I seriously question that you do. I see no evidence of your applying it at all. What reason do I have to be open minded to something that is of no use to me? You have failed, as all ID supporters have, to answer the very open minded questions that I have asked you. Of what practical value is ID to me as a biologist? What useful predictions can I make, using ID, to further my understanding of living systems? It is your open mindedness that is in question here. You're accusing me of lacking objectivity because I dismiss ID as science when in reality there is nothing about ID to dismiss. If you show me some way that I can, in a practical sense, use ID to advance my knowledge of living systems then you would have a point. But you can't and this is what I mean about ID not being tentative. How can you dismiss nothing?
Practical value? Since when did this become the criteria for determining a theory valid? Why must it be "of practical use" to you? And what makes you think you are superior in intelligence enough to understand or comprehend a practical value at this time? The suggestion that we all evolved from a single organism following a big bang, is of no practical value to me, I can't use this theory in any practical sense. There are no experiments I can run, or tests I can do to prove or disprove it. We simply have a theory of something, it need not have "practical use" to us, in order to be a scientific theory.
Again, your demonstrating a lack of understanding of science. Science does not deal with the "possible" it deals with the "probable". Is ID possible? Absolutely but it has a very low probability. Further, I made no comparison to Evolutionary Theory. ID, as a theory, must stand on its own. Which it does not. To make a point, I believe in theistic evolution. That this is the force God uses to propagate the vast variety of life on this planet. But let me be clear! This is my own personal belief of faith, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
I have a very clear understanding of science, and I am well aware it doesn't "prove" things. This is why I have a difficult time accepting the altruism of evolution to explain origin of all life. It seems some people "believe" in ET, not as a theory, but as a true and proven fact. This is incorrect, and there is no evidence to support that belief. It amounts to having the same faith you have in "theist evolution".
So sorry, but you are wrong. Unless you can show who or what this Intelligent Designer is, then it falls in the area of supernatural, right along with flying horses, unicorns and the tooth fairy. As an ID supporter that burden of proof is yours.
Science can't prove things, so why am I suddenly burdened with supplying "proof" to confirm my theory? Where is your proof that cross-species evolution has ever occurred? Where is your proof that ET explains origin of life? Seems to me, there isn't any, and when questioned about it, you maintain that Science doesn't "prove" things.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean Supernatural. Perhaps our ability to understand the nature of the intelligence is not currently available or attainable by mankind, at this particular juncture? Maybe it is something that is simply beyond our capability to understand, like black holes and anti-matter.
Cross species evolution is a canard and show's you do not understand evolutionary theory. Why is that a canard? Because evolutionary theory makes no such prediction as cross-species "cat-dog" speciation. So is "linear evolution". Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction that evolution is linear. Just the opposite, Gould/Eldridge's principle of punctuated equilibrium give us strong evidence of just the opposite, that evolution can occur locally, in fits and spurts and extend rapidly out from a central geological location. That provides a very robust explanation of the Cambrian explosion. So the old Cambrian argument falls to pieces.
But again, you don't have definitive proof, just a theory or "speculation" as to why there was a Cambrian explosion. In order for ET to explain origin of all life on the planet, there simply has to be some resolution of the vast number of various species of life which have evolved... 95% of them, no longer inhabiting the planet. You can't really say ET explains origin, without showing some evidence to explain the billions of life forms through some form of cross-species evolution. Granted, some people just accept that ET explains this, and believe it as a fact along with ET. But it hasn't been demonstrated or supported by any evidence.
But what does this have to do with ID? How would ID explain the Cambrian explosion? Oh, I know! The Intelligent Designer designed it that way (Science Stopper Alert!).
Again, you approach science and theory as a means to "explain" (i.e.; prove) something. It doesn't matter how ID would explain the Cambrian explosion, it doesn't have to explain it in order to be valid as a theory of origin. Besides, you just offered an explanation for the Cambrian explosion, how would ID negate you theory? Remember, ID is not a contradictory or opposing view to ET, both (or neither) theory is also possible. The intelligence that designed life, also designed evolution, as a process to adapt the formed life to its environment.
You are right, nothing in cross species evolution can be tested or predicted because, as I just stated, evolutionary theory makes no such prediction.
Correct, so how does ET predict or theorize "origin of life?" It doesn't. In fact, in only offers a theory about how life changes over time to adapt to the surroundings, environment, or conditions. To me, this is just another testament to, and example of, the amazing intelligence which designed life.
As for modeling speciation you just simply don't know what your talking about. That is evolutionary theories fundamental purpose. Evolutionary theory provides a profound and robust model for explaining speciation and if you don't think so then I defy you to replace it with another working theory. As for extinction, god, your making me laugh. Evolution provides the prefect explanation for why the vast majority of life that has lived on this planet no longer exist. In fact, this is one of the strongest points in evolutionary theories favor is that it explains this phenomena so well. Most of those life forms no longer exist because they were either unsuited to their environment and went extinct or they adapted to changing conditions and evolved into something else.
ET does not explain speciation. There is no evidence of cross-species evolution, it has never been observed or discovered. Outside of the same biological family, man can't replicate any type of cross-species reproduction. Now, it is obvious we have millions of life forms, and dozens of unique groups of life, but no answer as to how and why these various forms of life originated. We can argue a theory as to why some of these life forms changed and adapted, but we can't explain how so many vibrant life groups came to be. No evidence of cross-speciation, palnts do not turn into cold-blooded animals, and cold-blooded animals don't turn into warm-blooded animals, etc. There is no aspect of ET that explains this, or even attempts to explain it. Again, I think it is an amazing testament to ID, that we have many various types of life that are not interchangeable or related, yet they have adapted and changed with time.
But again, what the hell does that have to do with ID? How does ID model speciation? How does ID model extinction? Oh, I know! The Intelligent Designer designed it that way (Science Stopper Alert!).
Nothing about ID stops science. It is just a theory. It is no different than ET stopping science by definitively answering the questions of origin.
And you keep letting your ignorance of evolutionary theory show. There is not one shred of evidence for cross-species evolution becuase evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. (third time I've pointed that out)
Right, and short of being able to explain why there are dozens of types of life, and none are interchangeable with each other, you can't really hold ET up as evidence for origin of life. ET only predicts how life may have evolved, within the confines of its own category of life. Again, evidence of intelligence in design.
You further show you don't understand evolutionary theory as it does not, nor has it ever been used to model the origins of life nor has any life scientist ever claimed it has. It models speciation. These are just more arguments from ignorance.
No, you can listen to the arguments and read the posts by the believers of ET, they firmly believe ET dispels ID and explains origin of life. This is the crux of my argument, we don't know how or why life originated. My theory points to intelligence, because repeating patterns, non-random laws of physical principles, and elements of organization and design are found in life. These attributes would seem to denote intelligence as opposed to randomness. In order for randomness to be responsible, it would have to be the equivalent to rolling the same number on the dice millions of times in a row, and that is all but virtually impossible.
As for unfounded terms, such as, "Independantly verified" and "tested predictions". Well those unfounded terms have long been corner stones of the scientific method so, again, this brings into question your lack of understanding of the scientific method. As a scientist it doesn't look to me as if you understand the scientific method well at all.
Oh, but I do understand scientific method and principles. Which is precisely why I chose to debate the argument for the argument here. Science is not supposed to draw conclusions of fact, it makes predictions and theorizes, but for some reason, when it comes to ET, some people accept science as a proven fact, and being that ET is viewed as "proven fact" and not the theory it is, this automatically dispels any alternative theories or views, like ID. It is precisely my understanding of science and the scientific method, which enables me to examine the possibility of ID seriously, without simply dismissing it in favor of a false belief in ET as an explanation for origin.
Fourth Time! EVOLUTIONARY THEORY MAKES NO SUCH PREDICTION NOR DOES IT MODEL ANYTHING CALLED "CROSS-SPECIES EVOLUTION"!!!!
FOURTH TIME.... THEN HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY EXPLAIN OR EVEN ADDRESS THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET?
and again, what the hell does that have to do with ID? Even if such a phenomena as "cross-species evolution" existed, how does ID model it? Oh, I know! The Intelligent Designer designed it that way (Science Stopper Alert!).
Well, if we had evidence of cross-species evolutions, it may explain the vast array of life forms inhabiting our planet. It would go a long way in explaining how we may have all evolved from a single cell organism, following the Big Bang. Clearly, we do exist. Clearly, there are dozens of various forms of life that do exist. ET is a theory for how these various forms may have mutated and changed to adapt to their environment, but this is not an adequate explanation for origin of all life, never has been, and never will be. Therefore, it can't refute or negate theories which do attempt to explain origin, like ID.
Well you finally said something I agree with. "There is as much evidence for ID as there is for cross-species evolution". I agree. There's no evidence for either because Evolutionary Theory makes no such prediction as "cross-species evolution (5th time).
Then maybe, you are beginning to understand my point. We don't have all the answers, we don't have all the information to make conclusions. Short of having these answers and information, we are left with theories and ideas. To simply dismiss ID because you see no practical value, is analogous to the example I gave earlier about the cavemen discovering a computer. The fact that they would find no "practical use" for such a device, the fact that they wouldn't be capable of understanding such a device, or use the device to advance themselves in any real way, does not negate the possibility of such a device, it simply means they don't yet understand or comprehend its potential.
I also have to challenge you on the Scholarly research on ID. Much of the so called "Scholarly" publications on ID is rhetorical crap coming out of the Discovery Institute. Please show me the Scholarly studies on ID published in Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals as I'm not aware of any.
Since when does being published in some pinhead Science rag equate to validity or evidence of support for a theory? What you are essentially telling me is, science means absolutely nothing, all that matters is a bunch of pinhead scientists concur on something, that is all we need to verify or confirm theory into fact. That is utter and stupid bullshit.
I don't believe ID is in opposition to Evolutionary Theory. I believe that ID has no practical predictive uses in understanding how living systems function. You tell me, what practical use can I make of it? You do that and you'll have some credibility.
Again, having practical predictive use to you, is not a criteria needed to render a theory valid. Do you know everything there is to know? Do you understand and comprehend everything in our universe and how/why it works? If not, how can you determine there is no practical use? You are the caveman forming an opinion about this strange and mysterious machine you've found with lots of buttons. It holds amazing powers that you simply aren't capable of understanding, and probably never will be. That doesn't make it useless, that doesn't mean it should be destroyed or dismissed.
ID stops science in it's tracks because it has nothing to offer. It's an empty suit. It provides no means of furthering our understanding of how living systems function.
ID doesn't attempt to predict how living systems function. You keep wanting ID to replace ET and that is not the intent of ID. How does ANY theory help you further understanding of something, unless you assume the theory is a fact?
What are the practical used of evolutionary theory?
It's foundational to the science of biology. It explains the differences in living systems. Before evolutionary theory, biology was stamp collecting. It is one of the most robust and useful theories in all of science.
ET does not explain anything, it is a theory, not a fact. Using the theory, you can suggest how certain species of life may have emerged and others died out. That is about the only useful purpose in the theory. It doesn't explain or address origin of life, however, many "believers" of ET are almost fanatical zealots about how it "proves" origin of life, in refutation of ID.
Here are just a few of the practical applications;
Not here to debate the practical applications of ET, or to argue against ET.
Also not here to debate "practical application" we may not yet be capable of understanding or comprehending, it has no effect on validity of theory.
Another canard and a false paradigm that because I or anyone refutes ID, as science, that we are hostile towards religion.
In most cases, this is the fundamental reason ID is refuted. Anti-religious zealots will hear "ID" and automatically equate it with "God" and that immediately means it has to be combated and quashed. I maintain, "Intelligence" simply means intelligence, no "god" required there, no "religious beliefs" involved, just the simple concept of intelligence in the design of life as we know it, and indeed, the universe we understand. I make no assumptions as to the source of this intelligence, that is a different debate. I merely see the evidence to suggest intelligence in the design of life and our universe, and I think it is a valid and legitimate theory, regardless of religious viewpoints.
I think we can leave that up to our audience as to who is ranting and who is not. You're comments here are illogical. I made no defense of any theory. I reasonably discredited ID as science based on evidence, or more correctly, the lack there of, based on sound logic and I could care less if the logic I used was irrefutable. If you can refute my discrediting of ID, please do, be my guest. So far you have failed terribly.
Audience? HAHAHAHAH.... Who? Waterhead, Assclown, and Wiseguy? My comments are logical, you can't discredit ID as science without discrediting Laws of Physics, Laws of random odds, and your own theories on evolution as well. They all indicate and suggest intelligence in design and predictability as opposed to randomness.
I am not interested in understanding ID from your perspective. Please don't waste my or our readers time doing that. I am interested in understanding ID from a scientific perspective. Please do that and I will determine for myself if they have a legitimate basis in science/biology (sorry pal, that's just how science works). Being open minded to your perspective is not relevent, that's just a precursor to accept your thoughts at face value and, sorry again, science don't work that way. As a scientist, I could care less about possibility and unless you are willing to enter the realm of probability I would advise you not to waste your time. As for convincing me? Who cares? ID will stand or fall, as science, based on its own merits and regardless of what I think about it.
Our readers? Again, who? A bunch of heathen Atheists who are all hell-bent on refuting anything perceived as having to do with God?
So let me get this straight, you are not interested in my perspective, but you think your determinations of what is scientific perspective is somehow relevant to me or this debate? Sorry pal, that's not how "objectivity and open-mindedness" works.
I've already gone over the various indicators for the foundation of ID theory. Repeating patterns denote intelligent design. If we went to Mars and discovered perfectly square blocks of stone, lined up in 9 rows of 9, in a pattern... would we determine this just randomly happened, or would it not be indicative of intelligent design? Certainly there would be a remote chance that such a thing could occur naturally, without intelligent intervention, but from what we understand and know about our universe and laws of odds and physics, it seems highly unlikely. Randomness does not generate predictable patterns, which are found in all living things and life in general, as well as the laws of physics and properties of the universe. The very nature of physics, the predictability and reliability of the laws of physics, are indicative of design by intelligence, and not randomness.
Let me take this opportunity to interject a little more "science" into the debate. There is no disputing, mankind has always had a spiritual connection to a "maker" or "greater power" whatever it has been defined as. As far back as we have dug up ancient civilizations, we see the evidence of this profound belief and connection in man and how he thinks. Biological study indicates, every species which exhibits a fundamental behavior, has some reason or purpose for such behavior, or it wouldn't exist. Darwin's theory of natural selection addresses this detail. The fact that human behavior has always centered most fundamentally, on the belief and conviction of a higher power, is relevant in supporting the theory of ID. This is not to say ID is justified by mankind's longstanding beliefs in a higher power, but the human behavior has to be reconciled with scientific knowledge and understanding, that any species retains behaviors which have fundamental purpose, and discards those which don't. ID would certainly offer a suggested explanation for why man has such a profound connection with spirituality, and why it is so fundamental in human behavior.
