If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Damocles]

There's a significant difference between claiming what ID does - that evolution can't work because systems are too complex to evolve gradually - and saying what Darwin did about God creating a universe in which evolution could take place.

One more time. Many scientists are like Darwin. Amazed at what God was able to do and the tools he used.

This has been my point in this thread.

People lump "ID" into one category. Believing God created this does not necessary mean that one is a poor scientist, as Darwin proved.

It is inane to suggest that everybody who believes in an Intelligent Designer is incapable of being a scientist, as I have seen listed above, or do not exist in Life Sciences. One can be a believer in an Intelligent Designer AND understand that "Intelligent Design" isn't science at the SAME TIME.

 

[ib1yysguy]

One more time. Many scientists are like Darwin. Amazed at what God was able to do and the tools he used.

This has been my point in this thread.

People lump "ID" into one category. Believing God created this does not necessary mean that one is a poor scientist, as Darwin proved.

It is inane to suggest that everybody who believes in an Intelligent Designer is incapable of being a scientist, as I have seen listed above, or do not exist in Life Sciences. One can be a believer in an Intelligent Designer AND understand that "Intelligent Design" isn't science at the SAME TIME.

You're misrepresenting what the "Intelligent Design Theory" states. ID is not the idea that some intelligent designer create the universe. ID is about LIFE being TOO COMPLEX to be the result of evolution. It is an attempt at a direct refutation of evolution, there's no dancing around it. You just want to change this into a debate about more abstract things because the actual ID idea has been shown to be totally bogus.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There's a significant difference between claiming what ID does - that evolution can't work because systems are too complex to evolve gradually - and saying what Darwin did about God creating a universe in which evolution could take place.

Evolution within species is a valid theory, there is much archeological evidence to suggest this happened. What you seem to think, that evolution is responsible for cross-genus (species) evolution, is not valid because nothing in science has ever shown that to be the case. It is as whimsical as believing in a God.

ID science examines the complexity of individual components. The human eye, for example, the human ear is another. These components are comprised of several parts, which independently do nothing, and would serve absolutely no function whatsoever. It is only as a complete component, they are of any value. Therefore, according to Darwin himself, it is impossible for these components to have evolved. Science can't explain this, but you have assumed evolution explains it without any basis... that's called "faith."

 

[Damocles]

You're misrepresenting what the "Intelligent Design Theory" states. ID is not the idea that some intelligent designer create the universe. ID is about LIFE being TOO COMPLEX to be the result of evolution. It is an attempt at a direct refutation of evolution, there's no dancing around it. You just want to change this into a debate about more abstract things because the actual ID idea has been shown to be totally bogus.

No, I have been very clear. I am not talking about "Intelligent Design Theory". I am talking about the fact that many scientists believe in God and still are good solid scientists who understand that ID is not science.

Your mistake is the insistence that every scientist who believed in a Creator would also believe in "Intelligent Design Theory" (isn't a theory, isn't science). It's rubbish, and either you know it or are such a hack you can't see any idea other than one that was given to you by somebody equally hacktacular.

My point in this thread has been. (Repeating here before you go and start off spouting about some "Theory" that doesn't exist). *ahem*

It is notable that many scientists believe in God and see it as a way to find out HOW HE DID IT. Such scientists are indistinguishable from other scientists, one notable scientist of this type was Darwin. These scientists see the answers to their questions as a strong support for their beliefs in a Deity.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Evolution within species is a valid theory, there is much archeological evidence to suggest this happened. What you seem to think, that evolution is responsible for cross-genus (species) evolution, is not valid because nothing in science has ever shown that to be the case. It is as whimsical as believing in a God.

Nothing eh? We have the fossil record showing that whales evolved from land mammals. How's that for cross species evolution? You really don't understand what this means. When an owl turns into another owl that cannot breed with the first owl, that is a different species. That genetic separation eventually means the owl isn't going to look anything like an owl.

Yes, we have the record. There are a few things in science that shows it to be the case.

ID science examines the complexity of individual components. The human eye, for example, the human ear is another. These components are comprised of several parts, which independently do nothing, and would serve absolutely no function whatsoever. It is only as a complete component, they are of any value. Therefore, according to Darwin himself, it is impossible for these components to have evolved. Science can't explain this, but you have assumed evolution explains it without any basis... that's called "faith."

And we've whacked this mole already.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Here is how a scientists who was an ID'r might ask the question if he was being uber-literal and not writing a paper...

"What tool did the Intelligent Designer use to make genetic mutation occur during meiotic crossover?"



"What did the Intelligent Designer use to make compliment mediate antigen/antibody responses?"

Then the scientist would use the exact same tests to see if he could figure out why it happened. When he wrote his paper it would be indistinguishable from the paper of somebody who had no "illusions" of an Intelligent Design.

I'd go on, but what would be the point? The attempt to say, "If you believe in religion then you can't use science" wouldn't be as fun without the black/white stereotyping that takes place in the anti-religionist.

It's only a "science stopper" to the incurious. Those would not be in science anyway, aren't going to read the paper, and may even believe that the scientist was "trying to prove that God doesn't exist" all while the scientist would be standing in awe, once he figured it out, at the astounding Creation of the Intelligent Designer...

Sorry Damo but that went over my head.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is what I said, not Dix. The reality is there are very many very real scientists that believe there is an Intelligent Designer and also believe in Evolution, etc.

Yes but there aren't many scientist who believe Intelligent Design is science.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Mott, maybe you can explain the problem with irreducible complexity better than I can. I linked Ditzie to a very informative video of Ken Miller showing how stupid the argument is already, but that was over his head.

 

[Damocles]

Sorry Damo but that went over my head.

To a scientist who believes in a God, the view of the outcome changes. It sets in their mind (at least the ones that I know) an awe at what was done during Creation.

If they found out that primordial ooze was at the opening scene it would astound them that such an amazing piece of "worldcraft" could be done with such simple beginnings. They'd again be in "awe" of the Creator. The assumption that finding out what rules were set into place at creation and how things were done would make people disbelieve is a poor assumption, both by the Church and by those who reject all beliefs other than those tested by Science.

People are far more complex than you have given them credit for here. People CAN believe in an intelligent designer and understand that there is no such thing as Intelligent Design Theory in science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

One more time. Many scientists are like Darwin. Amazed at what God was able to do and the tools he used.

This has been my point in this thread.

People lump "ID" into one category. Believing God created this does not necessary mean that one is a poor scientist, as Darwin proved.

It is inane to suggest that everybody who believes in an Intelligent Designer is incapable of being a scientist, as I have seen listed above, or do not exist in Life Sciences. One can be a believer in an Intelligent Designer AND understand that "Intelligent Design" isn't science at the SAME TIME.

That's strawman Damo. No one is stating that one cannot believe in an Intelligent Designer or Creator or God and not believe in science. We are saying that Intelligent Design is not science. Just as evolutionary theory is not a religious or spiritual belief. One can believe in both but they are not the same.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Evolution within species is a valid theory, there is much archeological evidence to suggest this happened. What you seem to think, that evolution is responsible for cross-genus (species) evolution, is not valid because nothing in science has ever shown that to be the case. It is as whimsical as believing in a God.

ID science examines the complexity of individual components. The human eye, for example, the human ear is another. These components are comprised of several parts, which independently do nothing, and would serve absolutely no function whatsoever. It is only as a complete component, they are of any value. Therefore, according to Darwin himself, it is impossible for these components to have evolved. Science can't explain this, but you have assumed evolution explains it without any basis... that's called "faith."

Dixie you're an idiot. How many times do you have to be told there there is no such thing as "Within Species" or "Cross Species" evolution.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, I have been very clear. I am not talking about "Intelligent Design Theory". I am talking about the fact that many scientists believe in God and still are good solid scientists who understand that ID is not science.

Your mistake is the insistence that every scientist who believed in a Creator would also believe in "Intelligent Design Theory" (isn't a theory, isn't science). It's rubbish, and either you know it or are such a hack you can't see any idea other than one that was given to you by somebody equally hacktacular.

My point in this thread has been. (Repeating here before you go and start off spouting about some "Theory" that doesn't exist). *ahem*

It is notable that many scientists believe in God and see it as a way to find out HOW HE DID IT. Such scientists are indistinguishable from other scientists, one notable scientist of this type was Darwin. These scientists see the answers to their questions as a strong support for their beliefs in a Deity.

I understand your point. To say that one can't believe in both evolution and creation/ID is a false dualism. But the point we keep hammering home, lest to avoid confusion, is that it is not science.

That is to say, A scientist can believe in ID. What a scientist cannot do is promote ID as science with out testing the hypothesis via the scientific method. There is a big difference in believing in different philosophies and in believing that something which is not science is science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, maybe you can explain the problem with irreducible complexity better than I can. I linked Ditzie to a very informative video of Ken Miller showing how stupid the argument is already, but that was over his head.

It wasn't over his head. Dixie is being deliberately obtuse. Any evidence you provide that this is not science Dixie can rationalize away by changing the rules of science to meet the conclusions he has decided upon.

If someone is truely interested in learning about "Irreducible Complexity" of biological systems and why it is not a valid concept I'd be willing to inform them.

But I'm not willing to play more "Wack a Mole" for Dixie.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

People are far more complex than you have given them credit for here. People CAN believe in an intelligent designer and understand that there is no such thing as Intelligent Design Theory in science.

There you go! You summed it up brilliantly in this last sentence.

Yes, this is true.

 

[Damocles]

That's strawman Damo. No one is stating that one cannot believe in an Intelligent Designer or Creator or God and not believe in science. We are saying that Intelligent Design is not science. Just as evolutionary theory is not a religious or spiritual belief. One can believe in both but they are not the same.

You were the one that said it was a "science stopper" and used the sentences above. My basic premise for all my posts is that a belief in God (an Intelligent Design) does not stop curious people from wanting to know things and using a good methodology to study it.

It was what started my participation in this thread.

One can believe in a Creator without it being a "science stopper". Again, it is only the incurious and credulous that would do that, and they wouldn't be in the field of science (and if they were they'd be rejected like ID "Theory".)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You were the one that said it was a "science stopper" and used the sentences above. My basic premise for all my posts is that a belief in God (an Intelligent Design) does not stop curious people from wanting to know things and using a good methodology to study it.

It was what started my participation in this thread.

One can believe in a Creator without it being a "science stopper". Again, it is only the incurious and credulous that would do that, and they wouldn't be in the field of science (and if they were they'd be rejected like ID "Theory".)

It is a science stopper in the realm of science. In philosophy or religion what you are saying is true but not in the realm of science. You can believe in God/the Creator/Intelligent Designer/Flying Spaghetti Monster in the philosophical or religious sense and from that point of view it is perfectly compatible with a belief in science. But If you apply ID to the scientific method it most certainly is a science stopper as the examples I provided illustrated.

 

[ib1yysguy]

 

[Damocles]

It is a science stopper in the realm of science. In philosophy or religion what you are saying is true but not in the realm of science. You can believe in God/the Creator/Intelligent Designer/Flying Spaghetti Monster in the philosophical or religious sense and from that point of view it is perfectly compatible with a belief in science. But If you apply ID to the scientific method it most certainly is a science stopper as the examples I provided illustrated.

It isn't, it just changes the reason for the curiosity, not the best method to test Theories created because of that curiosity. (As the examples I presented showed).

Somebody saying, "Jeebus did it" would be a science stopper, but a belief in an Intelligent Designer does not mean that you would be incurious enough to just keep repeating that phrase. This is a statement based on a black/white picture of believers, not one based in the reality of humanity.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It isn't, it just changes the reason for the curiosity, not the best method to test Theories created because of that curiosity. (As the examples I presented showed).

Somebody saying, "Jeebus did it" would be a science stopper, but a belief in an Intelligent Designer does not mean that you would be incurious enough to just keep repeating that phrase. This is a statement based on a black/white picture of believers, not one based in the reality of humanity.

I'm sorry but you're just not making any sense or your missing my point. It is a science stopper. You need not look any further than "The Intelligent Designer did it" You may look further if you wish but you have your built in cop out so you don't need to.

This is philosophical non-sense and has nothing to do with science. If you are saying that one can believe in other philosophical systems than science yet still believe in science. I agree. If you are trying to tell me that including supernatural beliefs into the realm of science is not a science stopper, then you are quite wrong. That is why it has long been the ground rule in science that it can only test natural causation.

 

[Damocles]

I'm sorry but you're just not making any sense or your missing my point. It is a science stopper. You need not look any further than "The Intelligent Designer did it" You may look further if you wish but you have your built in cop out so you don't need to.

This is philosophical non-sense and has nothing to do with science. If you are saying that one can believe in other philosophical systems than science yet still believe in science. I agree. If you are trying to tell me that including supernatural beliefs into the realm of science is not a science stopper, then you are quite wrong. That is why it has long been the ground rule in science that it can only test natural causation.

You don't need to look any further even if you don't believe in an Intelligent Designer. The only reason anybody would, would be for curiosity. The reason for the curiosity may be different, but it doesn't change this basic fact. While you may want to dismiss all believers into some "ID Theorists Science Stopper" category, we have abundantly demonstrated that some of the best scientists are, in fact, believers. Stating this basic thesis over and over doesn't change that one can believe in an Intelligent Designer and still maintain curiosity and a high level of accuracy in testing using a proscribed method.

Some people who are not believers in any higher power or creator will dismiss science as a "bunch of gobbledygook" that is "unimportant". Which would be an equal "stopper". Curiosity drives science, it doesn't drive itself.