Intelligent Design

Originally posted by inimalist
my sources on what?

I think the only claims I have made as of yet are about the Nylon bacteria, which are so famous at this point that there is a Wiki about them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase) with links and citations of the research papers.

WIKIPEDIA???!!!!!!!! 😂 😂 😂

WKIPEDIA???!! No, now I really think you know what you're talking about. 😆

At least I TALK with scientists about their methodology, your souirce is WIKIPEDIA!!! All your credibility just went out of the window dude.

Originally posted by inimalist
pt 2
Who am I however? Well, as irrelevant as that is, whip it out and lets give a measure.

I work in the Attention research lab in the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario Canada. By definition I am a professional research scientist, though to be honest, I am still an assistant and undergrad.

Well, here are my credentials. I am a docuemnatry filmmaker. I have done three series of scientific documentary series on a variety of topics (which included neurological, biological, genetic (humand and plants), psychological and meteorogical topics) plus I have done six international ancient history documentaries. So not only do I talk to scientists in these fields, I also get to interview them seriously in a way that I can confront all of them with opposing views.

So I am not a scientist myself, I do know a lot about scientific methodoly. I studied Psychology for a few years so I know what scientific reserach is supposed to be like, and what criteria should be used before making conclusions. And what I come across in all my exploits is that in general: the more research people do, the more facts they find, the harder it gets to draw conclusions. Plus in the end, we know very little. I get this confirmed by every scientist I meet in whatever field. So all scientists work with what tehy have, realising they're barely scratching the surface of the ice berg when it comes to understanding genetics, the brain, ancient history.

And that is why I find it so odd that everything shouts loudly: evolution has been proven. It is not but it's, based on what we DO know, by far the best SCIENTIFIC model we have. So you can work with it as a scientist. ID is very hard to work with, if not impossible, but the idea is not something conceived by complete nutters. And that's what evolution-is-proven people sometimes make them out to be.
And that confirms my experience that scientists are oftel like little children, calling names en degrading people with opposing views. You act a little like them already.

He didn't give you wikipedia as his source, he gave you a wikipedia link as a linking point to several refereed articles. Rofflecopter lollerskates.

He could have just as easily told you to go onto pubmed yourself, assuming you have access to do a literature search.

Or he could do this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v306/n5939/abs/306203a0.html
And assume you have access to nature.

But maybe he simply wanted to provide a lay reference point for a topic that's well established for over 20 years as implied by the statement in which the link is provided.

As to the level to which evolution is "proven," the following quote from Steven J Gould is quite pertinent:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Or if that doesn't suffice, then perhaps Hermann Muller is more your taste:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

Well, I disagree with that. Facts are the things that you study, the connections you make between them are the theory. Just to say there's a high probability to the theory and therefore we can state a model as fact is highly presumptuous. Because what it does, is make anyone with a different view on that theory a heretic.

Once the evolutionists were accused of heresy against the teaching of creation. THey struggled on until the model was superior to that of creationism. And now we all talk shame about those terrible creationists, how they ridiculed Darwin etc. etc. And rightly so.

But no one seems to notice that the roles have been reversed. Now the evolutionists are caretakers of the most accepted theory and anyone daring to question it is condemned as an heretic. That attitude in itself rules out (to a certain extent) open mindedness.
And I have seen it for instance in the chronology debates of the ancient near east: people shout at each, call each other names, hate each other's guts... In the whole debate about evolution people do the same on both sides. And honestly, I have found among the 30+ scientists I interviewed (who in their own right are esteemed, did great work, are usually extremely pleasant people, I really deeply respect them) often also have troubles really listening to good arguments. Arguments that feels like they question the model, but in fact point out sometimes very valid flaws. Sorry to not give names of conference dates where this kind of thing happened, but it was too often.

So the honourable gentlemen Gould and Muller make beautiful statements. I disagree with them simply for the fact that scientists should first and foremost make clear how they get their factual data, where they got it and how they make the connections. They cannot use the model to claim a certain factuality (or truth in disguise) of a model. It kinda locks everything down in one direction. .

Oopps... double post

Originally posted by queeq
Well, I disagree with that. Facts are the things that you study, the connections you make between them are the theory. Just to say there's a high probability to the theory and therefore we can state a model as fact is highly presumptuous. Because what it does, is make anyone with a different view on that theory a heretic.

Once the evolutionists were accused of heresy against the teaching of creation. THey struggled on until the model was superior to that of creationism. And now we all talk shame about those terrible creationists, how they ridiculed Darwin etc. etc. And rightly so.

But no one seems to notice that the roles have been reversed. Now the evolutionists are caretakers of the most accepted theory and anyone daring to question it is condemned as an heretic. That attitude in itself rules out (to a certain extent) open mindedness.
And I have seen it for instance in the chronology debates of the ancient near east: people shout at each, call each other names, hate each other's guts... In the whole debate about evolution people do the same on both sides. And honestly, I have found among the 30+ scientists I interviewed (who in their own right are esteemed, did great work, are usually extremely pleasant people, I really deeply respect them) often also have troubles really listening to good arguments. Arguments that feels like they question the model, but in fact point out sometimes very valid flaws. Sorry to not give names of conference dates where this kind of thing happened, but it was too often.

So the honourable gentlemen Gould and Muller make beautiful statements. I disagree with them simply for the fact that scientists should first and foremost make clear how they get their factual data, where they got it and how they make the connections. They cannot use the model to claim a certain factuality (or truth in disguise) of a model. It kinda locks everything down in one direction. .

The problem people have with ID is not that it challenges a widely accepted theory (based in a multitude of facts and evidence), but that it does so without a shred of foundation or evidence. What IDers say is basically "but there could have been a "god"", that's it. That is their argument.

Yes and no. I agree there is very little evidence. I don't support it as a theory, but they do raise some interesting points to which evolution has yet to explore the ramifications for the model.

In essence they are saying that on a molecular basis, it is sometimes hard to argue that molecules develop. A. because there are laws, atoms only fit together in particular ways, so a growth of a molecule is limited, B. half a molecule that is not functionate (it is only that when complete) would not survive in an evolution model (only the strong survive), yet it must to grow out to be as we know it. So where do these full grown molecules come from?

I think these are very interesting points they raise. They are valid points, things to be figured out, since we can only see life on a molecular level since about 10 years or so. Way before the evolution model was developed.. Some arguments are already succesfully kinda debunked (like the flagellum motor of bacteria) with evidence that some molecules can develop.

Yet when we look at a living cell which functions nearly like a fully operational city, with enzyms, proteins etc. etc. .. all complex and fully functionate molecules, it does need some study in how all of these molecules developed by chance, mutation etc. and get to work together like they do. Truly, a living cell is an amazing piece of work, no matter how it came into existence. And yet, is pure chance mutation a possible cause for these millions of systems that make up a living creature? A valid question I think.

Originally posted by queeq
Yes and no. I agree there is very little evidence. I don't support it as a theory, but they do raise some interesting points to which evolution has yet to explore the ramifications for the model.

In essence they are saying that on a molecular basis, it is sometimes hard to argue that molecules develop. A. because there are laws, atoms only fit together in particular ways, so a growth of a molecule is limited, B. half a molecule that is not functionate (it is only that when complete) would not survive in an evolution model (only the strong survive), yet it must to grow out to be as we know it. So where do these full grown molecules come from?

I think these are very interesting points they raise. They are valid points, things to be figured out, since we can only see life on a molecular level since about 10 years or so. Way before the evolution model was developed.. Some arguments are already succesfully kinda debunked (like the flagellum motor of bacteria) with evidence that some molecules can develop.

Yet when we look at a living cell which functions nearly like a fully operational city, with enzyms, proteins etc. etc. .. all complex and fully functionate molecules, it does need some study in how all of these molecules developed by chance, mutation etc. and get to work together like they do. Truly, a living cell is an amazing piece of work, no matter how it came into existence. And yet, is pure chance mutation a possible cause for these millions of systems that make up a living creature? A valid question I think.

Just because we don't understand how something works or came together, does not mean something is impossible.

Ermmm..... like the existence of a creator? 😉

Originally posted by queeq
Ermmm..... like the existence of a creator? 😉

Who created a snow flake?

The idea of a creator is not within the realm of science. That is why we have religion. Any discussion of a creator should never be a part of science. That is not the point of science.

You created the snow flake. "Just because we don't understand how something works or came together, does not mean something is impossible."

It's like a phrase often heard in scientific circles to do away with stuff that doesn't fit the model (any model): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words: just because the evidence is not there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a pretty lame suggestion.
Because it would make any argument possible, like "Martians built the pyramids".

Because we have no evidence that martians didn't build the pyramids, it doesn't mean they didn't. We don't exactly know how the pyramids were built, but they are there. There's no reason to believe martians built them, but there is no evidence that they didn't either. You can go on like that: just because we have no evidence for a creator, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

And that is why I so totally agree with you that you need FACTS to do science. A creator does NOT belong in the realm of science, because there is no evidence for it. And therefore a model that is not entirely proven should not be called a fact.

Originally posted by queeq
You created the snow flake. "Just because we don't understand how something works or came together, does not mean something is impossible."

It's like a phrase often heard in scientific circles to do away with stuff that doesn't fit the model (any model): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words: just because the evidence is not there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a pretty lame suggestion.
Because it would make any argument possible, like "Martians built the pyramids".

Because we have no evidence that martians didn't build the pyramids, it doesn't mean they didn't. Just because we have no evidence for a creator, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

And that is why I so totally agree with you that you need FACTS to do science. A creator does NOT belong in the realm of science, because there is no evidence for it. And therefore a model that is not entirely proven should not be called a fact.

Then why do you support ID? ID is not a scientific theory; it is a religious theory.

I never said I did support it. RBFYP, Shak!

In fact, I said several times that ID doesn't work as a model or theory to me because it isn't a model. Not even close. That doesn't mean however that ID folk don't raise valid points. Points that I think deserve an answer.

Originally posted by queeq
I never said I did support it. RBFYP, Shak!

In fact, I said several times that ID doesn't work as a model or theory to me because it isn't a model. Not even close. That doesn't mean however that ID folk don't raise valid points. Points that I think deserve an answer.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

Ok then, why should science answer the "valid points"?

Also, let's say that there is a god; witch one of the thousands of gods in theology, over time, is it?

God is not the issue. These are points I find interesting and valid to raise:

Originally posted by queeq
In essence they are saying that on a molecular basis, it is sometimes hard to argue that molecules develop. A. because there are laws, atoms only fit together in particular ways, so a growth of a molecule is limited, B. half a molecule that is not functionate (it is only that when complete) would not survive in an evolution model (only the strong survive), yet it must to grow out to be as we know it. So where do these full grown molecules come from?

I think these are very interesting points they raise. They are valid points, things to be figured out, since we can only see life on a molecular level since about 10 years or so. Way before the evolution model was developed.. Some arguments are already succesfully kinda debunked (like the flagellum motor of bacteria) with evidence that some molecules can develop.

Yet when we look at a living cell which functions nearly like a fully operational city, with enzyms, proteins etc. etc. .. all complex and fully functionate molecules, it does need some study in how all of these molecules developed by chance, mutation etc. and get to work together like they do. Truly, a living cell is an amazing piece of work, no matter how it came into existence. And yet, is pure chance mutation a possible cause for these millions of systems that make up a living creature? A valid question I think.

Again, RBYP.

Originally posted by queeq
God is not the issue. These are points I find interesting and valid to raise:

Again, RBYP.

Sorry, but I don't know what RBYP means.

Why should a religious theory be taught in school?

It shouldn't. But if a religious school wants to teach it as well as evolution, why not? It's still something presented by bona fide scholars, maybe not in great numbers, but still people with PhD's... why would one PhD be better than another? Why does majority represent correctness? Since when did science go democratic?

Besides, it's good to teach kids to think for themselves instead of getting a single approach stuffed down their throats, be it evolution or creationism. or something in between, like ID.

Originally posted by queeq
Yes and no. I agree there is very little evidence. I don't support it as a theory, but they do raise some interesting points to which evolution has yet to explore the ramifications for the model.

In essence they are saying that on a molecular basis, it is sometimes hard to argue that molecules develop. A. because there are laws, atoms only fit together in particular ways, so a growth of a molecule is limited, B. half a molecule that is not functionate (it is only that when complete) would not survive in an evolution model (only the strong survive), yet it must to grow out to be as we know it. So where do these full grown molecules come from?

I think these are very interesting points they raise. They are valid points, things to be figured out, since we can only see life on a molecular level since about 10 years or so. Way before the evolution model was developed.. Some arguments are already succesfully kinda debunked (like the flagellum motor of bacteria) with evidence that some molecules can develop.

Yet when we look at a living cell which functions nearly like a fully operational city, with enzyms, proteins etc. etc. .. all complex and fully functionate molecules, it does need some study in how all of these molecules developed by chance, mutation etc. and get to work together like they do. Truly, a living cell is an amazing piece of work, no matter how it came into existence. And yet, is pure chance mutation a possible cause for these millions of systems that make up a living creature? A valid question I think.

Originally posted by queeq
It shouldn't. But if a religious school wants to teach it as well as evolution, why not? It's still something presented by bona fide scholars, maybe not in great numbers, but still people with PhD's... why would one PhD be better than another? Why does majority represent correctness? Since when did science go democratic?

Besides, it's good to teach kids to think for themselves instead of getting a single approach stuffed down their throats, be it evolution or creationism. or something in between, like ID.

Because not all possibilities merit equal consideration. To quote Stephen J. Gould, "I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Originally posted by queeq
You created the snow flake. "Just because we don't understand how something works or came together, does not mean something is impossible."

It's like a phrase often heard in scientific circles to do away with stuff that doesn't fit the model (any model): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words: just because the evidence is not there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a pretty lame suggestion.
Because it would make any argument possible, like "Martians built the pyramids".

Because we have no evidence that martians didn't build the pyramids, it doesn't mean they didn't. We don't exactly know how the pyramids were built, but they are there. There's no reason to believe martians built them, but there is no evidence that they didn't either. You can go on like that: just because we have no evidence for a creator, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

And that is why I so totally agree with you that you need FACTS to do science. A creator does NOT belong in the realm of science, because there is no evidence for it. And therefore a model that is not entirely proven should not be called a fact.

That's the most awful comparison I ever heard. You are trying to compare apples to giant ears from Alpha Centauri with running noses.

Absence of evidence of minimal parts of a theory does in no way equate to the theory being shook at its ground and considered as scrapworthy.

There's no evidence whatsoever that Martians built the pyramids, let alone exist, but if there was no evidence that martians put one stone of the pyramids in place, but ample, undeniable proof that they put all other stones in place, then that's a whole ****ing different story, one that does certainly not require an opposing theory that Venusians built the pyramids with the Martians even though there is 0 evidence for that.