ID is not creationism

[UmSamir]

>>" How did it all begin is the question and none of you have answered that one."<<

Nor does ID.

[Jack]

How did it all begin is the question and none of you have answered that one.

Perhaps you missed the numerous posts in which we scientifically inclined types admitted that for some questions there are no answers. Whether or not there ever will be cannot be said at present. Science does not mind saying, "I don't know." How exactly life began is unknown, but if we ever do find the answer, I have no reason to believe that it will be a supernatural one. Just because we don't understand a natural process does not infer a supernatural explanation.

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer I'd be interested in knowing what was there before evolution began? It is a pertinent question and involves creation..something just can't evolve from nothing, can it? I'd like a Darwinists' answer to that one. ID is not necessarily an attempt to bring in humanly conceived beliefs(religions). It questions the unknown. How did it all begin is the question and none of you have answered that one.

Strictly speaking Darwin was a naturalist interested in "The Origin of Species" as his ground breaking book was titled. It doesn't make a lot a sense to ask a "Darwinist" about cosmology, because that wasn't even close to Darwin's field of study. You might have a hard time even finding a "Darwinist", a term used almost exclusively by the creationist camp. Evolutionary theories have changed and developed dramatically since Darwin's time. With further research they too have evolved.

You are asking about what has been referred to for centuries as the "First Cause" argument. It has very little to do with ID. ID's proponents keep making silly claims that ID is science yet never provide the sort of empirical or theoretic evidence to justify the claim.

You seem to be suggesting that creation, the First Cause, had to be God. The problem is that if that were true, who created God? Bertrand Russell wrote:

I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

[gallo]

Quote by: xyzer I'd be interested in knowing what was there before evolution began? It is a pertinent question and involves creation..something just can't evolve from nothing, can it?

Do you know what evolution is? The word "evolution" means change. In fact, it means change in a particular direction, as in the evolution of a star. Depending on their size, stars go through a series of changes that are pretty well known and pretty well understood.

But that's not what we are talking about. We are discussing the theory of evolution. Darwin actually objected (to no avail) to the use of the word "evolution" in reference to his theories. Darwin intended no sense of direction or progress towards an end in his theories. Darwin proposed a theory of biological evolution. In other words, the causes for the observed changes in living organisms. To ask what there was before evolution isn't a question addressed by the theories of evolution. There existed self replicating organic molecules, some probably enclosed in lipid membranes. But unless those structures met some mimimal sort of definition of life, then evolutionary theory wasn't applicable.

Of course, some evolutionary principles were in effect. For example, those molecules that were more successful in reproducing themselves became more numerous. And they used up raw materials so that they were not available to less successful replicators.

Quote by: xyzer I'd like a Darwinists' answer to that one.

I suspect that there aren't any Darwinists here. Darwinism was supplanted by neo-Darwinism way back in the 1930s and 1940s when Mendelian genetics was rediscovered and realized to be the method of transmission of heritable characteristics to the next generation.

Quote by: xyzer ID is not necessarily an attempt to bring in humanly conceived beliefs(religions).

ID is exactly an attempt to introduce religious beliefs into science. I guess you haven't read anything by the leaders of the ID movement - Johnson, Dembski, Wells, or Behe. They all admit that ID is exactly an attempt to introduce religion into science and have clearly stated that so. Perhaps you haven't read the Wedge Stratagy that states that the purpose of ID is to replace science with a view that is "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Quote by: xyzer It questions the unknown.

That's nonsense. ID creationism is an attempt to represent religion as science. The problem is that there is no ID research and therefore no publication of ID in real scientific journals.

Quote by: xyzer How did it all begin is the question and none of you have answered that one.

And neither have you. I don't accept magic as an answer. I have seen the mechanisms of evolution in operation and I have read the works of many, many scientists who have also observed it. Evolution isn't a logical problem. "POOFGODDIDIT" is.

[xyzer]

Hey Gallo! Drop you wine bottle and listen up?
I don't deny the scientifically provable theory of evolution! Nor do I deny there is an unscientifically provable theory of creation that is not covered in the evolutionary process.

ID, as I understand it, has to do with how did it all begin?You can't evolve from nothing can you? By the way after several paragraphs of explanation you haven't been able to answer the question of how it all began? I guess you can't and neither can I.

ID also addresses the question as to how some of the extremely complicated living things could have evolved... things that are not defined under the evolutionary theory.

I haven't read of any school trying to represent ID as a scientific theory? What I have read is that some are going to teach it as a theory that cannot be proved...as I mentioned above a possible answer to the great 'unkown'. The atheists and non belivers have quickly labeled this attempt to address an unknown as a religious expression and somehow dangerous to the minds of those exposed to it.
Silly nonsense IMNSHO! :eek:

[gallo]

Quote by: xyzer [b]snip of ignorance

Your remarks are not of sufficient intelligence to merit a response.

[xyzer]

Your remarks are not of sufficient intelligence to merit a response

Gallo..come on now... You haven't answered my question? Exculpatory non sequiturs, tinged with ad hominem remarks, indicate to me that you can't...so my point must be valid. If you are so rigidly locked in to your convictions defend them with logic and fact!
I'm still open to a verifiable scientific theory explaining how it all began so evolution could commence??

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer ID, as I understand it, has to do with how did it all begin?You can't evolve from nothing can you? By the way after several paragraphs of explanation you haven't been able to answer the question of how it all began? I guess you can't and neither can I. ID also addresses the question as to how some of the extremely complicated living things could have evolved... things that are not defined under the evolutionary theory. I haven't read of any school trying to represent ID as a scientific theory? What I have read is that some are going to teach it as a theory that cannot be proved...as I mentioned above a possible answer to the great 'unkown'. The atheists and non belivers have quickly labeled this attempt to address an unknown as a religious expression and somehow dangerous to the minds of those exposed to it. Silly nonsense IMNSHO! :eek:

Complexity no more requires intelligence than does simplicity. The watchmaker analogy is foolish regardless of how many times it is repeated.

You say that ID is a theory that can't be proven. If it can not be proven then it is not a theory in the scientific sense of the term. Duh. You keep going on with your First Cause argument, as if it means something. Your cosmology has nothing to do with evolution and less to do with science. It is religion. Nothing wrong with that just don't try pedaling it as science.

[gallo]

Quote by: xyzer Gallo..come on now... You haven't answered my question? Exculpatory non sequiturs, tinged with ad hominem remarks, indicate to me that you can't...so my point must be valid. If you are so rigidly locked in to your convictions defend them with logic and fact! I'm still open to a verifiable scientific theory explaining how it all began so evolution could commence??

You began with an ad hominem and then aptly demonstrated your vast ignorance of science, biology, evolutionary theory, as well as ID creationism, not to mention English punctuation. Your question has already been ably answered by others in this thread before you ever arrived. Essentially, how it all began is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

My original remark stands. Your remarks are not of sufficient intelligence to merit a response

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: xyzer I don't deny the scientifically provable theory of evolution!

This statement gave me hope for you xyzer. But then it was dashed to pieces with...

Quote by: xyzer Nor do I deny there is an unscientifically provable theory of creation that is not covered in the evolutionary process.

If an idea is "unscientifically provable" then by definition it is NOT a theory.

Quote by: xyzer By the way after several paragraphs of explanation you haven't been able to answer the question of how it all began?

Nobody with knowledge of the scientific method and the theory of evolution would ever pose this question is a discussion of evolution. Evolution exists no matter how life came to be.

But, just to play along here, nobody knows the 'how' or 'why' of the origins of life. And as any logical person would tell you, 'not knowing' how something happened under one hypothesis/theory is not evidence for a competing hypothesis/theory. For this same reason, I can't say that ID is NOT responsible.

If you want to show that ID is responsible for the creation of life then it is not enough to say that 'evolution/science cannot explain it'. You must first demonstrate a process by which life was 'designed' in a laboratory experiment. Then once you've designed life in the laboratory you must then show that there was an intelligence here on earth before life began.

Quote by: xyzer I haven't read of any school trying to represent ID as a scientific theory? What I have read is that some are going to teach it as a theory that cannot be proved

VERY interesting choice of words here. Of course, you wrote 'proved' to mean that there isn't sufficient evidence to support it 100%. But, the older use of 'prove' means simply to test. Like in the old saying, "The exception that proves the rule." If you replace 'proves' with what 'proves' actually means then we end up with...

"The exception that tests the rule."

What is my point? My point is that you described ID correctly. From your quote...

"...teach it as a theory that cannot be proved."

Then we throw in the actual meaning of proved...

"...teach it as a theory that cannot be tested."

A theory that cannot be tested is no scientific theory at all and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

[Jack]

Here is why the theists are so deadset against evolution:

The ACLU has sued to stop the Dover Area [Pennsylvania] School District from instructing students that Darwinism is not necessarily a scientific fact, because, they say, doing so amounts to “an establishment of religion.” The ACLU is correct that religion is involved, but it’s on the wrong side of the street. Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with establishing atheistic socialism as the official national religion. The absolutely essential doctrine of Darwinism is atheism, the assertion that life came into being by accident, via purely physical means. Without this doctrine and the corresponding thesis that all animal and plant life evolved from a single, primitive life form, there is no point at all in advocating Darwinism. Without the atheistic rejection of God as the Creator of the entire universe, Darwinism would be no more than a footnote in taxonomic classification of plants and animals. Science can deal only with aspects of the material world to describe the phenomena of nature and to seek explanations for the processes of nature. Science cannot claim to deal with ontology, the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand the nature and source of Being itself (how the phenomena and processes of nature came to exist), an inquiry that inevitably travels the path of religious explanations. But that is precisely what Darwinism claims to do. Without its religious ontological content, Darwinian evolution brings nothing useful to the table that earlier schools of biology had not already delivered.

IF atheism had any relation to evolution, I still wouldn't understand the fear of it expressed by the religious. Is their faith that weak? Is their confidence in what they say to be true shaken, their resolve diminished? It makes no sense to me.

They say Jesus told his followers to be meak, turn the other cheek and to expect persecution and death. Revelations says that some really bad shit is going to hit the fan in the last days.

So why are the religious even concerned with these things? Why do they care about any of it. It's all going according to plan, they would have us believe, so why keep messing around with the world that the rest of us accept as reality? Let us have our fun. We promise not to get in your way when the rapture is announced.

[gallo]

For lack of something better to do tonight, I'm going to respond the the ignorance so that it will be apparent.

Quote by: xyzer Hey Gallo!

That's gallo. Do you have a reading problem?

Quote by: xyzer Drop you wine bottle and listen up?

Is this the question that you wanted me to answer? Sorry, I don't understand the question. Moreover, I don't understand the reference to wine, since that would be Gallo. I'm gallo.

Quote by: xyzer I don't deny the scientifically provable theory of evolution!

Please define "scientific," "provable," and "theory." Your remark is gibberish in the context of science.

Quote by: xyzer Nor do I deny there is an unscientifically provable theory of creation that is not covered in the evolutionary process.

It seems that you have no idea what the word "theory" means in science. Please state the "theory" of creation. Please offer the observations on which it is based, the predictions that were made from it, and the experimental tests that supported it. Oh! Wait! You said "unscientifically provable," didn't you? I guess that means bald assertion based on the mythology of nomadic, bronze age herdsmen.

Quote by: xyzer ID, as I understand it, has to do with how did it all begin?

Why do you think that I can answer a question as to what you understand. Either that is what you understand or it isn't. Why ask me? If that is what you understand, then say so. If not, then state that it isn't.

However, based on several years of reading ID and about ID, you should not understand the ID is about "...how did it all begin." ID is about throwing our hands up in the air and declaring that a magical, invisible, unknown designer did it in every case for which we lack knowledge about detailed evolutionary steps.

Quote by: xyzer You can't evolve from nothing can you?

Actually, I can't evolve at all. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do - over time.

Quote by: xyzer By the way after several paragraphs of explanation you haven't been able to answer the question of how it all began?

I'm not sure what the question is or why that is a question. Could it be that I didn't even attempt to answer the question of how it all began? As far as I recall, I have been discussing evolutionary biology. That means that I have limited my discussions to changes in populations of living organisms. It is quite irrelevant how it all began. You may postulate some magical, invisible, mythological being if you wish. Personally, I think that it all began by some natural means. We don't know, and may never know all of the details, but some progress in answering the question is being made - self replicating molecules, spontaneous formation of lipid membranes, construction of artificial viruses.

Quote by: xyzer I guess you can't and neither can I.

No, I can't. But that isn't the topic under discussion.

Quote by: xyzer ID also addresses the question as to how some of the extremely complicated living things could have evolved... things that are not defined under the evolutionary theory.

No, ID doesn't address any questions as to how anything evolved. ID claims that irreducibly complex structures were designed by some unknown intelligent designer and not evolved. How sad that you choose to argue a position that you don't even understand.

Perhaps, now that you have made the assertion, please tell us about the evolution of complicated living things that is not defined under "the" evolutionary theory. Surely this wonderful science has been published!

Quote by: xyzer I haven't read of any school trying to represent ID as a scientific theory?

How sad that you are arguing a position that you don't understand. Why haven't you at least educated yourself about your own position, much less your ignorance about science and evolutionary theory?

Quote by: xyzer What I have read is that some are going to teach it as a theory that cannot be proved

Name a single scientific theory that has been proven.

Quote by: xyzer ...as I mentioned above a possible answer to the great 'unkown'.

But if it is "unknown" then it isn't an answer and it isn't science. It has no place in science classes.

Quote by: xyzer The atheists and non belivers have quickly labeled this attempt to address an unknown as a religious expression and somehow dangerous to the minds of those exposed to it.

what does atheism or non-belief have to do with science? I guess that reduces your question to one of religion rather than science. So by your own assertion ID is a religious position rather than science. That means, according to the Constitution of the United States, that your religion may not be taught as science in public schools.

Quote by: xyzer Silly nonsense IMNSHO!

Silly nonsense is an apt characterization of your opinion. You have failed to educate yourself as to the Constitution, in evolutionary theory, and worst of all, in the very nonsense that you support, ID creationism.

And of course, by your own admission, your opinion is certainly not so honest.

[Starboy]

If anyone thought that ID was not a rehash of creationism read this testimony in the Dover case:

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/WA100505.pdf

They really start nailing the IDiots around page 110.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Here is another testamony from a Catholic theology professor.

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf

It starts getting good around page 10.

Starboy

[gallo]

Day 1, both the AM and PM sessions were testimony by Dr. Kenneth Miller, Professor of Cell Biology at Brown University, co-author of both high school and college biology text books, and author of "Finding Darwin's God." Dr. Miller declares that he is a Christian and sees no conflict between God's creation and God's word.

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1AMSession.pdf

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1PMSession.pdf

Dr. Miller makes ID look foolish from the beginning. At one point he says that the difference between ID and "creation science" is that ID has removed any testable scientific predictions.

[Starboy]

It will be interesting to see how this trial turns out. So far though it doesn't look good for the creationists, uhhh, I mean IDers.

Starboy

[gallo]

The onion has also reported on the trial.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41260

[Jack]

Let's say for a moment that I really want to find evidence of intelligent design in nature. I see swirls and circles, especially in seashells; I see lines nearly straight in the joints between stones and strata; I find strange designs in the shape of trees and clouds.

Since designers usually have a favorite style they employ, why wouldn't I presume to see the work of at least three different designers; one who likes circles, one who uses lines and the last who applies random shapes to things? Or I could argue for an aquatic designer, another for land and a third for things in the air.

If you don't specify a designer, I'm free to invent as many as it takes for me to believe that all the different designs in nature have been covered. I'm also free to imagine them to be natural or supernatural. The Spaghetti Monster becomes a reasonable candidate for designer.

To say nature is designed also implies that there is a purpose as most things are designed to fulfill a purpose. This spirals further into philosophy and further from science the more you consider all the implications.

[Starboy]

The other thing is the presumption of the designer. Why must complexity be an indication of design. In my experience simplicity is an indication of design. Complexity is an indication of little or no thought having been put into the problem. It is not as if chaos is simple.

Starboy