Replies

Penicillium notatum is a kind of mold. Fleming was a good observer and not a designer. Now to Penicillin resistance...

This hardly "proves" that evolution ( i.e. random mutation ) causes complexity. Willem Stemmer, the inventor of DNA breeding, performed directed evolution on 4 distantly related microbes, testing their ability to produce the enzyme that fights off penicillin. Random (i.e., natural) mutations were allowed to occur, followed by directed evolution. The rate of anti-penicillin production under directed evolution exhibited a 270-fold increase over the production rate from random mutations. However, no new species was created. Get back to us when you observe new species being created.

“Actually It [bridge] was designed by an intelligent designer, not created at random.”
Several unintelligent designs caused collapse. There are also bridges designed by nature created at random.

Uh huh, and that proves that the Tower Bridge was created at random ?

“an ID proponent would say that Engineers designed it [my car], it didn't appear at random.”
Actually some Japanese Engineers designed my car. That isn't the answer for me. You asked a different question: “Who designed the car?”

Actually my question is simple -- was the car designed or did it come out as a result of random mutation ?

That's a rhetorical question BTW, any sane person knows the answer to that one.

I asked: “Why does my car drives?” Actually I spend my car a new battery. This battery starts the engine. The engine drive the wheels...

And that proves what about the origin of the car ? That it was designed by intelligent being(s) or that it evolved out of chance ?

The question who designed the car is not so important trying to understand how my car works. For my pleasure I would prefer some German or Italian engineers.

So ? ID proponents are just as interested in seeing and discovering how things work. The difference is in HOW THEY INTERPRETE biological complexity.

So even if a complex system is designed that doesn't answer you any question about how the system works.

But that does answer the question of how it came about and that's the point of the argument. The issue was never HOW the system works. The issue is WHAT BEST EXPLAINS ITS ORIGIN.

Intelligent Design (ID) doesn't falsify the theory of evolution (TE) except ID always happens.

Actually Intelligent Design can be falsified. Michael Behe is doing experiments to do just that. He states thusly :

"The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.

Then TE is the best explanation how ID works. Not necessarily.

Science is about “how”.

If so, then random mutation + natural selection is just as scientific as the conclusion that things were designed. I see no reason why we have to exclude the later.

Philosophy is about “who” maybe and the rest.

Don't forget "what" ( random mutation causing complexity ), that hasn't been observed or proven. It is as much a philosophy.

“Uh huh, and that proves that the Tower Bridge was created at random ?”

Where did I claim that? My claim was you can't predict stability of any kind of bridge with the ID conclusion “God did it!”.

“Actually my question is simple — was the car designed or did it come out as a result of random mutation ?”

I never denied that my car was designed. I have no problem, even less, with the case it is Japanese design. That won't explain why my car on one day didn't go.

I have never seen cars having sex on the street producing some fertile offspring. I saw many car bumps in winter ( US-Japanese, US-German, German-Japanese ... and even US-French). A car must be designed because it can't propagate itself.

“But that [design] does answer the question of how it came about and that's the point of the argument. The issue was never HOW the system works. The issue is WHAT BEST EXPLAINS ITS ORIGIN.”

That's it. We can remain dumb. The only thing that counts is the answer to everything - God / ID. From where did you get your idea science is not about "How"? And again for beginners: the theory of evolution is not about origin of life.

“Actually Intelligent Design can be falsified. Michael Behe is doing experiments to do just that. He states thusly :”

Actually you didn't get it right. My argument was ID can't falsify the theory of evolution even if ID is correct.

Michael Hehe is wrong about how to falsify ID. He first tries to put the work on others and doesn't work himself. Scientist have to show him “the bacterial flagellum could [not] be produced by natural selection”. They showed him and that didn't disprove ID in common. That's the point. It just falsify one of many possible of Hehe’s claims about ID.

Hehe can always claim "You didn't show that this is not ID." Scientist have to show that everything is not ID. Even then they showed everything is not ID. ID still isn't falsifiable because something in the future may be ID.

“[My statement] Then TE is the best explanation how ID works.[My statement-End] Not necessarily.”

Sure, until we have something better. ID is worst because it explains nothing except - God!

“However, no new species was created. Get back to us when you observe new species being created. “

The experiment was not intended to produce one. When scientists came back with a new spices the next objection is that no “biological complexity” is gained. Specification has been observed.

What is “biological complexity”? Can you provide any definition how to measure “complexity”. What is more complex a circle or a triangle? Start simple.