Why intelligent design will change everything

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25, 2006 | Lynn Barton

[metmom]

I didn't highlight anything, just copied and pasted. That's the way it came on M-W.

It's also an opinion that ID lacks facts. Order and complexity exist. Scientists use it, investigate it, and depend on it every day. If it weren't for the order that exists in this universe, science would be incapable of being done. I don't understand why scientists deny that it's evidence of intelligence or design and yet expect us to believe that what they do in the lab is intelligent and involves design (in the form of experiments). Surely they expect us to believe that what they're doing in the lab shows both.

[reaganandme]

Ping.

[AntiGuv]

Yes, this is a shameless cut & paste!

---

Predictions - Is Evolution Science?

Original at - http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

---

Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

 

• Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

   

• Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

   

• There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

   

• Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.

   

• Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.

   

• Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

   

• Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.

   

• Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.

   

• In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.

   

• It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

   

• From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.

   

• In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

   

• Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

   

• In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:

  "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
  Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory

  This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.

   

• Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.

  The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.

   

• A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

   

• The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.

  This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.

   

• An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)

  Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

  Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

  It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.

---

Last modified: 5 August 2001

[edsheppa]

A testable prediction of evolution? I will give you one if you promise to return the favor and either provide a testable prediction of ID or admit it isn't scientific. Deal?

And no, attempting "to break down the cell into working parts" is not a testable prediction. A prediction is a deduction - from the assumptions of the theory you prove a theorem and the phenomena to which the theorem maps are the prediction.

[Bishop_Malachi]

My understanding is that ID has made functional predictions which are verifiable (and have been corroborated). For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.

ID hypothesizes that biological systems are the product of intention rather than luck and law. This hypotheisis is open to be disproved by scientific method. To reject it simply on principle is a philosophical point, but it is not justified by scientific method.

Design is assumed by biochemists who "reverse-engineer" biochemical machines, that is, take apart such systems in search of the "design decisions" that are built into their architecture. Design should be rejected (or accepted) based upon data. It should not be gerrymandered out of science, just because the methodological naturalists get uncomfortable with the concept of a "designer".

[Lightfinger]

It all comes down to this with ID:

1) Science is ordered.

2) Chances of Chaos generating such a degree of Order is miniscule, at best.

3) Therefore, the chances of some sort of intelligence manipulated things into order is great.

Now, whether you call this intelligence God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster like atheists call it (It was the hand of the Spectre that created it in the DC Comic Universe, for example). Or alien manipulation, like a few believe (Xenu). Or even a web that is anchored in time (Dr. Who). Or from beings that existed before the Universe was created in the Big Bang, things are too ordered and structured.

That's the actual theory.

By the way, I would suggest those trying to argue using Darwin may want to sit down and actually read 'Origin of Species' and some of his follow up writings.

[kpp_kpp]

"let me be the first to say that I'm sure that everyone will be absolutely objective, collegial, and downright polite."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

whooooo.... catching my breath.... good one.

[kpp_kpp]

"I will give you one if you promise to return the favor and either provide a testable prediction of ID or admit it isn't scientific."

as I am not a proponent of ID i'd happily admit for the sake of argument that it isn't scientific, does that mean you'd admit that macro-evolution and theories regarding the origin of life and matter are not scientific?

[wintertime]

a conservative school district rejected the ID advocates en masse at the voting booth
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So....when did the voting mob have the right to crush freedom of conscience?

Evolution has profound political, cultural, as well as moral and ethical and religious consequences for all the children in the school.

When did the voting mob get the right to undermine and trash the most cherished family cultural and religious traditions of some while establishing the worldview ( with religious consequences) of others????

Government schools are an abomination. They should be abolished.

For most parents government schools are compulsory. They are a price-fixed monopoly and enormously expensive. They make private alternatives scarce and make homeschooling impossible by forcing many families to have both parents in the workforce to support the taxes that fund them.

The government then offers a fiendishly evil "choice": Use the government school and have your child's religious beliefs destroyed...or....have armed police at your door.

Some "choice"! ( sarcasm)

Solution: Begin the process of completely separation SCHOOL FROM STATE.

If there were no government schools the acrimony over evolution and ID would evaporate like dew on morning grass.

[AntiGuv]

I'm willing to support the end of public schools (even though there's not a chance in heck it'll happen) if you answer one question to my satisfaction: What do you do about children whose parents cannot or will not have them educated?

[dr_lew]

It seems to me that before we can study intelligent design we should first have a scientific definition of "intelligent." What is the definition?

Hey! That's my line!

If your idea is the same as mine, the gist is that intelligence as we know it is a property or ability entirely dependent on the arrangement matter, in the form of the brain.

[Avenger]

"Science is ordered."

The physical world appears to be ordered because it is only those aspects of the physical universe that can be succinctly described (approximated) by concise mathematical equations that are or can be studied by human beings. The limitations of the human mind biases those aspects of physical reality that we study to those which possess nice simple structure. However, there is no rational reason that there aren't vast vistas of physical reality that contain no structure whatsoever (i.e. are incompresible.)

"...things are too ordered and structured"

What level of order and structure would you expect if there were no intelligent designer? Please quantify. Also, please define intelligent and a way to test for this attribute.

[timer]

Intelligent design? Why was Jesus crucified(not my will but thy will be done)? Ans : GOD was crucified in much the same way by the 24 "elders"(prior idea-entities like pharisee-academics), imagine HIS darkness before he, through an act of self sacrifice and pure faith, said : let there be LIGHT. If you repeat this 6000 years ago creation nonsense(actually from a half-***ed scientific study of the bible by an irish bishop named Usher, murphy was his middle name)you'll be quickly forgotten. No, it was 13.7 BILLION years ago from many different discoveries; but the truth of Intelligent Design remains : the 25th in the series of concept-iterations was/is GOD, the supreme, self sacrificing entity who made the big bang from which all else developed....Take the biblical phrase : "and the morning stars sang together" : astronomers are just now discovering that early epoch of the first generation's massive stars-supernovae whose shock waves created the "soap bubble" texture of galaxies strung thruout the universe. Point : science and theology are boh searches for TRUTH, disparage neither...

[steve-b]

ID hypothesizes that biological systems are the product of intention rather than luck and law.

Scientific predictions must address facts, not interpretations.

[Air Force Brat]

I couldn't disagree more.

I believe the availability of free education through public schools is one cornerstone of what makes this a great country.

To abolish public schools is to reserve education for the privileged.

That, in my opinion, is anti-American.

Do you know the public schools?

Have you been in them recently?

Do you have a family member who either teaches in them or attends them?

If not - then I suggest you educate yourself before perpetuating nonsense.

[steve-b]

For evolutionary change to occur, every single piece of its Rube Goldberg-like factory would have to mutate at exactly the same time, and each single mutation would have to be beneficial, or the cell would just die.

This is but one of many nonsensical assertions contained in this essay.

Every fertilized egg has a few transcription errors and mutations amongst its many thousands of genes. If this claim were correct, every last embryo would die before it got past the blob-of-cells stage.

[Virginia-American]

For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.

There's a thread on this very topic: see Post 19

These guys removed mega base pairs from mouse DNA, the mice bred and had fertile offspring, and the researchers couldn't find *anything* wrong with them.

Doesn't *prove* that the missing DNA didn't have *some* use, but does cast a bit of doubt on the ID-inspired speculation.

I said "ID-inspired speculation" instead of "prediction of ID theory" because there is no agreement about the hypothetical designer's abilities or motives.

For example, some say it is God, but Behe swore that it could have died millions of years ago, as far as he could tell.

The speculation that there is no junk DNA is premised on a particular version of the hypothetical designer. What are these assumptions about it? Why shouldn't there be junk?

[AntiGuv]

mega placemarker

[Frwy]

Excellent question.

[AndrewC]

Could you please give me a scientific definition of intelligent?

That is a surprising admission. Since you seem to expect no answer, the conclusion to your challenge is that science cannot say anything about intelligence. Why don't we just reduce evaluations in schools to dart board outcomes?