The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Dimensio]

It would falsify intelligent design by demonstrating that different characteristics can coevolve to create a functioning system which requires different organs, genes, proteins, etc. to work together.

I ask again, how would this falsify intelligent design? Why couldn't it be possible that such a system can happen even though intelligent design happened?

A theory isn't disproven just because you can present another nonfalsifiable explanation for the events. A theory is disproven when an observation can be made that is in direct contradiction to predictions of the theory.

Of course, to say such a thing is totally ridiculous

Why is it ridiculous?

and is the reason why Intelligent Design disproves evolution.

How does ID, even if true, disprove evolution?

[Dimensio]

Actually, I was asking for examples, especially of the method of proof.

My experience has been that the "examples" are simply handwaving and appeals to ignorance and incredulity: they can't imagine how some organism or organ could have evolved, therefore it didn't.

[oldcats]

Thank you for your humanitarian works...how come you are no longer in that field?

I am beginning to get a bit confused here. If there was involutary birth control, then how did they get children?
Oldcats

[medved]

Try this...

[oldcats]

As you are so fond of using in arguments....
Isolated cases do not count as evidence or proof.
Oldcats

[Virginia-American]

thanks

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My experience has been that the "examples" are simply handwaving and appeals to ignorance and incredulity: they can't imagine how some organism or organ could have evolved, therefore it didn't.

Sounds like what the hardcore evolutionists do on a routine basis.

[Stultis]

We're in agrement, I thought this was a particularly well-known example of the difference between laws and theories.

Thanks. I failed to also address my message #117 to ZULU, who I was typing with when you jumped in with that apt example.

[Dimensio]

Sounds like what the hardcore evolutionists do on a routine basis.

How so?

[mlo]

"Because your test doesn't prove ID wrong. It would only demonstrate that an alternative method was at work, but there is not requirement that if ID is true no other process could be as well. They aren't exclusionary. Later evolution could have been "designed" in.

Your statement is self-contradictory and silly. If it can be proven that a set of characteristics which work together gradually evolved then ID is refuted, period. Evolution cannot "design" anything, it is a mindless force, it has no intelligence, no memory, no brain. Whatever it does, however it does it, cannot be called design.

No, it's called "logic". Who said anything about evolution having intelligence? Read what I said. Unless ID and Evolution are exclusionary, meaning if one is true the other cannot be, then proof of one does not disprove the other. They are not exclusionary. So your suggested falsification is not a falsification.

[medved]

As you are so fond of using in arguments.... Isolated cases do not count as evidence or proof. Oldcats

For starters, you've got me confused with somebody else since I'm not fond of using stupid arguments like that in arguments; second: every crime which has ever been committed since Cain and Abel was an "isolated case". Without concern over isolated cases there would be no such thing as justice.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Try to apply scientific methodology to evolution.  You can't.  I've noticed that before evolutionists even begin to test the theory of evolution, they automatically assume that it is true.  Not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you admit your prejudices.  But I've never seen a follower of Gould or Dawkins who could admit this.  It is quite reasonable to look at the evidence presented and come up with another view.  ID itself presents questions that the followers of the religion of evolution haven't been able to answer and so do their best to discredit them.

Now, personally I don't know if evolution exists or not, but I do know that some of the greatest frauds perpetrated in the name of science have been done by evolutionists.

I've seen arguments against Behe's "mousetrap analogy" and while it is not perfect, none of the arguments that I have seen against it are more than superficial.  Even I, a mere layman, can easily see that.

Also every rebuttal to the ID argument that I have seen equates ID with creationism.  While many creationists are IDers, the two philosophies are not the same, and it is very superficial and shallow to make the claim.

But one of the biggest holes in current evolutionary theories is that lack of explanation for the evolution of information, which even Jay Gould admits is a problem, and refuses to give a straight answer too.

I wonder where Physics would be today if those who championed Quantum Mechanics had been systematically persecuted and shutdown by the Newtonians to the degree that IDers are by the Darwinians today.

Oh, and BTW, even evolutionists cannot agree amongst themselves.  The punctuated equilibriationists (of the Gouldian school) roundly vilify and themselves are roundly vilified by the traditionalists (of the Dawkinian school) with all the fervor of an old-time revivalist preaching repentance to the sinner.

[Dimensio]

Also every rebuttal to the ID argument that I have seen equates ID with creationism.

I'll try to respond to your comments regarding evolution later, but while I've seen the problem of equating ID with creationism, I've also seen legitimate questions about it. Specifically:

What does ID theory state. How can it be tested and what observations can those tests yeild.
and
How can it be falsified. What observations would indicate that ID is not true?

There's also the question of where the intelligent designer in ID came from, what methods the designer employed in designing and why the designer did anything in the first place. I've not seen a variation of "ID theory" that really covers it.

[JediGirl]

GATACA is not that far fetched.

Not at all. And it was a great movie. In fact, I think I'll rent that tonight.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It is true that ID does raise a lot of questions.  In a nutshell ID states that the universe and everything in it is the result of an organizing agent - not random chance.

Considering what we know of the universal constants, irreducible complexity, evolution of information, the mathematics, etc., I would say that the IDers have some valid points.  Mind, I'm not saying that evolution is not involved in the process, I'm just saying the "random chance" factor is a rather preposterous assumption to make.

I'm not one who is against evolution per se, but rather I am troubled about those whose religion is evolution.

[js1138]

I am beginning to get a bit confused here. If there was involutary birth control, then how did they get children?

I am saying that retarded adults are frequently required to take birth control pills as a condition of being accepted into an assisted living program. they aren't actually coerced, and there is no law to support this but it is still a form of eugenics.

[js1138]

I believe GATTACA has two T's. I'm a terrible speller and worse typist.

[js1138]

I'm just saying the "random chance" factor is a rather preposterous assumption to make.

Chance is a tricky thing to talk about. Those who try to argue that the positions of "words" on a DNA molocule are equivalent to a series of coin tosses, miss a lot of underlying factors.

For example, if I ask what is the chance of flipping ten heads in a row, I get one probability. If I have already flipped nine heads and ask for the probibility of flipping a 10th, I get a qute different answer.

Evolution is always working on the 10th toss. The prior history does not need to be taken into consideration when projecting the odds that a mutation will be favorable or unfavorable.

When you look at the monkey typing analogy you have to consider that every time a "correct" word is typed, it is added to an existing and accumulating list of correct words. The list of correct words is never diminished or lost. That is what is known as the process of descent with modification, and that is what is known as selection.

[js1138]

And yes, it is not unscientific to believe that the game is rigged and the dice are loaded. We are unlikely ever to figure out how that happened, but there's always something unknown to look forward to.

[xm177e2]

a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy

Because a bunch of religious types want to believe something else, so they set about using pseudoscience to prop up their silly position.