Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Right Wing Professor]

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

...

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Dimensio]

I knew you were making it up. lol

The post number, #310, has been given prior to your comment here. To claim that someone simply made up the claim after you have been pointed to evidence for the claim only further demonstrates your shameless dishonesty.

[Free2BeMe]

This doesn't prove anything. Not because I'm blind. I see the skulls, now I want you to CITE SPECIFIC UNDENIABLE PROOF that shows the species represented by these skulls evolved from each other. Don't give me datings, look at my reply to Carolina Guitarman about the fossil record. Give me proof. These skulls are actually more likely to be from primate species that existed independently of each other. I really have to go for now, but I've enjoyed this and can't wait to continue. Bye.

[Agdistis]

Not one question did you answer that I asked you. Ok, now moving on.

[Agdistis]

Not one question did you answer that I asked you. Ok, now moving on.

[Agdistis]

Learned from man? What proof? Who says it is real? Man? Please !!! If believing in evolution is about making one intelligent then we are in serious trouble!

[jess35]

I think we all know that unless God personally descends from heaven and tells you the skulls are related, you're not going to believe any level of evidence.

[JeffAtlanta]

Not one question did you answer that I asked you. Ok, now moving on.

Was "why are you ashamed of your faith" really a serious question?

[Dimensio]

Not one question did you answer that I asked you.

That's because your questions were founded on a faulty premise. Your questions assumed that ID is somehow a replacement for the theory of evolution. Because it is not, your questions are meaningless.

Ok, now moving on.

Far be it for an ID-pusher to acknowledge when he is mistaken.

[Dimensio]

Not because I'm blind. I see the skulls, now I want you to CITE SPECIFIC UNDENIABLE PROOF

You are again demanding a standard that absolutely nothing in science will ever meet.

[Agdistis]

Who said G-d is man-made? Amazing how when one does not have a clue what they are talking about they put extra things into the conversation that was never mentioned much less thought of when posted. :)

[aNYCguy]

If my vote counts, I think your post made no sense at all.

[Liberty Wins]

Just to clarify, Post #310 was mine, and I was not accusing anyone of being an atheist, a communist, or a bed-wetter.

I was merely pointing out that some pretty unwholesome characters latched onto evolution as sort of an addendum to their own agenda, whatever that might be. That's all in the past; we don't have to stay stuck in the 20th century, do we?

Now will one of you charming fellows answer a simple question: Aside from the question of whether or not Darwin was an atheist or a believer, if one accepts evolution as a working theory (or hypothesis), how does one tell right from wrong?

[Dimensio]

Aside from the question of whether or not Darwin was an atheist or a believer, if one accepts evolution as a working theory (or hypothesis), how does one tell right from wrong?

I don't see evolution as having any bearing on how a person tells right from wrong. Some define morality for themselves, others believe that it is dictated by a divine agent, some think that it's some inherent property of the universe. Evolution doesn't play into it at all.

[Coyoteman]

CITE SPECIFIC UNDENIABLE PROOF

Give me proof.

Sigh. People have advised you at least a dozen times on this thread alone that science does not deal in proofs.

I have explained this to you at least twice myself. I can only conclude you are being a troll when you demand proof when you now know full well science cannot provide proof for any theory.

Don't expect any more detailed replies, as you have shown you neither appreciate nor deserve them.

But here is some more evidence.

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406- A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[Agdistis]

No, it is because you "CANNOT" answer them. As I stated in another post, if to believe in Evolution is to show one is intelligent then we are in a lot of trouble.

One other thing, do "NOT" tell me Atheist are not haters of something they do "NOT" believe in (yeah it does sound goofy but facts are facts)...it is the Atheist who wants to kick G-d out of every thing in America.

Regardless of what Atheist think, this nation was founded on the principles of G-d which teaches us as a people what is right and wrong.

[Coyoteman]

how does one tell right from wrong?

How is this for a start?

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[Liberty Wins]

"I don't see evolution as having any bearing on how a person tells right from wrong."

Well, if we all arrived in our current naturally selected state by chance, and by definition only the fittest survived, can't the criminals shoot and steal on the basis that they are fit, and the others don't deserve to survive? Is that wrong, and why?

[Right Wing Professor]

December, it's 18 degrees out, but the crickets are still chirping.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There's no better explanation for the experience of things falling down. If the theory of gravity is not responsible, what theory would you put forward?"

Personal experiences with the phenomena of gravity is not sufficient to support the modern theory of gravity. The hallmark of modern theories of gravity is that they deal with phenomena that lie outside of our everyday experiences; they deal with the extremely small, the extremely massive, and the extremely fast.

"The last thing about gravity, so we can get back on the topic, the theory of gravity isn't even taught as a theory."

Yes it is.

" Why the asterisks? I don't get it? Yes, "the species."

It's not *the species*; it's just species.

" As far as your "proofs."

You're posting to the wrong person. I posted no *proofs*. I will deal with your examples anyway, out of the kindness of my heart.

" 1. See what I posted about the DNA sequence"

I did; it's wrong. It's not just similarities that are found between genomes; it's fossil DNA from past endogenous retrovirus infections that have been passed on. There is also the example of the gene for vitamin C production that is in 99% of mammals except for primates. Oh wait; it IS there, but it is missing a few pieces and is unable to produce vitamin C. It's broken. In the same place. Throughout the primates.

"But if you only have a handful of fossilized remains for a species, when millions of that species existed, you can't date them exactly."

Sure you can. All you need is one.

"Also, as some pretty significant fossil findings (example, some of the more recent "feathered" dinosaurs)used to support evolution have turned out to be misinterpreted or just fake (google it yourself, I want to keep this as short as I can)."

Feathered dinosaurs did exist. They are not fakes. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

"Evolutionist say that since bats & people & seals have the same number of bones in their appendages, they must have come from a common ancestor. Again, inference. I could go into more about why this exists this way."

It's a lot more than just the same number of bones. It's the anatomical similarities. It's also coupled with DNA info as well.

"It has its own circular stranded DNA like a bacteria that replicates on its own when the rest of the cell does, so people say the cell must have evolved with captured bacteria that also evolved into mitochondria."

It doesn't just have the same kind of circular DNA as bacteria; when sequenced it is almost identical to certain bacteria.

"That's silly just by itself, that they would BOTH happen to evolve together over thousands or millions of years (how long do cells live?) in a way that would allow them both to exist together as a single cell. "

Prokaryotic cells have no mitochondria. Cells existed long before mitochondria did.

"The point is, the eye is made as good as it can be & still function as a part of the human body. If it were its own organism, then maybe it could be what those criers call perfect"

Nonsense. The optic nerve is positioned in our field of vision, giving us a blind spot. An octopus does not have this design flaw. Our eyes are not perfect by any stretch.

"If you were walking down the beach & saw in the sand "Joe Loves Jane," you'd be an idiot to attribute it to the repeated random actions of waves at high tide and not to an intelligent creator."

I could say the same for someone who trots out such a moldy old argument for design. Since I know that *Joe Loves Jane* is English and I can read English, I have prior knowledge of who or what the designer is (human). Otherwise I would not be able to say, a priori, that it was designed.

[Free2BeMe]

Viruses don't randomly insert their gene sequences into host DNA. There are specific locations where the viral genetic material is inserted. Since chimps and humans (some more than others) are so similar, the parts of the genome where viral genes can be inserted are similar, if not the same. Again, you (evolutionists) are applying your conclusion to what you see. Your evidence shows nothing more than that the ERV sequence was inserted in both chimps and humans in the past and is now part of our permanent genome. This doesn't show a common ancestor organism either; that's a leap. No gene sequence in the genome does so, even retrovirus genes inserted into genome. Almost every human in the world has been infected by a herpes virus and carries it genome its own, but that by itself doesn't scream common ancestor. I know a herpes virus isn't an ERV and that its incorporation into our genome is different from that of ERV and its supposed role in protecting an unborn baby from maternal immune attack, but you get my point. Go far enough back and have enough chimps and enough humans "infected," and you end up with chimps and humans having the ERV sequence in their genome. Your "evidence" is inference. If you want something bad enough, you'll find a way to fit everything you see into that paradigm. This isn't proof.