A short quiz on Intelligent Design for both advocates and opponents of ID

_{Vincent Torley

August 11, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)

Update: When I say “certain features”, I mean, “certain generic features of the universe-as-a-whole (e.g. constants of Nature) and of living things in general (e.g. the specified complexity of DNA”. When I say “an undirected process” I mean a process lacking long-range foresight.

2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?

3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?

4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.)

(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.)

Some guidelines for answers:

Please try to keep your answers brief – no more than 200 words per question. Less than 50 would be ideal.

Anonymous responses are perfectly fine, and participants’ privacy will be fully respected.

I’m afraid I don’t have any prizes to offer. I’d just like to hear what people think.

If you have any further questions, or if you are unable to respond to the quiz online, then please feel free to email me. See my Web page.

Comments

Ms. Liddle, I'm sorry but this seems like calling white black: "but that that design process is the one we’ve already postulated, namely replication with variance in heritable ability to thrive in the current environment."Collin_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

1. I place myself at a 5. Certain features of the universe and the world as we seem them now are best explained by an intelligent cause -- usually us. 2. The best argument for intelligent design is the fact that we can identify intelligence in ourselves and, to varying levels, in other life forms. If there's intelligence here on Earth, then I think there probably should be intelligence elsewhere in the universe. 3. Two items: (a) the preponderance of workable and productive theories that don't require invoking an ID; and (b) the lack of definition to the "edge of ID," the areas where we know that ID specifically is NOT the explanation. While biological evolution doesn't penetrate into areas where human beings overtake nature and mitigate natural processes, ID seems not to any such boundary--absolutely anything and everything could potentially be the product of an intelligent agent's activity and intervention (if not intent). 4&5 - Examples of artifacts/events that are clearly demonstrated to be the product of ID and compared (this is the key element, the comparison) to artifacts/events that are clearly demonstrated not to be the product of ID. In other words, I want to see someone say "X is clearly designed, and this is how we know; Y is clearly not designed, and this is how we know; Z is the method we can use to make reliable distinctions between things that are and are not ID." 6(a) - Most anything can be made to seem rational, given proper frame and tone. We people are terrific at making arguments and connecting things that would otherwise seem unconnected. The key question is not overall rationality but rather how strong the connection is between the conclusion reached and the evidence/assumptions used to support the conclusion. 6(b) - Same answer as 6(a).LarTanner_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

You have not described "intelligent design", you have only asserted the existence of an explanation which does not rely on an "undirected process". Without knowledge of something positive about the supposed explanation, saying anything about it would be idle.TomS_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

1. 0 2. Neither science, nor the Bible supports it? 3. No scientific evidence. 4. Data. We need data. 5. Christians need to have a better understanding of scientific method and the evidence for evolution. 6. Sorry, I'm a Christian who accepts the science of evolution, so I don't qualify for this question "(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design?" Wait, I see what you're doing here. You're saying if you don't believe ID, you don't believe that God explains life and the cosmos? Baloney! I believe the best explanation for life and the cosmos is God. That's NOT mutually exclusive with accepting the science of evolution! What heresy to reject evolution and use the bible to create lies about what we have learned about God's creation! I am not ashamed of the Gospel, nor am I ashamed of scientific evidence! But I am ashamed of the charade of Intelligent Design and how it has embarrassed and reduced the intellectual standing of Christians around the world. Also, please take my similar quiz on your beliefs about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!.johnfromberkeley_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

1. 10 (or as certain as I can be about any form of reasoning or matter of fact and existence). 2. Things like Stonehenge, a Termite’s nest or a Crop Circle demonstrate enough functional specified irreducible complexity to 100% rule out any possibility that they made themselves, blindly, naturalistically, by accident. The only alternative explanation is that they are a product of Intelligent Design. Things like the cell (and all structures composed of cells) have far greater functional specified irreducible complexity therefore we can be even more certain that they did not make themselves by accident. They can only be a product of Intelligent Design. 3. There is only one argument against ID: evolution. But that argument was wrong when Darwin advanced it and, it is even more wrong now that 21st century science has withdrawn all empirical support for it. 4. Arguments for Intelligent Design should be left simple: let the astounding facts of cell biology speak for themselves. Do not get drawn into wild goose chases about the definition of ‘information’ or demands for ‘mathematical proof’. Evolutionists have never satisfied these requirements, so why should anyone else? Keep bringing it back to things like the cell: that is what has to be explained by those who say it just somehow made itself by accident. If they’re allowed to go off on unimportant and frankly irrelevant tangents, then they can avoid dealing with the main, central arguments for ID in the 21st century. 5. Arguments for evolution do not rest upon observational fact or experimental results. They are merely a repetition of the mantra that Natural Selection acting upon Random Mutations can turn a single-celled common ancestor into a human being. Without supporting observations and experiments, this is nothing more than wishful thinking. Let’s talk about the evidence and follow it where it leads. Let’s not talk about the inability of evolutionists to separate scientific fact from science fiction. 6. (a) Descartes’ Demon Doubt: that reality is an illusion brought on by a demon toying with my soul in a jar!Chris Doyle_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Nice questions :) OK:
1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)
I'm going to quibble and say that I think that evolution is an intelligent system, and even "directed" in the sense that it moves populations towards adaptation to their current environment. So in that sense I'm a 10. However, if you are asking for my level of belief that some external intelligent system, not intrinsic to evolutionary processes themselves, explains the features of the living things, then I guess I'm a .00001 on that - I wouldn't rule out some kind of deliberate alien genetic engineering I guess. As for the existence of the universe, itself, 0.
2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?
The lack, as yet, of a good OOL theory - or, if you like, the lack, as yet, of clear evidence that that the simplest entity capable of Darwinian evolution with sufficient viable heritable variance to probe the kinds adaptations that we see is simple enough to have arisen from chemistry, physics and chance.
3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?
The huge explanatory power of theories that do not require it.
4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
Well, I think several of them need to be thrown out entirely. I think CSI is useless, for many reasons. Ditto IC, though that has a little more potential. I think common descent is so well supported that any ID theory needs to work within that, perhaps by positing a role for the ID that guides evolution within common descent pathways, possibly by "injecting" candidate novelties at appropriate times. I don't think frontloading works - or at least, it presents an easily testable hypothesis that should be tested, and, if falsfied, rejected. There doesn't seem to be much reason to think it wouldn't be. I think scoffing at Common Descent is counterproductive - especially as at least some prominent ID proponents accept it. If you really think Common Descent is unsupported then the arguments really need tightening. I think that unless people actually deny "micro-evolution" there is then just as probabilistic arguments assuming equiprobable distributions don't work when it comes to the results of micro-evolution, they need to be seriously revised with regard to any putative result of evolution. I think the idea that all you have to do to infer a Designer is to find patterns that indicate design is seriously flawed. Science is iterative, and no biologist thinks that living things don't show exquisite functional specialisation that is certainly not due to Tornado-in-a-Junkyard type Chance. Clearly something interesting is going on. The question is: "what?" What kind of design process would produce the patterns that we see, including longitudinal patterns? Is there evidence of intention? What is it? My own view, as I've said, is that the answer is: yes,these things are the result of a design process, but that that design process is the one we've already postulated, namely replication with variance in heritable ability to thrive in the current environment.
5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
People should stop denying evidence of design (or at least make sure everyone is using the term in the same way). Clearly biological things are the product of a process that must closely resemble human design processes. Populations constantly adapt to changing environments, just as human designs do (look at the changes in car design for instance, initial changes making them just go better, more recently subtle changes related to current environmental pressures, including price of gas, fashion, size of families, speed limits, etc). So clearly the processes producing human artefacts have a huge amount in common with the processes producing biological artefacts. This needs to be clearly acknowledged, and, indeed, Darwin pointed it out. Also, people should stop fixating on DNA as the sole vector of inheritance. DNA is a just one cog in the system, and on its own, does nothing. It's a database, but useless without the cell. Listen to this (applies to both Darwinists and IDists!): http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/ Or read his book, but this will save you buying the book (it's only a long essay, really).
6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.) (b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.)
The only reason I think ID is irrational, at bottom, is that it is non-parsimonious. Plus many of the arguments I think are actually bad (CSI for instance, and other probabilistic arguments). Most of the alternatives are worse (except for the last, maybe, which has something going for it as a model IMO).Elizabeth Liddle_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

1. 10 2. A combination of CSI, IC and fine tuning. If I have to narrow these down I would say that the existence of CSI in DNA is the most rigorous. 3. I don't think there are any good ones. The best might be if materialists had good arguments for material processes accounting for CSI, IC and fine tuning. 4. I would say that more people who are scientifically inclined need to come on board and take the academic risks necessary to give ID the exposure it deserves. 5. Darwinists need to simply falsify the best arguments for ID. 6. (a) Multiverse. (b) n/aCannuckianYankee_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Good questions. 1. 9.99 2. Intuition towers above IC which comes in second. It's the most layered and intricate aspect of thought. 3. How is God all powerful if he's trapped in a universe of self evident laws? 4. I don't know, but on a related note I'd like to see less pandering. Establish a new two tiered peer review to include more speculative work and don't look back. Get that work into Christian private school textbooks and homeschool textbooks. Peer review is a social-political lever. 5. Express them cogently for once, like #3. 6a. The collective immaterial minds cause all material manifestations without a god needed. That's an ID option though.lamarck_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

1.On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.) ------------------- fG: Unable to answer because of insufficiently defined terms and false dichotomy. Does intelligent cause equal intentional cause? Can non-living causes be intelligent? Why is the only choice presented intelligent cause vs. undirected process? It is possible that all processes in the universe are directed, (perhaps excluding quantum effects) yet many if not all may well be undirected by any intelligence. 2.What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? -------------------- fG: The fact we know that designed things exist. 3.What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? -------------------- fG: The sloppiness in how it defines its terms, and the tendency to equivocate between various meanings. 4.I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the ---most work, to make them more effective? ---------------------- fG: Define the terms, unambiguously and non-question begging, in a way they can be used to derive empirically testable hypotheses. If you want ID to be science, that is. If that is not the ambition, still define your terms unambiguously and non-question begging, but abandon all hope of ever reaching consensus. 5.Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? ---------------------- fG: Engage the ID proposition on its own terms, for instance stop referring to ID as creationism in an attempt to win by default. There is enough sloppiness and logical incoherency in the arguments actually made by ID that such cheap arguments are unnecessary. 6.(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.) ------------------------------------ fG: The only rational answer to these questions is ‘we don’t know’. Anything else is meaningless speculation, a divisive waste of time, energy and emotion. fGfaded_Glory_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? Answer: 10. 2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? Answer: the more general is that organization implies complex specified information and CSI cannot come from chance & necessity (even less from nothingness obviously). 3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? Answer: there is no reasonable argument against ID. 4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Answer: more work could be done on principles, mathematics and the applications of ID to biology and cosmology. Also computer simulations could help. 5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Answer: see #3 6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? Answer: Platonism is pure ID. The alternatives to ID are all equally absurd.niwrad_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

1. Somewhere between 8 and 10 2. How at every level, from protein sequences to the human body, life is fundamentally a specific and functional arrangement of parts. The best argument against metaphysical materialism is consciousness / sentience. 3. I guess it would be the interesting results that appear to be examples of new information evolving. Things like Nylonase etc. Whether these are as significant as the Darwinists claim them to be is a matter of debate, but it is certainly their best argument. 4. I guess more work needs to be done in finding the 'edge' of evolution. 5. The darwinists mainly need to stop confusing the definitions of evolution. They often cite evidence for common descent as evidence against intelligent design, even though ID is neutral when it comes to descent with modification, and primarily challenges the 'blind watchmaker' idea. Their constant blurring of the meanings only discredits them. 6. (a) All the alternatives seem to be pretty faith-based to me. When it comes the fine-tuning, I guess the best argument is that we're looking at it the wrong way round. It's not that the universe was finely tuned for us, life just developed in this universe the only way it could. (b) The infinite number of universes idea. It's just logically absurd, as illustrated in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx4GZJpL8W0Scootle_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

5+ You could use the rare earth theory to say that the designer can't exist as a material agent like ourselves within this universe, therefore it must be beyond the laws of time and space, this comes awfully close to God in which case you could argue the ID is not science. I hope that makes sense. Another example is the idea of the first life...if it were so incomprehensibly small that life would arrange itself the way it did, what makes you think it did it a SECOND time somewhere in this universe. Again this is only an argument against a material designer in THIS universe. It basically boxes ID advocates into a box where they have to admit it is beyond this universe.ForJah_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

+4: Also, MORE POSITIVE RESEARCH done in the field, not just why Darwinists are wrong. Using the Scientific method start making more predictions and then see if it works out. Appealing to improbability is a negative case.ForJah_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? Answer:7 2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? Answer: Predictability in the lab, such as the functionality of Junk DNA as well as Mathematics and probability theory like Douglas Axe's work.(which I understand is an argument against evolution but let's face it, it's a forced choice, either the universe and the life inside was guided or it wasn't, I'm not aware of a third option). 3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? Answer: IC explained through gradual steps. 4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Answer:The design inference needs to be addressed more. I hear very little about it and when I discuss ID with atheists and evolutionists they always go back to the "who designed the designer argument which seems to be questioning the legitimacy of the Design reference(Of course this is not a scientific argument anymore, it's philosophical). Also, PLEASE stop wasting your time arguing against how mean and nasty evolutionists are, it's like crying to your mom. We all know that people shouldn't talk like that but is spending paragraphs on how mean they are really a great help to your argument? 5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Stop appealing to extrapolation of microbial and micro-evolutionary data. Point out more studies where information is ADDED to the genome, not just taken away or altered. 6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.) In a "world" of infinite time the probability for all things to occur is 1.(multi-verse)ForJah_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

1. 9.5 - Nothing is certain, but I've never found a good reason to doubt ID. 2. Very simple - consciousness. We can consciously make choices, feel, experience, etc. These things both require explanation and are themselves explanation. 3. Wagner's idea that functions are largely close together and connected in DNA-space. 4. I think we need to focus on the principle distinction between ID and materialism - ID takes choice as a real entity in the Universe, and materialism does not. This point needs to be emphasized. Additionally, ID'ers need to work on making applications of ID, and, ideally, mathematical propositions that lead to heuristics in other parts of science (more than just "is it designed" - a set of heuristics that can tell us more about X itself than we already know). 5. The arguments need to connect variation to large-scale evolutionary behavior. Agassiz pointed out before Darwin that many general body plans exist in nearly every habitat, so it is silly to think that the needs of the organism drove, in any way, the habitat choice. For large-scale evolution to be plausible, a mechanism will need to be proposed that isn't woefully insufficient. 6a. Two responses. (1) Shapiro's "Third Way". It recognizes the problem, and actually proposes a solution. (2) I'm not sure if this response isn't also an ID response, but it is certainly outside the norm -- pantheism or panpsychism. One could propose that the universe itself, and all matter, had some semblance of a psyche. Therefore, design could exist without an identifiable designer. (3) Margulis' evolution by symbiogenesis is pretty good, but still leaves many of the same holes as Darwinism.johnnyb_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

1. 1 (I think I can see how it has persuaded people – so not zero) 2. That is a bit like asking what is the best argument for astrology. In my view all the arguments I have seen are fallacious and you can't be more or less fallacious. I think the one that is hardest to see the fallacy is the oldest – how extraordinary that life should be assembled in such a complicated way to achieve its objectives. 3. The continuing success of other explanations including but not limited to traditional RM+NS. 4. ID needs some proper hypotheses explaining how, when and ideally who which can then be evaluated. 5. Just keep on improving the science. 6. (b) All of the ones you list would do.markf_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

1) 2 2)The problem of the first single cellular life. If it ends up being extra-terrestrial, then perhaps it is also designed. After all, if we saw a supernova on our horizon and knew we couldn't escape, we would seed the shock wave with spores so that life could get a head start elsewhere. 3)lack of evidence of a designer and stupid "design" 4) ID's biggest problem is the unscientific appeal to mysterious unfathomable purpose to explain lousy, flawed and uncaring design. Patchwork intermittent, widely disjointed hypotheses of designer that make the designer repeatedly come and go over billions of years and negligent at other times. 5) Opposition to ID has to stop running scared out of fear to calling it a theory or of admitting evolution has weaknesses. The best evidence against design is the confusing jungle morass of the way life actually works, it obviously wasn't designed. Don't get drawn into gaps in the fossil record debates. Focus on the bulk of the evidence that is actually living. Living things were recognized as related even before evolution. Now we know they share the same genes. 6b) The multiverse is pretty irrational. The idea that there was ever nothing is irrational. I'm not sure they are more irrational than a magic time and space traveling designer, who occasionally appears and underachieves.africangenesis_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

rhampton7, I should like to apologize for my cynicism at post 13, I reread your comment and I take you to be genuine in your concerns.bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

"4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?" I think the most bang for your buck you-all could acheive is to clean up that "Chance plus Necessity" schtick. Now, I do realize that it's formulated with the main assertion of Darwinism in mind, but the truth is, there is no such thing as 'chance' -- and it seems that not a one of you are open to understanding that fact. 'Chance' is the absence of whatever it is one is talking about, 'chance' literally is nothing -- to speak of 'chance' as having caused something is exactly to say that nothing at all caused it. The Darwinists like to imagine that 'chance' gives them an escape route from the mechanical necessity which must be true of all events and states if their metaphysic were the truth about the nature of reality. You IDists should not be joining them in that false imagining.Ilion_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

note to r7; to get an better Idea of where the breaks are for 'kinds' of animals and plants, remove all the imaginary lines from fossil graphs: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graphs http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg further note: Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 also of note: Shades of baraminology So Michael Behe comes to the grand conclusion to his survey: ‘Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian evolution’ (p. 201). A diagram illustrates this (p. 218), which he reproduces on the page facing the title page of the book (figure 2). Interestingly, the creationist study of baraminology (defining the limits of the original created kinds, or baramins, of Genesis 1) has arrived at conclusions consistent with Behe’s proposition, using a different approach based on hybridization criteria, where possible, combined with morphology, etc.4 In fact, in 1976 creationist biologist Frank Marsh proposed that the created kinds (baramins) were often at the level of genus or family, although sometimes at the level of order.5 http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution ,,, though you are right about the difficulty getting harder to differentiate, because many seemingly similar species, of say butterflies, are none-the-less, when looked at the molecular level, beyond the 'edge of evolution,'bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

3. ID hasn't done enough actual science.Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

2. The best argument for intelligent design is Behe's Darwin's Black Box. We need more books or articles like that. Perhaps an online magazine devoted to systems within the cell and how they are irreducibly complex. It was readable, not too technical, people could understand the argument without having a degree in mathematics or biochemistry or molecular cell biology. This is a definite area for ID research. Identifying systems, performing knockout experiments, looking for homologs, proposing and testing possible paths. We should be developing our own database of systems. Annotate the database anytime a paper comes out concerning that system. Throw these systems in the faces of the Darwinians, perhaps even get research on them published in respected journals.Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

1. Assuming that by ID you mean the minimal definition of ID, iow, ID as science and not ID as philosophy or ID as theology, etc., I give ID about a 3. That's my level of ID as science. Apart from ID as science, my belief is 10. The reasons are legion. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything does have or even can have "a natural cause." The existence of contingent things is about as unnatural as you can get.Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

rhampton7, let's say you start off real basic and actually demonstrate that Darwinism can generate ANY non-trivial functional information whatsoever!!! Methinks until you can grasp this basic fact of reality you should not stray into deep water!bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species:
A reduction in the size of the genome neither proves nor disproves either Evolution or Intelligent Design. For ID, it needs to demonstrate must be below the edge of evolution. That's easy enough when the differences are very small or very large, but as the differences approach the theoretical edge of evolution, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine on what side of the fence it falls. I should think that the fox-wolf transition starts to enter that grey area, thought there are probably better examples. Evolution predicts that every animal, plant or cell has a naturally occurring predecessor, but ID theory predicts there will be breaks in the phylogenetic tree. Thus ID should be able to generate a map of relationships to replace the Linnaean taxonomic system.rhampton7_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

further note to r7: Besides Darwinists being severely misleading as to the fact that Natural Selection actually reduces genetic information instead of creating anything 'new', these following studies reveal the fact that Darwinian evolution cannot even account for the fact a parent species/kind will have a more 'robust genome' than its sub-species. Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon population (considered an ancient "parent" lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes. "This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992. These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the 'limited and rapid variation from a parent kind' predicted by the Genetic Entropy model: African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905 Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision - Oct. 2005 Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051011072648.htm Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852bornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

as to r7; Let's see, both natural selection and random mutations reduce genetic information,,, Natural Selection, Genetic Mutations and Information - EXPELLED - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840/ No Beneficial Mutations - Not By Chance - Evolution: Theory In Crisis - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816/ But in all the reading Ive done in the life-sciences literature, Ive never found a mutation that added information All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it. Lee Spetner - Ph.D. Physics - MIT - (Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution) "Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 mutation hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word beneficial (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed beneficial mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information. Sanford: Genetic Entropy "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED Further notes on the failure of Natural Selection to establish its legitimacy in science; https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=10WqN_Z_2GjzhPQUVe7QmcMZDPObJCG45XqgF7pZVcVM https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=10WqN_Z_2GjzhPQUVe7QmcMZDPObJCG45XqgF7pZVcVM ,,, thus since both random mutations and natural selection reduce information then discerning sub-speciation from a parent species is simply a 'top-down' affair tracing descendent relationship from initial 'top' point of design implementation:; In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species: ,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdfbornagain77_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

I want to see ID theorists make a robust determination of micro- versus macro-evolution amongst living flora and fauna. Presently, ID theory does not seem to be able to make real-world predictions/assessments except as an unsatisfying generality. Particularly beneficial would be a demonstration of ID's ability to determine the status of seemingly closely related animals. For example, if the transition of wolf to dog is a case of microevolution (and how does one demonstrate that to be so?), then what is the transition of fox to wolf? For that matter, what are the transitions between the many fox species? (Unlike their canine cousins, there is a great divergence in karyotypes) Are some, none or all Fox species examples of micro-evolution? By tackling these difficult but illustrative examples - accessible to the common man - ID will have practical use an effective tool to test evolutionary relationships. This is important because, whereas Evolutionary theory has its Phyologenetic tree, ID has no map of relationships to offer as a counterproposal.rhampton7_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

3. Best argument against ID: "Sh*t happens." 5. How to make anti-ID arguments more effective: I think their best bet is to go back to manufacturing phony missing-links. Look at Piltdown Man -- that one had'em fooled for decades! Why should they go through all the effort of actually coming up with rational arguments in favor of Darwinismn when even the best of them can't rise above the level of "pathetic." Forget arguments. A new ape-man, that's the ticket.George R._{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design?
10 minus 10^-150.
2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?
IC, SC, Cosmological fine tuning.
3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?
Who designed the designer?
4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design...Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
Elucidation of biological sophistication at the cellular level via visual media. Focus more on showing the public the things we observe which are unequivocally designed. Everybody knows that motors, and the factories that make them, don’t evolve -- same as they know the sky is blue.
5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design...Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
Abandon self-referential absurdity, question begging, and theological arguments in favor of Darwinian evolution. Avoid at all costs exposing materialism’s utter failure to account for the origin of the first, stunningly sophisticated, data processing, self-replicating, exquisite example of design.
6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos?
Unrestricted multiverse.
I’m afraid I don’t have any prizes to offer. I’d just like to hear what people think.
I’ll take your recently acquired copy of The Nature of Nature when you’re done reading it. m.i.
material.infantacy_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply