Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House

SETI Institute ^ | August 2005 | Edna DeVore

[PatrickHenry]

I'll take a stab at two of them:

3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?

Purpose. Things are designed/created for a reason and a purpose, just as a watch is created with a reason and a purpose. This is very elementary and could be considered vague, but there ya go.

And how does one see "purpose" in a duck? Or an ape? Or a rock? What distinguishes "purpose" from something that has no purpose?

4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?

Yes! A new kind of animal emerging/evolving from an existing kind. i.e. An Ape gives birth to a human or something clearly not an Ape.

That can't happen. If it did, it would be evidence of creationism. But we both assume that this will never be observed, which means (as my question implies) that ID is untestable. Thus it isn't science.

Next time I repeat my questions, I will continue to maintain that they haven't been answered.

[Right Wing Professor]

Anyone that believes evolution has been proved by science is intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who thinks science proves anything is a moron.

[ml1954]

Conservative scientists in academia are deserting the GOP or keeping very quiet. And I'd be surprised if 20% of science Ph.Ds vote GOP in 2006/2008.

It's certainly a problem when the only conservatives and libertarians living in a hostile and highly influential sea of left wing liberals is alienated from the GOP.

I hope the movers and shakers (like Rove) are wide awake with eyes wide open on this.

[js1138]

Next time I repeat my questions, I will continue to maintain that they haven't been answered.

None of my questions have been answered either, although Betty Boop seems to have conceded that mainstream science is correct from a materialist point of view. Since that is all that science can ever attempt to do, I took it as an admission that there are no glaring errors in mainstream science, and that ID offers mostly a different philosophical perspective.

I still haven't received a response to the question of how ID proponents would change the conduct of research.

[bobdsmith]

Hey most of the things i've designed don't have a purpose.

I guess that means im not.. oh wait scratch that one

[Junior]

Before creo quote mining: You are going to end up being a major evo tool source. You know that don't you?

After creo quote mining: You are a major evo tool. You know that don't you?

[Chameleon]

"And how does one see "purpose" in a duck? Or an ape? Or a rock? What distinguishes "purpose" from something that has no purpose? "

Do you think the heart has no purpose? How about white blood cells, do they have a purpose?

"That can't happen. If it did, it would be evidence of creationism. But we both assume that this will never be observed, which means (as my question implies) that ID is untestable. Thus it isn't science."

Your assumptions aren't the same as science. We know that we have yet to find the transitional species from homo erectus to homo sapien. We know that the fossil record does not support gradualism here, and the best theory is that it is a result of punctuated equilibrium.

But it is possible, I suppose, that homo erectus just gave birht to homo sapiens...At least it isn't contradicted by the fossil record.

With regards to science, do you think searching for extraterrestrials is science?

Is theoretical physics science, even when it is untestable?

[Junior]

But yeah, I'm open to suggestions if there's any specific graphics or other media that needs to be done.

I've been looking for someone to do my "cloud of dots around a central point" explanation of evolution and speciation.

[bobdsmith]

and everyone knows tools can only be intelligently designed, therefore b_sharp must be intelligently designed, therefore we all are, therefore evolution can't be true. logic.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you think the heart has no purpose? How about white blood cells, do they have a purpose?

What are you saying? That every functioning organism is, somehow, evidence of ID? Is that it?

[bobdsmith]

hmm let me answer your end point. I don't know if SETI is science, although it does use science. Seems a bit more like an exploration to me. They are basically looking for other "human creatures" in the universe. Not really much different from scientists who look for other earth like planets in the universe.

SETI already know of one intelligence existing (ie us), and they are using their knowledge of us (ie that we use radio communication) to look for more intelligences in the universe.

[Chameleon]

No. I'm asking you if a heart has a purpose.

Feel free to argue that either a heart has no purpose, or that some organic systems do appear to have a purpose.

[bobdsmith]

but why are there still monkeys then?

[bobdsmith]

Let me interupt a second.

A heart does have a purpose

But then so does the puddle at the bottom of my garden that formed naturally. It's purpose is to provide the birds with water.

[webboy45]

My, my. Such a strong polarization of ideas. I really wonder why the scientist can't have an open mind and allow that ID is a possibility, and the creationist have an open mind and allow that evolution might be the creator's way of making this world. It's unfortunate that both sides use the wrong comparison, ie: intelligent design (ID) vs. evolution. It's apples to oranges.

ID relates to spontaneous evolution or random chance (RC), not to evolution itself. ID even allows evolution to possibly be the actual process of creation. If ID is compared to RC, as it properly should be, then we see that both concepts are simply statements of faith. Calling one more scientific than the other is absurd. Neither can be demonstrated in the context of the original creation, and neither is the obvious conclusion of scientific investigation or even scientific thought.

The RCist simply says, "I see no reason for a creator therefore there was none." The IDist says, "I've seen humans create new, more complex things from simpler components so there must have been intelligence guiding the creation of the complex forms that inhabit the Earth." Both concepts properly belong to philosophy, not science.

The President is right. If RC is going to taught in schools then ID should also be taught. If ID is banned then the competing philosophy of RC should also be banned.

[JohnnyM]

How do you determine if a rock formation is the result of the random whims of nature or the result of intelligence? There is a purpose, a design, a structure to them. Now, I admit, I cannot properly articulate the qualities of design that would stand out in observing phenomena or structure, but when I see the pyramids, I see design, structure, and purpose. And when I see DNA, I see design, structure, and purpose.

JM