Evolution vs Intelligent Design

[cantab]

The test is designed. But the creatures that pass it are not. They may look designed, but then again, how they work may be utterly unintelligible to their creator. If the test is behavioural, then you can have thousands of creatures, all physically very different, passing it - thus I contend that there is no design in the organism itself.

Proponents of ID are generally arguing that living things show evidence of being directly designed. Every piece needing to be specially put together sort of thing.

And yes, I would say that the wavelet itself wasn't designed. Not that that's too relevant - the wavelet's an extremely simple thing, and (though I don't know the details), I expect many slightly different wavelets would work nearly as well.

ID proponents generally argue that lifeforms are 'fine-tuned' and that small changes would break them. Of course, they typically only think of changes that involve removal, and ignore additions, when in fact previous versions of an evolved system often have additional 'scaffolding' parts that are no longer seen.
Indeed, the presence of biological systems that can have no part removed is expected of evolution, since if a system CAN have a part removed without impairing its function, then the organism with the part removed will require less energy to build the system, giving it a competitive advantage.

 

[Nerdling]

I just have a question. I read in an article that evolution's one flaw is that it cannot produce evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a complex group of organisms such as a dog or a horse or even a human. Can anyone refute this? I'm not saying it's true (I'm rather skeptical), but when I think of it again, scientists haven't really offered any information on this.

Hmm...how about billions of years worth of fossil evidence?

Also...one word. Cellulose

 

[ultimifier]

since it is a widely known fact that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billions years old and CREATION took place 6000 years ago... I don't see how an intelectual debate can be held between the subjects.

It's a matter of look at this the earth is more than 6000 years old and then the creationists say your science is wrong and it goes in a circle

 

[MrIndigo]

since it is a widely known fact that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billions years old and CREATION took place 6000 years ago... I don't see how an intelectual debate can be held between the subjects.

It's a matter of look at this the earth is more than 6000 years old and then the creationists say your science is wrong and it goes in a circle

Creationism (or more specifically, Biblical literalism) isn't the same as intelligent design, FYI.

 

[Firestorm]

since it is a widely known fact that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billions years old and CREATION took place 6000 years ago... I don't see how an intelectual debate can be held between the subjects.

It's a matter of look at this the earth is more than 6000 years old and then the creationists say your science is wrong and it goes in a circle

We have some pretty good documentation of the world being created 6,000 years ago. It was discovered about a month ago.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as

 

[MrIndigo]

I just have a question. I read in an article that evolution's one flaw is that it cannot produce evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a complex group of organisms such as a dog or a horse or even a human. Can anyone refute this? I'm not saying it's true (I'm rather skeptical), but when I think of it again, scientists haven't really offered any information on this.

Actually, stem cells are a good example too, in addition to the cellulose mentioned above.

EDIT: <3 The Onion

 

[cantab]

Also...one word. Cellulose

Alright, here's one I'm not seeing. What does cellulose have to do with the evolution of multicellularism?

 

[Nerdling]

Also, I suggest people read about this short article before posting, seeing that a large amount of the arguments posted here contain the same flaw.

Hoyle's Fallacy

 

[SSBM roy]

Creationism (or more specifically, Biblical literalism) isn't the same as intelligent design, FYI.

Although I don't think you intended anything malicious, this is exactly the kind of misconception that benefits creationists by being spread. It may be possible to engage in philosophical masturbation about life being seeded on Earth by extraterrestrials or something of that sort, but in practice any sensible person has already made peace with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. Have you ever wondered why it's so hard to find a believer in supposed intelligent design who isn't a religious fundamentalist, or even one who isn't also fixated on seemingly unrelated things like abortion and gay marriage? Ever hear of the Wedge Document? This isn't about some honest attempt at scientific inquiry. It's part of a campaign to reestablish religion as the dominant cultural narrative, which is in itself a cynical form of social control. Read the passage quoted here and you might get a slightly better idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[MrIndigo]

Although I don't think you intended anything malicious, this is exactly the kind of misconception that benefits creationists by being spread. It may be possible to engage in philosophical masturbation about life being seeded on Earth by extraterrestrials or something of that sort, but in practice any sensible person has already made peace with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. Have you ever wondered why it's so hard to find a believer in supposed intelligent design who isn't a religious fundamenlist, or even one who isn't also fixated on seemingly unrelated things like abortion and gay marriage? Ever hear of the Wedge Document? This isn't about some honest attempt at scientific inquiry. It's part of a campaign to reestablish religion as the dominant cultural narrative, which is in itself a cynical form of social control. Read the passage quoted here and you might get a slightly better idea of what I'm talking about.

No, I meant that the issue at hand is not the dated age of the Earth compared to the dates in the Bible; that's something separate.

Intelligent Design, in terms of the "theory"/"movement", is entirely religious.

Also, I suggest people read about this short article before posting, seeing that a large amount of the arguments posted here contain the same flaw.

Hoyle's Fallacy

Dawkins actually published something demonstrating this fallacy, where he created a script that tried to randomly generate a few words (from Hamlet, if I recall); he compared the amount of time it took a program that just took a random assortment each time, with the time it took an algorithm that took a random assortment, but kept the parts that were "advantageous" (i.e. closer to the desired sentence).

 

[Force Majeure]

I just have a question. I read in an article that evolution's one flaw is that it cannot produce evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a complex group of organisms such as a dog or a horse or even a human. Can anyone refute this? I'm not saying it's true (I'm rather skeptical), but when I think of it again, scientists haven't really offered any information on this.

This is not a flaw; this is an "argument" made by Michael Behe in order to sell books in the mid-90s. Technically it's called the "irreducibly complex" argument, and it's really an argument via incredulity (ie. "I don't believe this could have ever happened so it didn't"). Here's a link debunking it. Here's a recap because it's rather wordy: the whole argument is crap; we have figured out that most systems that are "irreducibly complex" such as the flagella or the eye are merely smaller systems co-opted to do something else.

Intelligent Design is really a word coined in the 80s because people soured to the idea of Creationism. The two are really one in the same. Excellent arguments against Creationism/ID are everywhere; namely in the fact that almost nothing seems to have been designed intelligently at all. Take the human eye, for instance. In the eye, we have photoreceptors in the back. This is terribly inefficient as we inherently lose a lot of light. An intelligent designer would have definitely fixed this. Another example comes through our DNA. Our DNA carries billions of years of evolutionary baggage; viruses that integrated harmlessly into our genetic code; vestigial structures within our genome that carry no utility for us. In essence, a lot of our DNA is completely useless. The same holds true for most organisms. I mean, Holy Shit.

I'm done with this thread as of now, unless i'm called out again. I'm not an arguer, only a defender of my beliefs. I've let myself become part of the perpetual cycle of a ID vs Evolutionary Hypothesis argument. If you all have sense, then you'd stop as well.

Stop and do what? Buy a totally unscientific "theory" based on a fictional book cobbled together by politicized Romans sixteen hundred years ago? I'll pass. This is an example of the fundamental rift between scientists who are studying evolution and religious groups attempting to place an "alternative theory" in place. Scientists know that it takes time to iron out a theory, while those on the ID side of things want to plop a half-baked, untrue theory into our educational system and have it given equal time. It's as odious as the Fairness Doctrine. /snipe!

I would like to share part of why I am a Christian, and why I believe in ID. This video series is about the Star of Bethlehem at Christ's birth, one of the most amazing events in all of history. It is really incredible if you have the time to watch it. There are 8 parts, with the 8th video being what really got me. But please watch the others before it to understand what's going on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRk4ZBCxO3s

Gah. I'd rather there actually be a God than have to watch all 8 parts of it, and since I'm fairly good at deduction (and I watched the last part; two minutes of drivel isn't quite enough to make me vomit) I can see that the whole point of this "lecture" is to frame events in Christ's life to astrological events. A few observations I made, just from two minutes:

1) It is impossible for a solar eclipse to have happened at the time of Christ's death. Why? Simple. A Solar eclipse never occurs during a full moon, which happens to be the time of the Jewish Passover and Christ's death. Therefore, we have a few options: There was no darkness and this is merely a continuation of the long tradition of ascribing "miraculous" occurrences to happen at the times of holy/important people's deaths (see Prometheus, Alexander the Great, Osiris) OR believe the only non-Biblical account we have, which is a Christian apologist from the 3rd century. Hm.

2) You can't see the Aries cluster from the Moon in the way that was animated. Sorry.

--

As you can see, ID just pisses me off to no end, and it's really sad that people believe that it's science. It all boils down to this: replacing the unknown with God. This is in and of itself a futile and dangerous exercise: futile as it obviously isn't true, and dangerous because it puts a stop to any attempts we might have to discover. We've come too far along over the past few hundred years in deciphering the mysteries of our origins. We cannot let scientific discovery be stymied by fat-cat religious groups and their "alternate theories".

Goddamnit.

EDIT: This site contains facts that refute all ID/Creationist claims, sorted by scientific field. It's also an App!

 

[Brain]

As you can see, ID just pisses me off to no end, and it's really sad that people believe that it's science. It all boils down to this: replacing the unknown with God.

Except ID doesn't fill the "unknown", it actually tries to replace existing knowledge with inane religion fueled bullshit :(

Hoyle's Fallacy

You know, what amuses me most with this fallacy is that 1 in 10^40000 isn't even the right ballpark for a tornado assembling a Boeing 747 passing through a junkyard. The right ballpark for something so ridiculous seems more along the lines of 1 in 10^(10^40000) (the composition of an inordinate number of laws-of-physics-defying coincidences), which is incomparably less probable.

 

[Force Majeure]

Except ID doesn't fill the "unknown", it actually tries to replace existing knowledge with inane religion fueled bullshit :(

Crap. We're talking about fundy-mentalist ID? In that case, I agree. The one I was referring to is the one where they just throw their hands up at the beginning of life and say "wellp, we don't know right now, so it musta been God. Jesus helped".

I find both equally annoying.

 

[MrIndigo]

1) It is impossible for a solar eclipse to have happened at the time of Christ's death. Why? Simple. A Solar eclipse never occurs during a full moon, which happens to be the time of the Jewish Passover and Christ's death. Therefore, we have a few options: There was no darkness and this is merely a continuation of the long tradition of ascribing "miraculous" occurrences to happen at the times of holy/important people's deaths (see Prometheus, Alexander the Great, Osiris) OR believe the only non-Biblical account we have, which is a Christian apologist from the 3rd century. Hm.

2) You can't see the Aries cluster from the Moon in the way that was animated. Sorry.

--

As you can see, ID just pisses me off to no end, and it's really sad that people believe that it's science. It all boils down to this: replacing the unknown with God. This is in and of itself a futile and dangerous exercise: futile as it obviously isn't true, and dangerous because it puts a stop to any attempts we might have to discover. We've come too far along over the past few hundred years in deciphering the mysteries of our origins. We cannot let scientific discovery be stymied by fat-cat religious groups and their "alternate theories".

Goddamnit.

EDIT: This site contains facts that refute all ID/Creationist claims, sorted by scientific field. It's also an App!

While not an astronomical glitch exactly, the star of Bethlehem would have been invisible to the shepherds. Why is this? Because December 25 in Jerusalem (and, in fact, most of the Middle East) is the middle of the rainy season. The sheep would have been kept under shelter, not out on the fields, and ergo, the shepherds would not have been there to watch them, they too would have been indoors, and the sky would have been obscured by clouds and rain.


Where is the App on that website, though? I cannot find it.

 

[Brain]

Crap. We're talking about fundy-mentalist ID? In that case, I agree. The one I was referring to is the one where they just throw their hands up at the beginning of life and say "wellp, we don't know right now, so it musta been God. Jesus helped".

I find both equally annoying.

Yeah I guess that would be the fundies' backup position, once arguments from their own ignorance are annihilated. This said, abiogenesis isn't mature, but there are ideas, prospects, some encouraging experiments. They are still throwing out all that promise for a theory that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

MrIndigo: as far as I know (I have not looked into it), December 25 was chosen as Jesus' date of birth in order to match an existing pagan holiday (hence easing conversion to Christianity). I don't know what his real birthdate would be.

 

[cantab]

While not an astronomical glitch exactly, the star of Bethlehem would have been invisible to the shepherds. Why is this? Because December 25 in Jerusalem (and, in fact, most of the Middle East) is the middle of the rainy season. The sheep would have been kept under shelter, not out on the fields, and ergo, the shepherds would not have been there to watch them, they too would have been indoors, and the sky would have been obscured by clouds and rain.

Except for the fact that weather is not climate. Just because it's usually overcast doesn't make it overcast every night. And it was the Magi that followed the star, not the shepherds.
In any case, December 25th probably wasn't the actual date of Jesus' birth. But when you're dealing with someone born over 2000 years ago, an error of less than 6 months is insignificant ;-)

 

[MrIndigo]

Except for the fact that weather is not climate. Just because it's usually overcast doesn't make it overcast every night. And it was the Magi that followed the star, not the shepherds.
In any case, December 25th probably wasn't the actual date of Jesus' birth. But when you're dealing with someone born over 2000 years ago, an error of less than 6 months is insignificant ;-)

The overcastness is only minor point; the crux of the matter is that shepherds don't graze their sheep during December, so they'd never have been on the fields looking after them, as the story goes. The 25th of December was actually a European pagan festival day, as it happens.

 

[Altmer]

I believe Jesus was born in March. Not sure.

 

[Ira Aeternam]

First of all, though unlikely, a single-celled organism is nothing more than a collection of molecules. Therefore there is no reason to suppose that it couldn't have been created by a lightning strike on a liquid containing the correct elements. Although this is unlikely, when you take into account the size and age of the universe, it begins to seem far more likely. Now, some of you may be thinking: "why here and not anywhere else?" Well, we have to be here to be talking about it, so it happened. Simple. Also, this is why I believe in aliens. (not that we will ever meet any.)

The idea that life was spread to earth by other life does not come close to solving the problem of why life existed in the first place. This may also mean that there would have to be evidence of areas with suitability for life nearby.

There is no reason to suppose that Intelligent Design is not compatible with evolution. All that evolution did was rob theologians of their main examples. It seems entirely plausible that God "created" evolution, or even simply created the universe such that it would map out in a predetermined way. This can still be classified as intelligent design, and does not require you not to understand evolution. There are in fact practically no arguments against this. However, what these theories do show is that Intelligent Design is not entirely necessary for us to exist, and that, in fact, many things can be attributed to chance that previously sounded too unlikely.

By the way, I personally do not believe God exists. There is in my opinion no evidence for his existence, and certainly that there is no reason to suppose that he is like any Christian says he is (particularly as the christian god is self-contradictory). This is what Richard Dawkins would descibe as "Vanity."

Anyone obstructing the process here by rejecting evolution is doing so because of direct statements from the Bible obviously. Intelligent design in their case is justification of this as well as the existence of God. These are the people who fall into the groups suggested above.

Actually, the truth of the matter is lightning or whatever you were saying doesn't really pertain to the creation of a "founder" organism. The argued creation of the first organisms was the forced combination of elements present in the earth's atmosphere during its formation being compressed due to the massive heat of the planet. During the formation of the planet, the heat created an organic protein. Now where it went from there I don't quite remember, but abiotic genesis was "simulated" back in the....80's? 90's? I'm not sure, but I know you can look it up.

 

[cantab]

Abiogenesis has never been replicated in the lab. It may not be amenable to laboratory replication since it may be too unlikely (Earth is orders of magnitude bigger than a test tube, meaning a reaction you'll never see in the lab could have happened somewhere in the young Earth).

Really, at the moment, it could have happened anywhere. Warm shallow seas, deep sea vents, even several miles beneath the surface of the Earth in solid rock. (There are microbes deep in the Earth's crust today).

 

[mtr]

MrIndigo: as far as I know (I have not looked into it), December 25 was chosen as Jesus' date of birth in order to match an existing pagan holiday (hence easing conversion to Christianity). I don't know what his real birthdate would be.

There's no conclusion on the month (or year, but many place it around 4 BC) Jesus was born, let alone the exact date. According to Manchester in a World Lit only by Fire, The Eastern Roman Empire changed around the date a few times in the centuries after the birth of Christianity, originally having January 14th or something like that.

Not that it matters much, but it again goes to show that religions are works of men, not the infallible word of God.

 

[Force Majeure]

Where is the App on that website, though? I cannot find it.

Sorry. It got removed from the App Store because someone claimed copyright infringement, even though the index really just cites many different people. (the person claiming infringement? I betcha ten bucks it was a Creationist.)

 

[Little Battler]

Actually, most of the ID believers I know doesn't like evolution because of this one argument :

"There's no way humans were evolved from apes."

Since they can't accept that we really evolved from other animals, they took ID instead, which is really annoying.

and since Cantab is already doing an excellent job, I'll leave the arguments to him :P

 

[Altmer]

Guys, the Miller-Urey experiment only concerned the formation of amino acids (essential building blocks of proteins)

 

[Ira Aeternam]

Actually, most of the ID believers I know doesn't like evolution because of this one argument :

"There's no way humans were evolved from apes."

Since they can't accept that we really evolved from other animals, they took ID instead, which is really annoying.

and since Cantab is already doing an excellent job, I'll leave the arguments to him :P

But even Evolution doesn't suggest we evolved "from" apes, sir. To suggest so is just foolishness.