Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Johnny B]

The Authors of those books are building their case against evolution in Darwin´s "Difficulties On Theory" a chapter in his book The Origin of Species.

 

Darwin was aware of those difficulties that is why as pure natuaralist he presented that chapter and hoped for a brigher mind in future generations to shed ligh on it.

Blaming him that no one has YET shed the light on these difficulties is pure dogmatisim at it´s extreme.

 

The creationsits (these authors)seem to ignore the fact that science and scientists acknowledges human ignorance and treat it as a relative and natural phenomena.

The problem with the creationists is ( as it always been) instead of comming clean scientifically and proving their beleif beyond any reasonable doubt , they meterialize on the shortcommings of the other knowledges ,theories.

 

If a naturalist, Atheist etc etc , fails to DISPROVE the idea(theory) of creationisim scientifically , He or she doesen´t necessarily proved the contrary.and that is PURE science.

 

I neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

 

Now that JB has shown his dedication,devotion to science , let me add that i beleive in ignorance as beeing the 3rd pool between the camps "KNOWs" and "don´t KNOWs".

The thin line of the truth is our Ignorance dosen´t yield Creationisim and vice versa.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

I neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

Careful there, JB. Statements like the above might cause rioting and the unnecessary death of innocent folk.

[Johnny B]

Thnaks Fidel ! ama b careful not to cause riots

i hope the readers will give the lil effort it takes to see my point.

 

Where is Bashi? his silence is to blame

Bashi(my Grad) share with us , what is so presuessive about the Neo-conservative creationisim?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Elysian:

As I said, I don’t know what arguments intelligent design presents, if they don’t have any scientific evidence or arguments, it cannot be part of the science curricula. However, they might have some interesting points that can be integrated when teaching evolution...

 

I have to disagree here. I don't think they have anything 'interesting' that is worth teaching to kids. I have yet to see any, maybe in the future but so far nothing interesting or worth considering, they are peddling same old holy scripture arguements sprinkled with little bit of psuedoscience.

 

Students in schools should be taught science and the scientific method. Why? Becuz we see the fruits it has beared through many wonderful and beneficial invention and innovations that have lengthened and embettered life. No need to change what has worked. Furthermore, science is the only discipline that is self-correcting. When science theory is flawed or has short comings it is scientists that correct them, not priests. That is why holy men should have no say on science and science matters other than personal opinions.

 

Scientific facts and scientific theories, are not flawless certainties! Scientific facts involve not only testable and observable elements but they also involve....

 

Scientific theories explain scientific facts. Since the knowledge we use to make these explanations is tentative and not complete, then yes, science theories are not certainties.

 

No science theory is certainty, not even the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity says that apples fall from trees. Bus since the theory of gravity is not 'certain', would be wise to suggest that it is not certain that apples will fall from trees? Of course not. Becuz we know to be a FACT that apples fall from trees, the theory of gravity only gave us an explanation and mechanism and why it happens.

 

Same is true with the theory of evolution. Evolution theory is both fact and theory. It's a fact becuz we observe speciation in laborateries with yeasts and bacteria and in the field with like with English Moths and plants. Nothing will change that speciation is natural occurance.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

 

nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

 

The entire universe functions on deterministic course with exception of quantum mechanics field. Invariant natural laws of the universe make this possible. Nature is driven by invariant natural laws, no room for 'chance'.

[Elysian]

Ahh, I see now what you mean socod_badne… it’s a matter of linguistic difference I think.

 

An apple falling is a fact, true, but I wouldn’t regard that as a scientific fact, I would call that an observation. You don’t need science for making a statement like “I saw an apple fallâ€, then everything in our environment would be scientific facts… like “people eat apples†or “birds have feathers†… even children would be able to state scientific facts, like “apple is greenâ€.

 

As a researcher the first thing you do is to state a hypothesis and a null hypothesis; for example: Radioactivity cause cancer vs. Radioactivity does not cause cancer. To test the viability of the null hypothesis you have to design and conduct experiments. Depending on the experimental data the null hypothesis either will or will not be rejected as a viable possibility (of course most scientists hope for data that will reject the null hypothesis… no one is interested in “radioactivity does not cause cancerâ€, although that is important finding in itself… but that’s a whole other topic).

 

After you have run all the necessary experiments, collected all data, you interpret the data and/or do statistical analyzes which hopefully supports rejecting the null hypothesis, and finally you can make the statement – Radioactivity cause cancer – which would be a scientific fact!

 

So in the end what you call scientific fact is what I call data/ observations. What would you call “my†scientific fact???

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by Johnny B:

 

nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

 

The entire universe functions on

deterministic

course with exception of quantum mechanics field. Invariant natural laws of the universe make this possible. Nature is driven by invariant natural laws, no room for 'chance'.

determinisim....->

every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

 

And there comes the needle-eye opening of the creationisim.

Since an endless inevitable reaction yields a meaningless startless action, the thought of it having no START "somewhere" is an insult to the everage sound judgment which is not based on specialized knowledge("common sense" if u like)

 

Now that you the opening is there and you pointed at it , can you make sure that it won´t get so huge and take over cosmos?

 

Originally posted by Elysian:

even children would be able to state scientific facts, like “apple is greenâ€.

That was a lil bit below the belt , even the sarcasm is appreciateable

 

Now that you´re eting apples , lemme raise your eyeborow by pointing at the worm that is part and parcel of your apple which the Gravity theory takes into account but your child fails to mention

On a serious note .. it´s the cause and machanisim behind the fall of the apple that brings science into the theatre .

[Castro]

Speaking of creationism, what do you all thing of Carbon (or radiometric) dating? The processes by which the age of trees and rocks are estimated. I know Bible thumpers hate the whole idea of the book of Genesis in the bible being contracticed. In fact, they have an army of "scientists" out there disproving and creating doubt on radiometric dating. You see if life existed on earth say 1 billion years ago, as some testing of fossils has shown, then Genesis is essentially out of the window.

 

What do you all think of this?

[Baashi]

Fidel, amigo mio, you are missing the point by a mile iyo hudhudhdu Johnny the stud of SOL, as usual, is out of topic not to mention incoherent in his post Signore Ngonge is also comparing oranges and apples ID theory is not faith based theory and Christian Right jumped into the bandwagon for political and social reasons. Ironically Darwin's theory or rather the basis of his theory starts with assumption (Life is big accident and God has no role in both design and creation of the living organism) and from there it explains a whole lot that has nothing to do with that assumption.

 

I have a feeling that once the word scientific is thrown in into the mix some of you are willing to swallow it without even tasting the thing!

 

At issue is whether Darwinism can explain how man transitioned from chemical elements to bacteria-like organism to fish to mamamls then to its current form. At issue also is whether Darwinism can furnish its emperical eveidence to support the assertion that biological creation (from start to finish) is done by mutation and selection forces alone and Super Being or God has nothing to do with this whole enterprise known as life. This is the essence of Darwin's theory.

 

The observations Darwin and other subsequent evolutionist made about diversity of life and how living organism reproduce and adopt to their environment are good and valid observations. Likewise the carbon dating and other scientific tools are valid methodology to date the age of the fossils.

 

However, what Intelligence Design challengers are contesting is neither the diversity of life and factors that come into play in its course nor the validity of carbon dating methodology. What they are contesting is the assertion that the history of life can be explained by Darwin's theory which doesn't take into account priori - the First Cause. Is life an accident or is it a designed product by Omniscent God? These, my friends, are the issue at hand.

 

Now, will I let my kids attend to such lectures. Most definately! Listening to all the sides of the argument doesn't hurt a bit!

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

determinisim....->

every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

 

And there comes the needle-eye opening of the creationisim.

Since an endless inevitable reaction yields a meaningless startless action, the thought of it having no START "somewhere" is an insult to the everage sound judgment which is not based on specialized knowledge("common sense" if u like)

 

 

Deterministic universe is one that runs in conformity with invariant natural laws. These laws predetermine the outcome of every event. There are exception, as I already said, like radioactive decaying and quantum mechanics.

 

Creationists DON'T believe in deterministic world. Afterall, creation theory is inconsistant with natural laws of our world.

 

Now, in deterministic world, with every effect having a cause, the idea of startless action or effect is impossible. However, it is not an insult to sound judgement to say an effect can have no start. We already observe this fact in our world. There are self-sustaining systems that have neither a cause nor a start!

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Elysian:

An apple falling is a fact, true, but I wouldn’t regard that as a scientific fact, I would call that an observation. You don’t need science for making a statement like “I saw an apple fallâ€, then everything in our environment would be scientific facts… like “people eat apples†or “birds have feathers†… even children would be able to state scientific facts, like “apple is greenâ€.

 

True, observances of natural events are not all scientific facts. But since we are talking about the principle of gravity as explained by the theory of gravity, falling of an apple from a tree can be regarded as 'scientific fact'. I guess the standard for classifying something as 'scientific fact is if there is a proposed science theory that explains it.

 

As a researcher the first thing you do is to state a hypothesis and a null hypothesis; for example: Radioactivity cause cancer vs. Radioactivity does not cause cancer. To test the viability of the null hypothesis you have to design and conduct experiments. Depending on the experimental data the null hypothesis either will or will not be rejected as a viable possibility (of course most scientists hope for data that will reject the null hypothesis… no one is interested in “radioactivity does not cause cancerâ€, although that is important finding in itself… but that’s a whole other topic).

 

After you have run all the necessary experiments, collected all data, you interpret the data and/or do statistical analyzes which hopefully supports rejecting the null hypothesis, and finally you can make the statement – Radioactivity cause cancer – which would be a scientific fact!

 

So in the end what you call scientific fact is what I call data/ observations. What would you call “my†scientific fact???

If the experiment is reproducible and PREDICTIONS made by your hypothesis are consistant with data gathered and observed, then your theory can move from 'speculative stage' to established scientific fact and acceptable science theory.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Fidel:

Speaking of creationism, what do you all thing of Carbon (or radiometric) dating? The processes by which the age of trees and rocks are estimated. I know Bible thumpers hate the whole idea of the book of Genesis in the bible being contracticed. In fact, they have an army of "scientists" out there disproving and creating doubt on radiometric dating. You see if life existed on earth say 1 billion years ago, as some testing of fossils has shown, then Genesis is essentially out of the window.

 

What do you all think of this?

Carbon dating is pretty accurate as far as the scientific community is concerned. It is very reliable as well.

 

According to science the Universe is 15 billion years old and our earth is like 5 billion years old.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Baashi:

ID theory is not faith based theory and Christian Right jumped into the bandwagon for political and social reasons.

 

It is the same old creation theory changed a little bit to make it look less religiously flavoured and more 'scientific'. Only the gullible and anti-evolutionist view it otherwise.

 

Ironically Darwin's theory or rather the basis of his theory starts with assumption (Life is big accident and God has no role in both design and creation of the living organism) and from there it explains a whole lot that has nothing to do with that assumption.

 

The 'whole lot' DOES have EVERYTHING to do with the assumption. I suggest you read more about evolution theory because it is proposterous to suggest the theory's content have nothing to do with its assumption.

 

At issue is whether Darwinism can explain how man transitioned from chemical elements to bacteria-like organism to fish to mamamls then to its current form.

 

The theory of evolution assumes the existance of at least ONE living organism and goes on to explain how all living organisms today descended from that first living organim. How that organism formed or who created it, is an area that evolution theory doesn't delve into. This is oft used arguement by creationists even though it has been repeatedly explained to them its futility, they continue to repeat it as if mere repition will make it true. It doesn't!

 

At issue also is whether Darwinism can furnish its emperical eveidence to support the assertion that biological creation (from start to finish) is done by mutation and selection forces alone and Super Being or God has nothing to do with this whole enterprise known as life. This is the essence of Darwin's theory.

 

There is plenty of evidences and facts for evolution of life on earth for those interested. From fossil records, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, biogeorgraphy, geology, Genetics...many other fields all confirm the accuracy of evolution theory's version of life's history. What more evidence do you need to believe it as a scientific fact?

 

Not all science thoeries are as strongly supported by evidences and facts. Some have very week supporting evidences and are still accepted. Others are strongly supported. But if you compare Evolution theory to other 'well accepted' science theories, evolution theory comes on top on the strength of supporting evidence. Then, why does it get so much stick?

 

Evolution is a fact not because evolution theory says so but we observe it in laboratories and in nature. It is an observed fact!

 

However, what Intelligence Design challengers...contesting is the assertion that the history of life can be explained by Darwin's theory which doesn't take into account

priori

- the

First Cause

. Is life an accident or is it a designed product by Omniscent God? These, my friends, are the issue at hand.

 

What first cause?

 

Evolution theory, like all other science thoeries, doesn't take God into the picture in formulating theoires. This is the way science works, and I see no problem with it. Many scientists believe God and are perfectly comfortable in accepting the way science works. I can assure you if scientists considered the role of Allah in every situation, they wouldn't be much progress in science.

 

Now, will I let my kids attend to such lectures. Most definately! Listening to all the sides of the argument doesn't hurt a bit!

I agree.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Baashi:

What they are contesting is the assertion that the history of life can be explained by Darwin's theory which doesn't take into account

priori

- the

First Cause

. Is life an accident or is it a designed product by Omniscent God? These, my friends, are the issue at hand.

Baashi, until the day god descends onto earth, Darwin's theory, however flawed or incomplete, will hold the upper hand. Until there's no more reliance on any leaps, of faith or otherwise, the knowledge we have of the universe and the tools we've acquired to measure that knowledge will reign supreme.

 

I wonder what we will know in the year 7571 A.D. about evolution, the cosmos and other seemingly difficult issues now. Seeing that the holy scriptures have the disadvantage of not being revised to keep up, I can only imagine what it'll be like.

[Caano Geel]

peepz regradless of how much i agree or disagree with u, u do realised that evolution is completely agaisnt the creationist principles of islam, unless u can justify how Adam and Eve were mitochondrial dna ...

 

anyhow, out of curiosity who are biologists here, and how do you reconcile the two very different views, if it bothers u that is?