Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!

Wth is "Darwinism" Darwin's work is not an "ism"

Are you making a new religion here?

 

Oh, I see you bring a lot of weight to your opinion.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly supplied only references to actual, real, accepted scientific literature from real scientists that are generally accepted to be smarter than you or I. I hardly think any of the references supplied in my debate were merely proposed or skewed in favor of proving the evidence of design or pointing to God. Your statement has no merit, please do your homework before adding things like that to the discussion, you do your side of the debate no favors.

 

For crying out loud, do I have to do everyone's homework for them?

Darwinism

–noun
the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

from dictionary.com

 

Persist in your delusions all you like, Helio. Intelligent design is not science.

 

To show how ID is not science, go to their Museum and look at the children and T-Rex playing together, you just know that happened.

 

I never claimed to state ID as a science. Physics, biology, astronomy, and math are a science. ID is a theory of Evolution as much as Darwinism is a theory of Evolution and both can coexist. Evolution is taught as a naturalistic progression from primordial soup of early earth to man and is traditionally taught as a straight line, hence the walking fish to monkey to homosapien with a briefcase model we so often see. If one wishes to put their faith in the Evolution you and I were taught in school based upon fossil evidence and the evolutionary tree according to taxonomic ranks, you are relying on outdated science. It is irrefutable, as of today's date, that the evolutionary model so many non-scientists believe in is unrealistic:
Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology
Recent Problems in Evolution
New Study Raises More Questions about Evolution | Reasons to Believe
Humans strange, Neanderthals normal - LiveScience - MSNBC.com
Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Science- msnbc.com
Neanderthal-to-Human Link Severed | Reasons to Believe

I can cite reference after reference of studies published by atheistic scientists that punch holes in our pretty little picture of evolution.

The very theory of Big Bang points to a beginning, or the creation of the universe from the Singularity. By definition, creation implies intelligence. It would be ridiculous for anyone to argue that the universe did not have a beginning:
The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

Even an atheist scientist of the highest magnitude is uncomfortable with The Big Bang theory because of its implications:
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

So what does ID wish to convey when it comes to evolution?
Is it:
1. The universe and earth were created in 6 days? No, scientific evidence clearly refutes that.
2. The Genesis narrative in its literal English form is how it happened? No, scientific evidence clearly refutes that.


ID asserts itself upon observable scientific phenomenon [Do NOT quote that statement unless you fully do your homework, I have provided the references] that the universe displays a large magnitude of design (the Cosmological Constant for one example) and that the unverse had a beginning which by its very nature implies creationary force which by its nature requires intelligence. All of this documented in volumes of up-to-date research published by atheistic, agnostic, and theistic scientists around the world. ID is not about pushing religious dogma into the school system, it simply states that our world from its very inception in the birth of the universe is becoming so increasingly complex and bizarre that the more we learn, the more the hallmarks of design establishes itself.
Scientific data is increasingly making the realization that life born out of the chaos of The Big Bang is on the order of 1 in 10 to the 120th power and decreasing.

 

Seriously, does no one do their homework, or does everyone just believe the first thing they see and read?
That museum has nothing to do with ID. That is what is called "Young Earth Creationism," it is not supported by proponents of ID.
I give you volumes of info that doesn't have anything to do with what is in that museum and all you can come up with is that?

 

ID is not a science, its based on selected Observable phenomenon, if the phenomenon doesn't fit, they don't use it.

 

Umm...are you actually doing any research before you make statements like that, it seems your not. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're stating. I didn't say ID was science, just part of a theory. I guess you could infer that I say its a science by its relation to scientific phenomena. And of course, any time a phenomenon doesn't fit, it either disproves or proves or reinforces beliefs concerning a theory.

 

ID is not a theory either. There is no empirical observation that is explained by ID. ID is more like wishful thinking that prevents you from looking to find the actual answer.

Your cosmological constant example illustrates what ID does. There is a cosmological constant but we should just think "dog did it" rather than research where it actually came from.

There is absolutely no reason to suppose anything in nature is designed. Ever since Darwin we have an explanation of how the improbable is actually composed of multiple probable small steps over time.

 

I don't have "homework". I stopped having "homework" when I left the church schools where I received my education. I am now educated and thus able to deduce things for myself.

As I said, it is pointless discussing this anyway. If by some means the non-believers managed to amass enough evidence to become a threat to your point of view you would merely start a war and kill us as history has shown that you always do anyway.

 

You got me on that one. ID would actually be more of a hypothesis; a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena(1), or a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.(2) I was using a rather loose and non-scientific definition of theory, I stand corrected.
"It is the increasing evidence for design that encourages ID proponents that they are on the right track. We certainly don't want to stop scientific investigation now that the evidence is accumulating in our favor. Most of us have a science background. In my case, molecular biology research is how I earn my living. We look forward to learn more about how God created the universe and life on earth. We have nothing to fear from science, so bring it on! Intelligent design proponents are interested in science, and relish the idea of increasing scientific research into areas that address the question of whether there is evidence for design in the universe. For the most part, we are scientists who love our work. However, we don't appreciate the red herring argument suggesting that we want to stifle scientific inquiry and are only interested in the promulgation of religious belief."(3)
In reference to the Cosmological Constant, I do not subscribe to the thought that anyone just believe "dog[sic] did it." (Was that a misspell or can you seriously not bring yourself to say the word "God"? You'll have to try harder than that if your intent was to offend.) The Cosmological Constant itself is disturbing, let alone the implications of the beginning of this universe.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013v3.pdf
I desire more and more scientific scrutiny of this preposterous universe, it is astounding what we have learned in the last 100 years and indeed will learn. I look forward to CERN's Large Hadron Collider firing up again, I have waited years for that event to unfold and the information that will pour forth from its experiments. I challenge everyone, especially those who believe in God, to learn as much as possible concerning science, for God has said to test everything and that “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.â€
Lastly, " absolutely no reason to suppose anything in nature is designed." You have to be kidding me. I cite volumes of literature and link you to a page of 27 references to great minds that state there indeed does appear to be design in the universe:
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
Darwin did not explain the improbable such as irreducible complexity, or naturalistic homochirality, naturally occurring ribose, and that's just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Darwin explained the probable and most likely based upon observation. Other good bedtime reading for you:

Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible

1. Wikipedia.com
2. Merriam-Webster.com
3. Richard Deem, Richard L. Deem - work

 

Somebody's getting testy. I thought we were having lively debate, bummer you don't want to play anymore.

What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion

 

Helio, are you familiar with the Dover, Pennsylvania court case that ruled intelligent design is creationism, and not science?

 

sorry helio, but if you want to provide "actual, real, accepted scientific literature from real scientists" then i suggest you find peer-reviewed sources. anyone can publish articles on teh internets. if i want my work out there in the scientific world, i submit it for review and publication in a relevant journal.

part of the problem here is a gap in those types of understandings.

 

Galaxee, that's a bit harsh, what's wrong with stuff from "Reasons to Believe"? That's enough proof for me.

Sorry, I'm not supposed to tell lies, I feel bad now

 

1. Yes.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Irrelevant.
4. No (see No.1)

How are you (mis)using chirality and ribose to argue for ID?

 

Galaxee,

Your point is valid and appreciated, I more than understand your skepticism of internet published articles. I think most of us have run across web-based articles that proved false or misleading even when published on widely accepted sites such as Wikipedia, I agree with you totally.
While many of the articles I post links to in this debate are not publshed in scientific journals, they are written by scientists (there are maybe 3 exceptions) and the references on which they base their articles are published in accepted scientific journals of merit, i.e. Nature, Science, Journal of Heredity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Journal of Human Evolution, Scientific American, etc. or are taken directly from published books by authors that are well accepted by their scientific peers, i.e. Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Arthur Eddington, Paul Davies, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Fazale Rana. I had also incuded a paper on The Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant published by Stanford Univ. and M.I.T. and two lectures by George Smoot, the lead NASA Scientist on the COBE Satellite project.
While these references provided in this response are not exhaustive I'm sure you see I took careful and reasonable precautions to avoid the argument of bunk scientific references.

Patsparks,

Thanks for being honest. I really appreciate your comment!

 

Amen to your last sentence on religion, Zenmachine! Religion is indeed a personal matter and if it seemed that by defending ID I was pushing religious dogma or defending any constituent that wishes to include such in their argument of ID I apologize. I am not.

I am not aware of what the Discovery Institute's agenda is and if it dissillusioned you, well, it probably wasn't based on an accurate grasp of accepted science. Unfortunately for ID there are subsets that do indeed try to push Young Earth Creationism or that evolution does not exist and that simply doesn't stand up against what we know or has been revealed to us in nature. God (please, bear with me) implicitly states in the Bible that His very nature and intelligence is expressed in nature and God does not set intellectual traps for us. He also admonishes us to seek out the truth in everything and hold on to what is truth.
Is the Young Earth Interpretation Biblically Sound?
Nature says the universe is over 14 billion years old and the earth is over 4 billion years old, I can say for 99% accuracy that is true, don't you? Fossils exist and to a certain accuracy they tell a story of evolution, I can say that with reasonable accuracy as well. However as science progresses we are finding there is way, way more to evolution than fossils and animals with like pieces parts are telling us. We find that the basic building blocks of life simply don't and can't exist in nature and at best are extremely difficult to reproduce in finely controlled laboratories. There's a lot more to the story and we don't know it.
ID is not about bunk science any more than string theory is about bunk science, it begs for science and answers.
Truly take a bit of time to do what Patsparks has, read some articles, take a chance on discovering something that in the least makes you say, "Wow, there's a bit more to this than I thought." I don't expect you to believe in ID, just give it a fair chance.