

Hi Steve

There is a brief description here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/index.shtml

Much more will appear after the program has been broadcast.

Regards

Dotty

Rob Holmes

25th January 2006, 05:52

As someone who has followed this interesting exchange I for one will be interested in watching this program.

But even they (BBC) seem to in their summary of the program say that the idea of intelligent design came after evolution but I thought evolution came after intelligent design.

By the way I read intelligent design as a politically correct way of saying creation theory.

Heres what I mean..

Quote "On next: A War on Science
The theory of evolution is under attack from a controversial new idea called intelligent design. But is it science? Thursday 26 Jan, 9pm BBC Two "

I thought up till Darwin (late 1800's) evolution didn't exist and creation was the main stream - then Darwin came along, suggested evolution, rejected it afterwards but everyone kept believing in it.

Oh well - I guess the program will tell us more! I for one have lots of questions!

Rob

ewan

25th January 2006, 06:17

Intelligent design is just a new spin on creationism.

cjd

25th January 2006, 07:45

This thread sparked my interest in the subject again and over christmas I re-read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

I remember that this simple idea rocked my world at the time. For those that don't know about it - it goes like this:

Most people think of evolution as the gradual change over a very long time of one species into another with genetic mutation being the mechanism providing change and competitive advantage the driving force. The survival of the fittest.

So far so good.

We also generally think that the more complex organisms become the more successful they are but this is not true. Arguably, simple viruses are more successful than horses.

Dawkins argues that the bodies that orgnisms have are just containers used by their genes for their own continuation. The bodies that we see as species, dogs, daffodills, worms are just different ways the genes use to ensure they replicate.

This is a really important concept - the gene doesn't care at all what box it's in - it just cares that it reproduces.

It works in its interest if the box is good a duplicating itself and succeeds in its environment but in principle it would probably prefer to be in a bird flue virus than a human.

It reduces people to mere carriers of genetic material with our bodies just a very efficient way for our genes to make the next generation.

I haven't done justice to a really elegant idea that overturns a complete way of thinking but I've run out of time......lucky for you!

DotNetWebs

25th January 2006, 09:12

Quote "On next: A War on Science
The theory of evolution is under attack from a controversial new idea called intelligent design. But is it science? Thursday 26 Jan, 9pm BBC Two "

I thought up till Darwin (late 1800's) evolution didn't exist and creation was the main stream - then Darwin came along, suggested evolution, rejected it afterwards but everyone kept believing in it.

Oh well - I guess the program will tell us more! I for one have lots of questions!

Rob

I will watching this too. I am guessing the angle they will take it that "intelligent design" will refer to some modern scientists believing that an intelligent force must have played some part at some time in the origin of life. This does not have to be traditional "Creationism".

Prior to Darwin most people believed everything they read in the Bible. The world was created in 7 days etc.. Darwin , Hutton and co proved (although Steve will disagree with me :wink: ) that this was not possible.

If am right the programme will not say that the Bible was right all along but argue how some form of intelligence may have been need to start life on Earth.

As an example providing you have some form of replicating organism to start with I am convinced of most of the arguments for evolution and the age of the Earth. What I find hard to comprehend is how complex cells containing DNA first came about. What if single cell organisms where some sort of 'seed' intelligently planted 4 1/2 billion years ago?????

Regards

Dotty

EDIT: I typed 4.5 million when I meant 4.5 billion

bci

25th January 2006, 10:08

Intelligent Design?
Maybe ..... perhaps, circa 3.85 billion years ago?
But ID (the Intelligent Designer) only managed to create a single cell lifeform ..... and life on earth has been evolving ever since!

cjd

25th January 2006, 10:45

What I find hard to comprehend is how complex cells containing DNA first came about. What if single cell organisms where some sort of 'seed' intelligently planted 4 1/2 million years ago?????
Dotty

I suppose the intelligent design arguers would say yes - DNA could reasonably be the starting block put there by 'The Designer' [ie God, although they rarely use the word]

And the truth is science can only guess about how it actually came about.

A common theory is that organic molecules are created by the reaction of base raw material such as water, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane with lightening and ultraviolet radiation - all these appear to have been around on earth at the very beginning and can be seen on other planets. This can be replicated in the lab and it produces pyrimidines and purines which are the building blocks for DNA itself.

The next step is critical tho' as the base molecules have to be able to join and replicate themselves. This too can be imagined but I don't know whether it has been done in the lab. But it only had to happen once then all you need is 4-5 billion years to build a cow......

davidd

25th January 2006, 11:23

<<<<<<<<
But ID (the Intelligent Designer) only managed to create a single cell lifeform ..... and life on earth has been evolving ever since!
<<<<<<<<
ID had to rush off as the mothership was leaving?

DotNetWebs

25th January 2006, 11:34

cjd

Your quote has made me realise I typed 4.5 million years when I meant 4.5 BILLION years (the estimated age of the earth). I have edited my post to reflect this. Although as bci points out 3.85 billion is a better estimate of when single cell life forms appeared.

Cornish Steve

26th January 2006, 01:18

What's encouraging about this thread is that each of us is climbing off our initial soapbox and trying to think things through. When we first started, there were lots of uncompromising one-liners. Now, we're beginning to think and challenge and be open...

What I find hard to comprehend is how complex cells containing DNA first came about.
And the truth is science can only guess about how it actually came about.
Here, here!

These are the fundamental points: Can a collection of chemicals suddenly be transformed into a life form? Can DNA arise from a collection of random forces? Scientists can, indeed, only guess. The answer depends on the scientist's philosophy of life more than anything else.

I have to point out one thing:

But it only had to happen once then all you need is 4-5 billion years to build a cow......
This is the age-old cop-out. If something seems beyond reason, appeal to the argument that anything can happen in billions of years. After all, who can disprove it? It's equally valid to say that if something seems beyond reason, it probably is!

Rob Holmes

26th January 2006, 05:19

As an example providing you have some form of replicating organism to start with

Can you explain where this replicating organism came from?

What I find hard to comprehend is how complex cells containing DNA first came about. What if single cell organisms where some sort of 'seed' intelligently planted 4 1/2 billion years ago?????

ok - I'm imagining this .... a bare world, no life, just a ball of rock that had cooled off from a big bang and stopped spinning so fast from the massive explostion of the start of the universe (ignore the fact that prior to this there was nothing to bang) - now put a single organism on the planet - in water or not (I don't care) - how long would it have lasted before dying out? Imagine putting a single live cell in water or a dessert - in reality how long does it really last before dying?

Even if somehow this is possible - then where did apples, pears, cows, friut, vegetables come from with all their different flavours - did these things come before people and if so how did an apple tree start growing on a bare rock with no seeds, how did banana trees also grow and all the other vegetation across the world with all it's different flavours and types - when I'm imagining myself standing on this bare rock - how does everything just appear? I'm by no means saying there was an Intelligent Designer because I don't know the answer - but I can look to both Evolution and ID to see their explanations and see which one stacks up best.

I'll be honest... my desk is a mess. Now it has evolved into a mess (why doesn't it evolve into something tidy on it's own??) but apart from a little dust the main contents of the office are dictated by me or Mrs Matrixx putting stuff in it. At no time has an abstract thing been formed out of nothing and appeared in the office - if something appears I know someone put it there. I would not accept from my 3 year old son that something just appeared (like a puddle of water on the floor or a plant appearing on the floor in the living room) - I know jolly well that someone put it there. So why in my real life am I able to know it's untrue, impossible and wrong to think that nothing appears from nowhere and makes everything but when it comes to a theoretical level I am being pushed hard to assume by evolutionists that actually things did appear (but have now stopped) from nowhere, puddles and plants appear so do people, animals etc etc? It just doesn't stack up with reality for me. I guess I'm being asked to believe something that I just can't make fit reality.

Now if I see stuff around (litter, grass, trees - any object I can think of) and get given the option to assume that nothing caused it to appear from nowhere OR someone or something caused it to be there, currently I opt for the latter option - it just makes more sense.

Maybe the program tonight will hold some more answers :)

Rob