The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Jim W N]

Intelligent design is self evident because the evidence is so overwhelming, its everywhere for all to see. The “conjecture” is on the side of your evolution which has no evidence of species jumping to another species, essential for this fraudulent theory to hold together. Its fading away because its a hoax. Even Darwin couldn’t reconcile the reality of intelligent design.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

One huge problem - there's no evidence of species jumping to another species, which is essential for evolution to hold together.

Please see the evolutionary history of the horse for which we have a quite-complete fossil record.

We see a gradual change of of a 10" tall, dog-like animal into the modern horse we see today.

The problem lies with your presumption that evolution MUST happen in "jumps". No, it happens with gradual changes over time.

Did the foot-traffic wear patterns within the Pantheon in Rome happen "suddenly" one night, or did it happen over a few millenia of constant, gentle change?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Intelligent design is self evident because the evidence is so overwhelming, its everywhere for all to see.

Please point to ONE item you consider incontrivertible proof in Nature (not made by man) that would establish Intelligent Design. Just one. If it is everywhere, it must be simple for you to type out just a single word.

[Jim W N]

Giving examples (of intelligent design pointing to an intelligent designer/creator) feels like pointing out trees in a forest, but here's a couple that I've given before:

- DNA - a miraculous and incredible amount of intelligent information and code in an infinitesimally small building-block of life.

- Your ear - The inner ear has three multi-directional nerve/sensors elegantly designed to help you keep your balance. They're called semicircular canals - three loops of fluid-filled tubes that are attached to the cochlea in the inner ear. They help us maintain our sense of balance. Each of these loops goes in a different direction, so that all three together helps maintain one's equilibrium no matter what angle your body is in.

- Any detailed study of a leaf or your eye or anything in your body or any living thing.

More evidence than the sand of the sea.

[Coyoteman]

Darwin's evolution theory is a hoax. Again, there's no evidence to support species jumping, essential in its flawed explanation of the diversity of life and the origins thereof. On the other hand evidence of intelligent design is everywhere. How long will Darwinists blindly follow their atheistic doctrine/"religion"?

You forgot to put "Amen" on the end of your sermon.

Because that is what it was -- your contention is a religious belief, and is not supported by scientific evidence.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Thank you. So how do any of those prove Intelligent Design? How do they show they could not arise from evolution?

About DNA - we know it can mutate in the presence of radiation, no? And we know that mutations can result in in negative AND positive changes in the animal. Radiation pours down on this rock all the time, 24 hours a day both as solar radiation and high-energy cosmic rays.

Does not the complexity and differences of DNA point to evolution? We see a vast amount of overlap between a chimp and human, but very little overlap between seaweed and a human. Like lifeforms tend to have closer-related DNA. Why is that?

About the ear - the frog only has two auditory structures (the amphibian and basilar papillas); the human ear has three canals, the horizontal, superior, and posterior canals (yes, I am an acoustician specializing in auditory processes...:). Yet both can sense direction and balance, quite well!

Which is correct? Could not each species have evolved its own solution that works fine? For if - by Intelligent Design - the 3 canal solution is superior why is it reserved to mammals only, and not for amphibians (we know it is not for environmental issues, for water-born mammals like whales, dolphins, and even seals - have mammilian hearing organs, and land-living amphibians like toads have frog ears).

About leaves - please tell me if the following image is evidence of Intelligent Design:

Because it certainly LOOKS like the ferns in my backyard. However, that is a pure mathematical construct! A simple sequence repeated over and over, and that sequence happened upon by chance.

So, how are any of those you posited proof of Intelligent Design; more importantly, how do they deny the theory of evolution?

Right now you are fundamentally stating that it is proof of Intelligent Design because it was Intelligently Designed. How is that different from saying it was evolved because it was evolved?

Note that both statements are equally specious! Rather, we do have science pushing the latter - if we say something is evolved, then it is incumbent to show why and how. And there is continuing research and evidence pointing to the process (see the horse evolution linked above).

So, other than you choosing observations that you feel show Intelligent Design to be self-evident (a self-sampling set of data if there ever was one), how do you explain the genetic differences between races of humans? Why are Africans tall and dark? Why are Asians mainly short and brown? And why are Norwegians blond?

Intelligent Design?

[Tramonto]

I understand that Darwinists like to use a watered down definition of evolution when it is convenient. The Darwinist version of evolution is that all life forms descended from a common ancestor through an unguided process. And that life began as a simple celled organism and evolved into more complex forms.

The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.

I could do the same thing... Intelligent Design is simply a theory that states that the origin of some systems have an intelligent cause. I you don’t believe in ID you must believe that automobiles evolved through natural unguided processes. Every one knows that cars are designed. Its settled science. ID is settled science that is indisputable. Only an ignorant anti science Darwinist would question ID. ID is a fact, depending on what the definition of is is, just like evolution.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

..... what about the observations of micro and macro evolution? Logic applied to the thought that "these two animals look similar, but have different ways of dealing with their geographically disparate environment, thus the differences in their looks and behavior arose from their environment". Does that not also work?

Micro evolution is observable. But not macro evolution. Observation and inference based on logic is one way we understand the world. Especially that part of the world that is difficult to understand experimentally.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition.

They are? How? Intelligent Design fundamentally attacks how it started. Evolution addresses how it's continued. So how are they mutually exclusive, other than the fact they address fundamentally different questions? ,/i>

Intelligent Design posits that an intelligent agent was behind the "creation event". This agent was the designer of the universe. He had the "design specs" and the "blue prints" so to speak.

Evolution (atheist version) requires information ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Neo-Darwinist's mechanism not withstanding.

Now if you posit the Deist's theory that god created evolution then you must still accept that information preceded life.

This creates some fundamental problems for evolutionists.

e.g. If it's a given that god's information thru his will created the universe (i.e. time and matter and space) then what about subsets of the universe. e.g. humans?

Or did god place the necessary information in matter that eventually found its way into our DNA?

Or is god outside of time creating and supervising his design project as we speak? The deists won't like that.

Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution. And that therefore unifies the two, meaning they are not exclusive, correct?

Correct. But that was not the prevailing opinion of evolutionists.

I said in an earlier post trying to understand evolution is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

They seem to be backing away from the ex nihilo explanation. Dawkins recently admitted such to Ben Stein in his new movie "Expelled".

Life was invented by aliens from outer space according to Dawkin's musings.

More jello on the wall.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.

So how about using these for definitions:

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Or how about from Wikipedia:
In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

Or from TalkOrigins.org:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

We'll choose those as all being essentially the same in scope and definition. So that's what evolution is. Agreed?

No fair for non-evolutionists to create the definition of evolution! For if that's the case, then non-IDers get to define exactly what Intelligent Design is.

[Fichori]

I believe in the science of Darwinism, and I believe in the story of creation as written in the Bible.

The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death.

A belief in God (or whatever you want to call it) does not deny science, but does help us reach an understanding of certain mysteries of life and nature not otherwise explainable (yet).

There are plenty of old-time articles of faith which science has rendered obsolete. Nevertheless, going back to the very beginning, there is no science (there are theories) to explain how cells found their way to connect with each other and create life. God did that. [bold emphasis mine]

The science of Darwinism says Creation didn't happen.(Or even need to)

Creation [as written in the bible] says Darwinian abiogenesis didn't happen.


Scenario:

Witness A says the defendant stole $1 from the church.
Witness B says the defendant gave $1 to the church.

I believe in the science of witness A's testimony, and I believe in the story of witness B's testimony.(paraphrase)

The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death. [excerpt]

Looks like relativism to me.

[Tramonto]

How about just using the definition: Decent from a common ancestor. Thats what the debate is about, that is what this thread is about, not the watered down bait and switch that Darwinists like to use when convenient.

[allmendream]

Amazing then that a single human alone in the world is almost helpless compared to a human on horseback with a pack of dogs and a hawk on his wrist and friends and family around him.

Even our digestive system is evidence of the value that evolution places on cooperation, being as it is filled with e. coli.

A rather poorly constructed straw-man of what evolution actually entails. Fitness is often a measure of trust and cooperation in group species. When you look out into the world do you see species by themselves, or with others of the same species?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Then it shows the ignorance of the anti-evolutionists. A theory - by definition - is not fixed! It is a changeable, mutable, tested hypothesis that has not been proven as 100% fact. When that happens (like with mutual attraction of non-zero mass - gravity, or electron mobility in conductors - Ohm's Law) we call it a law.

So why do so many "evolutionists" say it's fact...no doubts whatsoever?

Darwin's original hypothoseis has been falsified by the fossil record. But the "theory" lives on.

Except for the tested part, you are right when you say "It is a changeable, mutable, tested hypothesis that has not been proven as 100% fact".

I would say say it's an evolving ever changing theory that has as it's guiding overarching primary principle that any changes to the theory must not by definition evoke an intelligent creator and must remain totally "naturalistic".

Intelligent Design is not based on faith.

It's based on observation, inference and logic.

[Coyoteman]

Evolution (atheist version) requires information ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Neo-Darwinist's mechanism not withstanding.

False. And this has been explained hundreds of times -- evolution does not include origins.

Here are five possible hypotheses:

a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

The theory of evolution works just fine with any of these because it does not include origins!

Why do you guys keep claiming that it does? By now, it can't be ignorance of what the theory of evolution states, because you have been corrected hundreds of times.

Is it tilting at strawmen because you can't effectively argue against the theory of evolution itself?

Or is it just an attempt at propaganda? You know, kind of like the whole "Darwinist" thing we keep hearing about.

[allmendream]

Check out “What is Life?” by physicist Erwin Schrödinger

[Pyro7480]

Speaking of your mention of leftists in your tagline, you pretty much argue like one in post #8!

[Coyoteman]

The science of Darwinism says Creation didn't happen.(Or even need to)

False. The theory of evolution says nothing about deities.

Creation [as written in the bible] says Darwinian abiogenesis didn't happen.

False again. Darwin had nothing to do with abiogenesis, nor does evolution. There is no such thing as "Darwinian abiogenesis." That is a creationist propaganda phrase. Goebbels would be proud of it!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Micro evolution is observable. But not macro evolution. Observation and inference based on logic is one way we understand the world. Especially that part of the world that is difficult to understand experimentally.

With some species, yes macro-evolution is not observable. But with others (such as bacteria), it is observable. Here is one case:

---

From TalkOrigins:

One of the major differences between organisms is their capacity for various functions. The ability to occupy one niche over another is invariably due to differing functions. Thus, functional change must be extremely important for macroscopic macroevolutionary change.

Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998).

---

Here we see an organism - life - evolving to actually FEED and metabolise a MAN-MADE product (pentachlorophenol), and evolving specific metabolic pathways to allow such activity. Growing essentially a new organ to feed on a new food-source that it's progenitors never used.

Would not the evolution of a second stomach designed to digest something that is not naturally occuring indicate evolution? For it is a reaction of a biological entity to not only a change in their environment, but a change that is wholly impossible within their native environment. Pentachlorophenol did not exist until the 20th century, and only exists in the chemical vats of pentachlorophenol manufacturers.

Evolution (atheist version) requires information ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Neo-Darwinist's mechanism not withstanding.

Bluntly put, male bovine excrement. Evolution - please see the definitions above - deals with the mechanism of change, not how it all started. Fundamentally you are misrepresenting what evolution is!

Shall I claim that ID is nothing more than people believing that horse farts created the entire world, and that we are all actually identical but physics warps around each of us differently so we see differences in shape and color?

It is a similar corruption of ID. Evolution doesn't talk about the "creation event"; that is the straw-man that ID anti-evolutionists like to posit. And when you are truly honest with yourself you will see that ID and evolution are not opposites, for they address fundamentally different questions.

Now if you posit the Deist's theory that god created evolution then you must still accept that information preceded life.

This creates some fundamental problems for evolutionists.

No, it is a straw man. ID is the why and who, evolution is the how.

e.g. If it's a given that god's information thru his will created the universe (i.e. time and matter and space) then what about subsets of the universe. e.g. humans?

What of it? Evolutionists will say humans evolved from the universe; Deist evolutionists will say that God designed the process to result in evolution of humans, so that evolution is actually a fulfillment of the will of God.

Or did god place the necessary information in matter that eventually found its way into our DNA?

Sure, why not? Does the fact that God placed the information there, and set up the laws of the universe mean that the process of evolution cannot happen?

Or is god outside of time creating and supervising his design project as we speak? The deists won't like that.

That is a philosophical and religious argument; how it has bearing in a scientific field is beyond me! If the deists can't stand it, that is their concern.

Christianity clearly teaches that God is outside space and time...

I believe that creationists cannot stand the thought that God may have used the process of evolution to bring about man from apes because they want to believe that the form of man is special! It is a form of idol-worship itself, that the body is holy because of how it looks, not what it contains (the soul). That is a purely religious/philosophical issue, and shows a lot more about their weakness in their own faith than in a failing of science!

Correct. But that was not the prevailing opinion of evolutionists.

Because - now read this over a few times - evolution is the process of HOW LIFE CHANGES, NOT HOW LIFE AROSE. You are conflating two seperate issues into one, and in the process losing your own argument.

You state "evolution doesn't say how it all started"! To which the evolutionist will say "it doesn't matter". And guess what - IT DOESN'T.

Fundamentally, you are trying to equate athiesm with evolution. It doesn't work that way. Any more than I can equate communism with Christianity (after all, look at the early Acts church - it was clearly communistic), and say that if you are a Christian then inherently you must be a communist.

Both equalities are clearly bereft of intellectual honesty.

They seem to be backing away from the ex nihilo explanation. Dawkins recently admitted such to Ben Stein in his new movie "Expelled".

Because it DOESN'T MATTER. You're trying to say that red must be different from blue because of the existence of the number 3. Huh? Fundamentally, evolution doesn't care HOW it started, but how it CONTINUES.

The problem is that creationists and anti-evolutionists refuse to actually accept a definition of evolution when provided, because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion of evolution. Self-referential definitions are all that are allowed, and that is the quickest way to delusion.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

How about just using the definition: Decent from a common ancestor.

OK. Let's assume that's a good definition.

How does that definition encapsulate the start of life? Where does it address the creation of the initial ancestor?

It doesn't. It says nothing about it. Ergo, claiming that evolutionists MUST be athiest and cannot believe in God or creation or Intelligent Design falls flat on its face.

By your own proferred definition, we are talking STRICTLY ABOUT THE PROCESS, not the beginning, no?

[Coyoteman]

Intelligent Design is not based on faith.

It's based on observation, inference and logic.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.

Source (footnotes omitted)