Intelligent Design

[Phadrus00]

It posits no testable hypothesis.

For the sake of argument (dare I say, "Devil's Advocate"?), neither does evolution. : )

May I counter to say that it does..Absolutely.

We can see evolution in action among insect populations that devlop resistance to pesticides over generations. We see it in bactieria and viruses that develop new strains. We are on the edge of our collective seats over the Bird Flu because we know that the forces of evolution are pushing that virus in many random directions and some of them will be very hazardous to us.

Evolution works at a lot of different speeds, some very slow, some very fast but it clearly DOES WORK and the hypotheses of Natural Selection are testable and verifyable. As a matter of fac they have spawned whole new branches of Computer Science where programs are developed using "Genetic Algorythms". Small sequences of code are allowed to mingle and exchange sequences and then each generation is culled, selecting favorable traits towards a larger goal (sorting efficientcy for example). Over many generations programs emerge that perform the task better than any current heurtistic or algorythm.

Do we understand how we can get entropy to seemingly work in reverse and move from a lower cohesive state to a higher one.. Not yet, but we can certainly show that it happens.

Rob

 

[elder999]

First off, for the time being, “Intelligent Design,” is not a theory.

Unfortunately, it’s touted as such, and I think that’s too bad-it’s lent impetus to all sorts of crazy stuff like “museums’ that espouse the idea of a “young earth” and depict man coexisting with dinosaurs by way of explanation.

What it is-or could be-and here I am explaining things in the same way that I do for my mom the shrink-is a postulate. A postulate, for those of you who don’t know, is an assumed truth, or a claim-in mathematics and science, it’s an initial basis for a theory, not the theory itself-which must, after all, be disprovable.

The word I like to use to define a postulate, when speaking to my mom, or most of you, is suggestion.

At any rate, somehow the idea has come up-that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and science-that the religious are not scientific, and that scientists are not religious. Both, of course, are simply not true. Many religious people know that the theory of evolution is probably true and trust science in general, and, as I also pointed elsewhere, many scientists are religious.

The contradiction is when, as in the case of how ID is used-you try to mix the two.

It is not, and, for the time being cannot be the place of any science to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, god, Creator, giant foot from another dimension, or even little pink bunnies on the moon.

There was, of course, once a time when there was no DNA testing, and we didn’t even know what DNA was-and, just as those things came to be, there may come a time when science can prove or disprove, once and for all, the existence of such a being.

For the time being, however all anyone-scientist, person of faith, or Bible-thumping whack-job-can do is suggest the notion-it’s not disprovable (or, for that matter, in any way provable), so it’s not a theory, and pretty clearly has no place in a science class.

So what’s it good for?

Well, that’s sort of like asking why the sky is blue. Really.

Now, the short, “religious” answer is “because God wants it that way.”

And the scientific answer is Rayleigh scattering- look it up, I’m not going to bother explaining;trust me, or look here ; it’s Rayleigh scattering.

If Rayleigh had left it, as people of his time were wont to do, at “because God ..whatever,” well, it would be called something or other else scattering, because someone would have figured it out, but that’s not the point. The point is that for the religious person, evolution, Rayleigh scattering, X-rays, gravity ad infinitum, ad nauseum can be thought of (suggested to be, postulated) the mechanisms by which the (equally postulated) creator/God/giant foot/supreme being fostered and fosters the creation-part of his grand design.

"Grand design," some of you might say-what about the end of life of the sun, what about the human bodies faults, what about sex-what (and this one is one of my favorite pet peeves) about goddamn knees?

(As a side note, at times I’m certain that knees were an afterthought-or a cruel joke on His part.)

As an engineer, I have to say that all of those things are often part of a good design-design life, inherent instabilities for various purposes, etc.
And many of us, myself included, are living a bit past our functional design life, which, for an organism is the time it takes to rear offspring-for humans, maybe 40 years.

If the sun burning out bugs you, or your knees bug you-let it go, or blame god-or evolution, I don’t care, and it doesn't prove or disprove the Master Architect to be competent or incompetent-if there is such a being, we only can begin to comprehend his/her/its thoughts when we completely comprehend his creation-and we've got a loong way to go.

If there was a plan to all of this-it’s beyond our pea brains, and we have to make our own plans and trust-on faith-that they’re part of the design.

At any rate-these are things that make an excellent metaphysical conversation, or theological debate, but they do nothing to serve science, and for the time being science cannot serve them.

Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make them god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

As far as statistics go-I’m no statistician, and don’t really care-having had to take the same damn courses in statistics nearly a half-dozen times (what is up with that? Had to take it for the baccalaureates, had to take it for the masters, had to take it for the Ph.D. and it’s the same damn stuff every time-sometimes (twice) even the same damn book. Screw statistics.) I can say that they’re a useful tool, and, like any tool, completely manipulable. And, while statistics is a tool it is also a science, and, as I’ve said before-and elsewhere-it is not, and cannot be (for the time being) the place of science to prove or disprove the existence of-well, you get the picture...............

 

[jazkiljok]

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,

That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see are moving at a million miles a day

In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour, Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars. It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.

It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick, But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point. We go 'round every two hundred million years,

And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz

As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,

'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.



Eric Idle, "the galaxy song"

 

[KOROHO]

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is also impossible to prove and it actually defies science.
Biological Science tells us that life can only come from pre-exisiting life.
But the same science tries to tell us that at one time there was nothing. That nothing exploded and created a universe and the first life which in turn evolved into other living creatures, then into the first man and then evolution stopped.
To me, it takes a lot more faith to believe that than to believe God designed and created all life.

If you look at the complexity of the human body and how inteligently and efficient it works, it is hard for me to imagine that it was just a random accident.

If it were not for an inteligent design, the first life form would have died before it lived long enough to evolve into anything else.

I read an article that was written by a Pastor who was a Dentist and had a degree in Biology. In the article he addresses inteligent design and used the example of the giraffe.

The giraffe has a very long neck to be able to reach up into the trees to get the leaves he eats. When he puts his head down to drink water a lot of blood rushes down his neck towards his head. If all that blood made it to his head, he would die. To avoid dying while getting a drink of water, there's a little valve in his neck that prevents the blood from just rushig to his head. Then when he lifts his head up, the valve releases again.
This is inteligent design. Without the valve, the first giraffe would have died and there would be no more.

So either the first giraffe knew he needed the valve and conciously grew it, or the creator of the giraffe knew he would need the valve and put it in there. This is inteligent design - giving different creatures different forms and building into them the features that they would need to survive.

The word of God tells us that God created Man and Woman, Adam and Eve. We also know from reading that they were never children. They were created as adults. We also know from reading that there were plants and animals there for them to eat. The only safe assumption is that these plants and animals were also mature. If not, there would have been nothing for them to eat. They could not go hungry waiting for plants and animals to mature.

God created the earth in a mature form. He then created all the plants, animals and man, making sure that each had what it needed to survive.

He created the human body with a heart, a ciculatory system, lungs, stomache, kidneys, brain, nervous system, etc. And they all worked flawlessly together from the start. Again, if not, the first humans would have died and there would be no more. There was an obvious inteligence behind the creation of the first man and woman.

 

[John Brewer]

Science and the laws of thermodynamics claim that the universe is in a constant state of decay. Yet we are incrementally becoming better through the process of evolution? If we are becoming better why do we still have the same problems that have plagued mankind forever? If we have been evolving for the millions or billions of years claimed (incrementally) where are the millions and billions of fossil records that would be required? I think that man has the same problems as he did in the beginning, Sin.

Jesus:
Lunatic
Liar
LORD

You Choose

 

[pstarr]

Thermodynamics tells us that any system put in motion will begin to decay. The same science tells us that we're actually getting better with time...?

No, I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in intelligent design. Dr. Leaky was asked about this and he agreed that evolution, per se, is actually a form of religion itself. However, he stated that he would not believe in a supreme being because he just couldn't stand the thought of the existence of such a being...he preferred to believe in that which he admitted is unprovable and unlikely...

 

[Adept]

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is also impossible to prove and it actually defies science.
Biological Science tells us that life can only come from pre-exisiting life.
But the same science tries to tell us that at one time there was nothing. That nothing exploded and created a universe and the first life which in turn evolved into other living creatures, then into the first man and then evolution stopped.

Please seek out your educational institute. They have a lot to answer for.

 

[KOROHO]

Please seek out your educational institute. They have a lot to answer for.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to say.
I'm assuming you are a product of the same failed public education system that pushes the "theory" of evolution as though it were fact. If it were fact it would surely be proven by now. The problem is that they get further and further from proving it as time goes by.

These "scientists" are so hell-bent on "proving" evolution they even have to fake things to support thier ideas. Here's just 1 example. And there are many more.

There was another time out in Nebraska where a group of people claiming to be researchers found a tooth durig a dig. They claimed that tooth was from an early human and from that tooth they drew pictures of what this man, his wife and even children looked like. The built a model of the the village they lived in and described what kind of diet they ate. They said this proved eveolution. Then it was discovered that the tooth was from a wild pig.

These "researchers" go around digging things up. They find an old bone somewhere and later on find another bone 5 miles away. They then claim that they found skelatal remains that "prove evolution". But seprate bones are not proof of anything, other than the desperate need for people to "prove evolution" at any cost.

If they ever turn up a skeleton of an animal that's 1/2 fish and 1/2 money then find another skeleton that's 1/2 monkey and 1/2 man, then I might look further into this.

There is a reason why even Darwin himself abandoned the theory. He understood that it could never be proven.

If it can't be proven it should not be taught in schools as though it has been. That is just academic fraud.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in God and that he created man.
But in looking at the scientific evidence, it takes more faith to believe in evolution. At that, it is a misplaced faith in people who use "evolution" as a means to persue personal and political agendas, which historically include a specific anti-Christian agenda. I see very few articles on evolution that do not devote a few sentences to spewing anti-Christian hatred. When the agenda is so blatant, it casts great doubt on the validity of thier "research".

In looking at the science, Creationism is a far more rational thought than evolution. Yet, people cling to the very same science that defies that defies "the big bang theory" and evolution and say that it is proof. That is insanity.

 

[Dionysianexile]

Evolution is not just a theory, it is a law, just like gravity is a law of physics, evolution is a law of biology. It has been shown, demonstrated, and proven time and time again.

Evolution is not something that occurs "randomly" or "accidentally". Evolution occurs purposefully, with direction. Evolution works by selecting for traits that lead to successful survival and reproduction.

As for the giraffe, the little flap that blocks the blood most likely didnt evolve overnight, because thats not how it works. Same with the length of the neck, these were things that were probably starting to evolve along with the ancestors of the giraffe. More than likely, earlier giraffe's had shorter necks, and when they bent down to drink, blood did rush to their heads. But some giraffe's had a small peice of flesh that slowed this flow, and they were allowed to drink longer because of this, making them "better" giraffes. This peice of flesh was "selected" for, and over time the more it was selected for, the more it grew in future generations, as did the length of the neck, until you have what we see now as the modern giraffe.

This is basic evolution, traits are selected for and passed onto future generations, it happens with man as well. Evolution did not stop with man, it continued on, that is how we have the different skin tones. Evolution is not a process that stopped with man, man is still evolving, as is every other animal.

The beliefe of a higher being, especially in the christian sense does not require one to exclude evolution, just as evolution does not require one to dismiss the notion of a higher being. What evolution and science does require s that one takes certain biblical stories and understand them to be religious myth, and not factual accounts of what has happened.

Science as a whole has not dismissed the notion of a higher being, it merely has not uncovered evidence thereof.

--------------


I have never heard of this pigs tooth story, and i wouldnt call it proof of evolution either.

Evolution is something that acts on all living organisms, man included. It seems that ID places man above the animals, a scala natirae of modern sorts.

Your tooth story, however, does not debunk evolution, but does show a bad researcher making poor choices. It is true that the complete evolutionary history of man is unknown. This is because the fossil record is highly incomplete, for every several hundreds of thousands of a member of species, we may have one fossil. this doesnt mean that evolution doesnt occur, just that the fossil record is incomplete.

You say that darwin abandoned his own theory, where does he do this? Darwin aknowledged the repercussions that his theory would have, but at the same time, he whole heartedly believed in evolution. He knew it occured, but when he first postulated it, he didnt know by what mechanism it acted. Darwin knew evolution happed, and had seen its consequences first hand when he observed the now famous finches in the galapagos.

You say that much of the research published on evolution bashes christianity. Much of what Ive read makes little if no comment about religion, unless that is one of the subjects at hand. Most scholarly journals would reject a paper that showed such a blatent "anti-christian agenda."

Where is science defying evolution? I wont touch on big bang, because frankly, that is not an area that I study.

My personal belief? I cannot say what is out there, I will claim agnosticism. I believe it is illogical to choose a side at this time, a time in which i have not seen any good, solid, empirical data to sway me in either direction.

 

[Adept]

I'm not sure what you are attempting to say.
I'm assuming you are a product of the same failed public education system that pushes the "theory" of evolution as though it were fact. If it were fact it would surely be proven by now.

It is, and it has been. Hell, I caused a group of flies to evolve during the course of my senior year at high school, as part of my biology class. It isn't rocket science.

Ever heard of penicillin resistant bacteria? The product of evolution. Chocolate labradors? Evolution. Brightly goloured guppies? Evolution. Evolution occurs, full stop.

The only question is, is evolution responsible for the biological diversity we see today?

When literal creationism, or even intelligent design is offered up as the alternative, one has to give the balance of probabilities to evolution.

For the sake of argument, lets try a little experiment. Without referring to the bible, or drawing any arguments from the bible, can you provide me with some evidence for creationism?

As a seperate issue, could you explain how you resolve the Great Flood conundrum within your own mind?

people cling to the very same science that defies that defies "the big bang theory" and evolution and say that it is proof. That is insanity.

The scientific method is simply the process of designing the theory to best fit the evidence to hand. If you can provide some evidence that indicates the most likely cause of the universe was an old man with a beard sitting in the sky, then I'm sure the scientific community would be eager to hear from you. Of course, the bible doesn't count as proof any more than newspaper tabloids count as proof of Bigfoot or alien abductions.

 

[pstarr]

Bear in mind that MICROevolution and MACROevolution are two separate and very distinct things. Microevolution (evolution within a species) is fact and provable. Macroevolution (amoeba to ape to man and so forth) is nothing more than a theory and has never been proven.

The leading evolutionists admit - to a man - that (macro)evolution is a theory. It is NOT, according to them, scientific fact (although they'd like it to be and they keep working at it).

It has never been proven and violates the so-called scientific method which requires that one be able to observe the process and reproduce it.

Many years ago various bones were brought in - something like a piece of a jaw, a piece of a cranium, a femur, and one other bone - and "Lucy" was born. She was supposed to be part of the so-called evolutionary process between apes and homo sapiens.

What is generally not known is that Lucy's bones were found spread over a five mile radius!

Somebody's trying to make a monkey out of you...

 

[Hand Sword]

With regards to Lucy, recently it's been shown that she is not part of that. Another, older, different form was found. The Eureka was in the teeth and jaw bone. Pitted next to a modern human's, you couldn't tell the difference. Same size and shape. Lucy's were larger. To keep Lucy in the same family means evolution would have had to change sizes a few times and quickly. Something not done according to scientists. So, I guess she's out of the mix, considered a dead end. It was on the discovery channel awhile back.

 

[pstarr]

Yes, but for many years Lucy was touted as THE find...and now it's something different.

The fact is that macroevolution is, as admitted by the world's foremost authorities on the subject, a theory.

The problem that I have is that it is taught to schoolchildren as undeniable, scientifically-proven fact. And that simply isn't true.

Top-notch evolutionists have agreed that believing in evolution requires a great deal of faith.

So does belief in intelligent design.

Just as intelligent design cannot be scientifically proven, neither has evolution.

So if we're going to present one theory that is faith-based in schools, why not also present the other?

It's because someone has an agenda.

 

[Hand Sword]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any point, just passing on an update from the Lucy thing.

 

[Kane]

Yes, but for many years Lucy was touted as THE find...and now it's something different.

The fact is that macroevolution is, as admitted by the world's foremost authorities on the subject, a theory.

The problem that I have is that it is taught to schoolchildren as undeniable, scientifically-proven fact. And that simply isn't true.

Top-notch evolutionists have agreed that believing in evolution requires a great deal of faith.

So does belief in intelligent design.

Just as intelligent design cannot be scientifically proven, neither has evolution.

So if we're going to present one theory that is faith-based in schools, why not also present the other?

It's because someone has an agenda.

Are you Christian? If not what is your religious beliefs?

 

[Kane]

For pstarr and anyone else that doesn't know (or in denial), ALL of science accepts and supports evolution. Show me one top notch scientist that claims evolution is faith? I believe you are confusing things. Evolution is a scientific theory/fact. Intelligent Design is a philosophy (motivated by Christian fundamentalists) that cannot accept evolution.

The Creation vs Evolution debate really in the religious community only. The scientific community and academia oppose evolution (As reported in Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".

Furthermore and overwhelming majority of the scientific community regard evolution as pseudoscience and junk science. Here is a list of scientific societies that reject intelligent design;

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

Over 70 scientific societies, institutions and other professional groups have issued statements supporting evolution education and opposing intelligent design.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals "[T]he lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."[1]
  • 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution: "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific “alternatives” to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."[2]

• American Association of University Professors "deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution." [3]

• American Astronomical Society
  • 2005 letter sent to President George W. Bush by society President, Dr. Robert P. Kirshner: "'Intelligent design' isn’t even part of science – it is a religious idea that doesn’t have a place in the science curriculum." [4]
  • 2005 statement on the Teaching of Evolution: ""Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers. Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools." [5]

• American Chemical Society The ACS includes 159,000 chemists and chemical engineers. "urges... State and local education authorities to support high-quality science standards and curricula that affirm evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species." press release full statement

• American Geophysical Union The AGU represents over 43,000 Earth and space scientists. "Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory." [6]

• American Institute of Physics Governing Board policy statement supporting evolution and opposing creationism: [7]

• American Society of Agronomy The ASA represents over 10,000 members. "Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter." [8]

• American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology The ASBMB is a scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists. ""Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there." [9]

• Botanical Society of America "The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes." [10]

• Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureats Initiative A letter from 38 Nobel laureats calling upon the Kansas Board of Education to reject intelligent design. "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." [11]

• Intelligent Design is not Science Initiative A coalition organized by the Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers with signatories from the Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, and the Australian Science Teachers Association. "(Intelligent design) is a theological or philosophical notion... Evolution meets all (scientific) criteria but ID meets none of them: it is not science." [12]

• Kentucky Academy of Science states "...in the strongest and most determined ways possible deplores the decision to substitute "change over time" for "evolution" in the state teaching standards, urges that the original wording be reinstated, and decries any attempt to remove the teaching of basic evolutionary theory..." Adopted by KAS Governing Board November 6, 1999. Passed unanimously by KAS membership November 6, 1999. Unanimously approved again at its annual business meeting on November 11, 2005. The KAS also voted to endorse the October 2002 AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. [13]

• Kentucky Paleontological Society Statement on Teaching Evolution says that "KPS is opposed to any attempt to teach creationism or omit mention of evolution from public school instruction. Furthermore, evolution should be called "evolution" in curriculum guidelines and other documents; euphemisms such as "change over time" are intellectually dishonest for they attempt to conceal the terminology used by scientists." Executive Committee approved this statement in 1999. [14]

• National Science Teachers Association NSTA is a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators. "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." [15]

• Project Steve A statement signed by over 700 scientists, all named Steve. "It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools." [16]

• National Academy of Sciences
  • Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition National Academy of Sciences: "Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science" [17]
  • Letter from Bruce Alberts, President, NAS: "We stand ready to help others in addressing the increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution or to introduce non-scientific 'alternatives' into science courses and curricula. If this controversy arrives at your doorstep, I hope that you will both alert us to the specific issues in your state or school district and be willing to use your position and prestige as a member of the NAS in helping to work locally." [18]

 

[pstarr]

The statement that the scientific community and leading evolutionists accept macroevolution as scientific fact is...wrong.

You state that it's a theory/fact. It has to be one or the other. Can't be both.

And the fact is that it's pure theory. It has never been proven. It has never been observed nor has it ever been duplicated/repeated.

Many scientists may prefer the evolution theory over intelligent design, but that doesn't make it fact.

Remember, leading scientists used to teach that the world was flat, too. And that was accepted as undeniable fact.

 

[Adept]

Bear in mind that MICROevolution and MACROevolution are two separate and very distinct things. Microevolution (evolution within a species) is fact and provable. Macroevolution (amoeba to ape to man and so forth) is nothing more than a theory and has never been proven.

You never get facts in science. Only theories, some of which are more solid than others.

Evolution fits the evidence to hand. Intelligent design does not.

 

[qizmoduis]

Wow! The amount of creationist misinformation in this thread is astounding, but sadly typical. Let's take a apart just a small sampling of incorrect statements (hitting all of them will require more time than I'm willing to spend):

1. Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

There are two things wrong with this statement, not just one. This is not an unusual situation with creationists, who labor mightily to include as many wrong things in a single statement as possible. Maybe for the sake of brevity? Anyway, let's take a look at each mistake in turn.

a. The first mistake is a common one, and is done deliberately. The word "theory" has several definitions (as do many other words) which are selected from according to context. The scientific definition of the word "theory" is this (more or less):

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

However, in common usage, the word "theory" has devolved to this definition:

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Context is important here. Creationists want to make statements about scientific principles, but they refuse understand and use the tools of science to do so. To put it simply: a scientific theory IS NOT A GUESS. It's an explanatory model that is falsifiable and makes testable predictions.

The above definition of scientific theory leads into the next mistake:

b. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

Creationists constantly (and again deliberately) conflate Evolution with the Theory of Evolution, as if they were the same thing. They aren't. Evolution is an observation. A fact. Scientists have observed it in both the fossil record and in the laboratory. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain how Evolution happens.


How about this little gem from pstarr:

Remember, leading scientists used to teach that the world was flat, too. And that was accepted as undeniable fact.

Well, no. First, science didn't even exist as a discipline until the last couple of hundred years or so. Educated folks have known about the shape of the earth for the last few thousand years at least. There were certainly people who believed in the flatness of the earth, but they were simply ignorant of the facts (sounds familiar, doesn't it?), similar to modern day creationists regarding evolution.

When Columbus sought to sail west in an attempt to find a way to India, nobody believed he would fall off the edge of the world. Many people believed he was wrong about how far he would have to travel.

How about this one, again from pstarr:

The statement that the scientific community and leading evolutionists accept macroevolution as scientific fact is...wrong.

Unlike the last two sections, this is easy. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Completely, utterly, flat-out, totally, off-your-rocker, blazingly wrong. I can unequivocally state that the scientific community, with no credible exceptions, accepts the observations regarding speciation accumulated over the past two centuries. There's plenty of scientific debate about the various mechanisms, but I'm not going to get into that. See www.talkorigins.org for more information. Note: This requires actual reading and such, and not just sound bites, and requires use and understanding of actual scientific terminology and methodology.

That's enough for now. This post illustrates one of the difficulties in dealing with creationist misinformation. They pack as much wrongness as they can into small sound bites that sound pithy and full of common wisdom, but which require a certain amount of rigor, exposition, and explanation to refute. They have the sound bite advantage, which is difficult to counter in the sphere of public opinion. But like they say, nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. If you want to throw out evolution, you've got a lot of explaining to do, and sound bites ain't gonna cut it.

 

[elder999]

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is also impossible to prove and it actually defies science.
Biological Science tells us that life can only come from pre-exisiting life.
But the same science tries to tell us that at one time there was nothing. That nothing exploded and created a universe and the first life which in turn evolved into other living creatures, then into the first man and then evolution stopped.

Whoo,boy. :erg: :lol:

Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make them god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

First off, Biological science-as I understand it-does not say that life can only come from life. The idea of life coming from something other than life is called abiogenesis, and is completely separate from evolution, which is about new life proceeding from life-nothing about its origins at all, really, and supported by a plethora of evidence around the world and in the laboratory and noted by numerous others already.

As to abiogenesis, though:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/262724.stm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i10n.htm

it won't be too long at all before a scientist creates life that is undeniably "life" from a soup of chemicals.