The 'Science' of Intelligent Design

Dixie said:
From what is now known, and according to the very theories of Darwin, the "evolution" you believe happened, is just not possible. For it to be possible, it would have to completely contradict Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Darwin spent an entire chapter in "The Descent of Man" explaining how the eye evolved. How you could get that "his own theories" said that it was impossible is beyond me.
 
Originally Posted by Dixie


"I am not wrong about this, I have studied it in detail, and according to your "god" Darwin, what would have needed to happen in evolution for the primitive eye to evolve into a human eye, is simply not possible."




Dixie you've been told this before, Darwin never said that.
 
Damocles said:
I don't suggest that ID was refuted by science. I suggest that it could not be refuted by science even if it were untrue, and therefore is not science. It is testability that would make it science, not just thinking about it.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, nothing regarding origin is testable, because the condition of non-origin isn't replicable. So if you want to say that science can not examine the question of origin, I suppose that is a valid point. I happen to think "testability" isn't needed to be scientific. We can't "test" a black hole, dark matter, anti-matter, etc. None of these pinheads who believe we all "evolved" from a single-cell organism, can "test" that theory.

Now we can examine evidence. We see archeological evidence of species which changed with conditions and adapted to environment. We see no evidence that one species of life begat another totally different kind. We can also study attributes inherent in human beings... like spirituality. Mankind has had a connection with it since the dawn of civilization. We can "test" this against studies of other living organisms, all of which exhibit particular and specific behaviors with reason and purpose, none of which exhibit behaviors for no reason. What this "test" will conclude, is humans have a reason and purpose for their profound connection to spirituality and almost universal belief that something greater than man is responsible for our creation.

We can't pour some chemicals in a test tube and "confirm" or "deny" intelligent design, and if that is what needs to be done for the idea to be "scientific" it simply can't be. Neither can any other theory of origin, for that matter.
 
Waterbaby said:
Originally Posted by Dixie


"I am not wrong about this, I have studied it in detail, and according to your "god" Darwin, what would have needed to happen in evolution for the primitive eye to evolve into a human eye, is simply not possible."




Dixie you've been told this before, Darwin never said that.
Click to expand...

Uhmmm Yes, he did!

From: Origin of the Species-

He discusses various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved in steps from much simpler structures. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The human eye is a complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications. As I have pointed out, a photocell eyespot is stimulated by lightness and darkness, it has no use for image. This organ would not require or need a lens to project an image, or any other component of a human eye, because it functioned in a completely different way. As I said, for your "theory" to work, it would have to completely contradict what Darwin said.
 
Dixie said:
Uhmmm Yes, he did!

From: Origin of the Species-

He discusses various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved in steps from much simpler structures. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The human eye is a complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications. As I have pointed out, a photocell eyespot is stimulated by lightness and darkness, it has no use for image. This organ would not require or need a lens to project an image, or any other component of a human eye, because it functioned in a completely different way. As I said, for your "theory" to work, it would have to completely contradict what Darwin said.
Click to expand...

And yet biologists say it can. Perhaps the video is no longer available, but you can use google to find Richard Dawkins and get the info.

"I am really not interested in watching some pinhead who calls himself a scientist, tell me about his theory of how a primitive eye spot "evolved" into a human eye. I am sure it is fun and entertaining to pinhead disbelievers of ID, but I am more knowledgeable on the subject."

You are more knowledgeable than a professor of biology at Oxford? Dixie, even for you that is a laughable claim.
 
The video is available if you click it and follow it to the youtube page. Besides, I already linked him to the Wiki article about the evolution of the eye. And guess what? He responded by saying that he's more of an expert than an Oxford University evolutionary biology professor. Amazing.
 
Waterbaby said:
It's just so very silly that you should use the eye as an example, being that that's exactly the example Darwin used in his chapter that set out to disprove critics who were talking about "non-adaptive features", IE "irreducible complexity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_descent_of_man#Apparently_non-adaptive_features
Click to expand...

Yes Waterhead... Like I said... 150 FUCKING YEARS AGO! Back then, we didn't understand the complexity of the human eye and how it worked! It was plausible back then, and Darwin indeed made an objective evaluation based on current understanding, but technology came along and proved the eye to be much more complex an organ than Darwin anticipated. This, according to his own words (posted above) renders his theory regarding evolution of the eye, completely invalid.

You are running around with antiquated theories which have been disproved, claiming they are valid and legitimate! 150 years ago, doctors carried arsenic in their medicine bags to treat various illnesses! This was back when people routinely "bled" themselves to cure ailments! Nuclear medicine had not even been envisioned... microscopes were primitive... Penicillin had yet to be discovered! Yet, here you are with some dusty old 150-year-old book, claiming it trumps modern science and technology! Fucking astounding!
 
ib1yysguy said:
The video is available if you click it and follow it to the youtube page. Besides, I already linked him to the Wiki article about the evolution of the eye. And guess what? He responded by saying that he's more of an expert than an Oxford University evolutionary biology professor. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Well, if an Oxford professor want to argue that a primitive photocell eyespot somehow had the wisdom and knowledge to create a lens, cornea and retina for itself, because it knew mere sensation from light stimulation wasn't adequate, and it needed to be able to project a focused image onto the optic nerve in order to see things... then yeah, I think I am more of an expert.

What you are proposing, defies Darwin's theories completely. He maintained that species, through natural selection and adaptation, advanced in ways conducive to survival. He carefully laid out a case, which was widely refuted by science at the time, for his theories. In his own words, he said if an organ proved to be so complex that the changes couldn't naturally have occurred in incremental steps over generations, then his theory failed. The human eye is immensely more complex than a primitive photocell eyespot, they don't even work in the same manner.
 
Dixie said:
Yes Waterhead... Like I said... 150 FUCKING YEARS AGO! Back then, we didn't understand the complexity of the human eye and how it worked! It was plausible back then, and Darwin indeed made an objective evaluation based on current understanding, but technology came along and proved the eye to be much more complex an organ than Darwin anticipated. This, according to his own words (posted above) renders his theory regarding evolution of the eye, completely invalid.

You are running around with antiquated theories which have been disproved, claiming they are valid and legitimate! 150 years ago, doctors carried arsenic in their medicine bags to treat various illnesses! This was back when people routinely "bled" themselves to cure ailments! Nuclear medicine had not even been envisioned... microscopes were primitive... Penicillin had yet to be discovered! Yet, here you are with some dusty old 150-year-old book, claiming it trumps modern science and technology! Fucking astounding!
Click to expand...

And if the theory of evolution had been left completely as Darwin wrote it, and no further research had been done, you might have a valid point.

But science is dynamic. The theory of evolution has been researched, and modified as each new piece of data showed the need to do so.
 
Dixie said:
Well, if an Oxford professor want to argue that a primitive photocell eyespot somehow had the wisdom and knowledge to create a lens, cornea and retina for itself, because it knew mere sensation from light stimulation wasn't adequate, and it needed to be able to project a focused image onto the optic nerve in order to see things... then yeah, I think I am more of an expert.
Click to expand...

If that were what he said, I would agree that he is a pinhead.

But that is so far from the truth as to be unrelated. Cells do not have wisdom & knowledge. They do not create things for themselves, much less do so because of what they "know".

When you put evolution into those terms, you do not prove your point, you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Jeez Dixie, let it go before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
 
Solitary said:
If that were what he said, I would agree that he is a pinhead.

But that is so far from the truth as to be unrelated. Cells do not have wisdom & knowledge. They do not create things for themselves, much less do so because of what they "know".

When you put evolution into those terms, you do not prove your point, you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Jeez Dixie, let it go before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

My dear Sol, once again you mistake what I have said for what you are saying. I fully understand the principles of science, biology, and evolution. This is why I am arguing that what you are claiming isn't possible. I merely articulated or 'mirrored' what I am hearing from you. The argument from your side is, these primitive photocell eyespots 'evolved' over time, into complex human eyes, and for them to do so, they would simply have to have wisdom and knowledge, to understand the complexity of what components they needed to become human eyes, and how they had to change their functionality. I agree, that is a bit kooky and corny, which is why I am adamantly arguing against it.
 
Solitary said:
And if the theory of evolution had been left completely as Darwin wrote it, and no further research had been done, you might have a valid point.

But science is dynamic. The theory of evolution has been researched, and modified as each new piece of data showed the need to do so.
Click to expand...

My point was a response to Waterhead, who articulated a point from Darwin. Again, I clearly understand much research has been done since the 100+ years ago when Darwin penned his theories. In fact, if you bother to read my post without your biased filters applied, you might actually see where I refuted Waterhead with that very point.
 
Dixie said:
My dear Sol, once again you mistake what I have said for what you are saying. I fully understand the principles of science, biology, and evolution. This is why I am arguing that what you are claiming isn't possible. I merely articulated or 'mirrored' what I am hearing from you. The argument from your side is, these primitive photocell eyespots 'evolved' over time, into complex human eyes, and for them to do so, they would simply have to have wisdom and knowledge, to understand the complexity of what components they needed to become human eyes, and how they had to change their functionality. I agree, that is a bit kooky and corny, which is why I am adamantly arguing against it.
Click to expand...

For them to have evolved does not mean they had to have wisdom & knowledge. If you understand the principles of science, biology, and evolution (as you say you do), then you would know that.

They did not change their own functionality. The next generation was slightly (or more) different, giving them an advantage.
 
Dixie said:
My point was a response to Waterhead, who articulated a point from Darwin. Again, I clearly understand much research has been done since the 100+ years ago when Darwin penned his theories. In fact, if you bother to read my post without your biased filters applied, you might actually see where I refuted Waterhead with that very point.
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who refused to look at the evidence proposed by a world renowned biologist who is a professor at one of the finest universities in the world, accusing me of having biased filters is laughable.
 
Dixie said:
"Debunked" is a word used to describe something that has been disproved, and science neither proves or disproves.
Click to expand...

Sure I can. Watch me. "ID has been debunked as science." That's a true statement and nothing you are going to say is going to change that basic fact.
 
Mottleydude said:
Sure I can. Watch me. "ID has been debunked as science." That's a true statement and nothing you are going to say is going to change that basic fact.
Click to expand...

Disproving is exactly what science does. Proving something is almost impossible in science, unless you provide such narrow parameters that you have a very select example. And even then, unless you can account for all possible variables, you cannot prove something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top