Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Site Restructuring

    The site is currently undergoing some restructuring, which will take some time. Sorry for the inconvenience if things are a little hard to find right now.

    Please let us know if you find any new problems with the way things work and we will get them fixed. You can always report any problems or difficulty finding something in the Talk With The Staff / Report a site issue forum.

[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

Donations

Total amount
$1,717.00
Goal
$5,080.00
You're either forgetting, or hoping I would forget, all the evidence explicitly showing that creation by God isn't an "implication" of ID creationism, but is actually the entire point. It's the specific reason why creationists came up with it and what they hoped to accomplish with it.
All the evidence being cited shows the point of Discovery Institute. The entire point of ID theory is to advance science.
No it wasn't. If it was intended for scientists they would've put all their efforts into doing actual research and publishing articles in scientific journals. Instead, they put their resources into lobbying school boards, speaking at churches, and writing books for the public.
They started by publishing in the peer reviewed journal the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. They continue to publish in peer reviewed journals and publishing books.
Also, this is their official policy:
"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively."
Well again, you're welcome to that opinion. I don't see any indications that ID creationism is "moving forward" and in fact everything I've seen indicates the opposite. No one is trying to get it taught in schools (which was the whole point of it), no one is doing any research into it, the Discovery Institute shut down their "research arm" years ago.....all clear indications that it's as I said, effectively dead.
Besides the Dover trial, what have you seen indicating the opposite?
See above, they don't want it taught in schools.
If it's effectively dead somebody didn't tell these people:
"Intelligent Design (ID) has gained a lot of interest and attention
in recent years, mainly in USA, by creating public attention as well
as triggering vivid discussions in the scientific and public world."

The first edition of Of Pandas and People that defined "creation" as "the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. was published in 1989. The second edition where "creation" was replaced with "intelligent design" (with the same definition) was published in 1993.


Not according to ID creationists.

"But the term “creation” also had a very specific and quite different meaning, namely those who start with a religious premise (that their particular literal interpretation of the Bible is true) and then read nature in light of their interpretation of Scripture. It was this approach that was held by the Supreme Court to be problematic from an Establishment Clause perspective.
As noted above, the Court’s decision, in essence, highlighted a particular meaning of “creation science.” Once that term had been enshrined in by the Court, it’s understandable and perfectly appropriate that people trying to use the term in a very different way (reasoning from scientific evidence to design) would be all the more interested in finding a term that more precisely fit what they were actually doing. Without changing the substance of the argument (from evidence in nature to intelligence), the authors searched for a more generic term, one more apt and less likely to be misunderstood.
As the academic editor for FTE, Thaxton was then serving as the editor for Pandas, and as it neared completion, Thaxton continued to cast around for a term to describe a science open to evidence for intelligent causation and free of religious assumptions, a term without the religious baggage associated with “creation” but one less ponderous than “intelligent cause,” and, at the same time, more general, a term that could refer to the design theory in toto.
He found it in a phrase he picked up from a NASA scientist—intelligent desgin. “That’s just what I need,” Thaxton recalls thinking. “It’s a good engineering term…. After I first saw it, it seemed to jibe. When I would go to meetings, I noticed it was a phrase that would come up from time to time. And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally.” Soon the term “intelligent design” was incorporated into the language of the book.

So once again we see how "intelligent design" arose as a response to court rulings against teaching creationism.
ID theory goes back long before 1987. So it's nonsense to say something that's been around over 100 years is a response to a court ruling. It's based on the observation of design in biology. ID theory was properly formulated in the 1990's.

Yup, it's well known that ID creationists resurrected old creationist arguments.


Read more closely. Judge Jones said it was substantial evidence that Behe believed ID creationism is a religious proposition.
Originally you said "That quote wasn't the start of anything, nor was it even a crucial component of the ruling."
My reply: "The Judge indeed said it was a crucial part of his ruling"
Your reply: "Read more closely. Judge Jones said it was substantial evidence"
Sooo.. I get the feeling you're not actually following the conversation rather just arguing with everything I say.

I already provided it for you, but I'll go ahead and do it again.

List of Scientific Bodies Explicitly Rejecting Intelligent Design
While your list is impressive, it isn't decisive. What moves the needle is whether they publish in peer reviewed journals or books. It's not much different than the list of scientists objecting to Darwin. Interesting, but ultimately does not decide the fate of Darwin's theory or ID theory.

Correct. And the question, is intelligent design a form of creationism, is a legal question (directly applies to the legality of teaching it in public schools) and the courts have ruled that it is. The question, is intelligent design a legitimate scientific proposition, is a scientific question and the scientific community have unequivocally said that it isn't.
The court said ID theory is a form of creation but the scientific journals publish ID theory articles. Some
The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Journal of Theoretical Biology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Molecular Biology, Protein science, to name a few.
ID theory made it's way into peer reviewed journals so at some point people just have to get over it.
 
From his paper...

"Mutagenesis studies and alignments of homologous sequences have demonstrated that protein function typically is compatible with a variety of amino-acid residues at most exterior non-active-site positions. These observations have led to the current view that functional constraints on sequence are minimal at these positions."

There's a good reason for this. Highly-conserved molecules like cytochrome C vary quite a bit in different taxa:

iu

Some parts of the molecule are extremely conserved. Active sites change little or not at all. But other areas can often vary quite a bit. But since the shape of the molecule matters, some changes, even apart from the non-active areas, matter a lot. But this isn't an argument for design. It clearly evolves by Darwinian processes. But evolution isn't magic. We aren't going to get an extra set of hands, even if it would be useful. No workable intermediate stages, and some of the transitions would be so harmful as to be prohibited by natural selection. This is what Axe found.

Do you have actual examples?
Axe points out barnase and TEM-1 beta-lactamaseare become biologically inactive, showing how sensitive to changes the genome is. Which is contrary to "current view that functional constraints on sequence are minimal at these positions."
What Axe found was how finely tuned the genome is. Which has implications beyond explaining their origin. In practical terms his paper shows the importance of engineering enzymes and anticipating future changes of diseases.

The claim it "clearly evolves by Darwinian process" is false. Darwinian processes work on functioning proteins, not nonfunctional ones.

Show us that. Can't think of an example. And as you know, since ID makes no actual predictions, it is a doctrine not a theory. It relies on a religious belief, and it's stated goal is to establish God.
Behe's first rule of Rule of Adaptive Evolution.
Dembski's prediction of function in the majority of the genome.
Siegfried Schere's prediction of nested coding in the genome.

The GULO gene, for example. It is the vitamin C gene in primates. But it's broken. A mutation inactivated it. Didn't matter to primates, who eat fruit and get it from their diets. It had a function, but now it's broken.

The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

Curr Genomics
v.12(5); 2011 Aug

CG-12-371_F3.jpg

The mutations breaking the gene in each of the three cases are different which is contrary to the assumptions of "design" but consistent with evolutionary theory.
Three broken genes are hardly inconsistent with ID theory. Since Dawkins selfish genome in the 1960's the existence of junk in the majority of the genome has been cited as evidence for Darwinian evolution. While ID theory predicted function for the majority of what was called junk-DNA. In 2012 function was found for over 80%, which falsifies Darwinian evolution and verifies ID theory.
Biologists have overwhelmingly rejected ID in favor of evolutinary theory. Do the Project Steve comparison and see for yourself.
Most theories start off with a lot of criticism. While it only took 10 years for Darwin's theory to become popular, others take more time. ID theory is published in peer reviewed journals so it's making slow but steady progress.
 
In case it sounded as if I implied you didn't read Darwin's Black Box, I believe you when you say you did. However, I'm shocked anyone could read Darwin's Black Box and assert "different versions" somehow disprove irreducible complexity
It's just a fact that it isn't. As you just learned, there are different versions of the bacterial flagellum, of varying levels of complexity. By definition it's not irreducibly complex.
 
People should realize arguing against ID theory is saying they know more about science than The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington or the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

Other organizations, scientists, and random people on the internet can say it isn't science all they like but until experimental rebuttals are published against the articles in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington or Journal of Theoretical Biology, to name a few, it's just complaining.

Any argument ID theory is religion or a form of creationism fails since scientific journals don't publish forms of creationism or religion.
 
People should realize arguing against ID theory is saying they know more about science than The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington or the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
Neither publication has endorsed ID, although one IDer who was an editor managed to insert an article. On the other hand if you claim ID is a scientific theory you are saying you now more about science than:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of University Professors
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Botanical Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
National Association of Biology Teachers
National Center for Science Education
National Science Teachers Association
United States National Academy of Sciences
Kentucky Academy of Science

Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences
(Behe teaches there)
International Society for Science and Religion
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
Royal Society


You see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for ID? Neither of the journals you mention have endorsed ID, BTW.
 
Axe points out barnase and TEM-1 beta-lactamaseare become biologically inactive, showing how sensitive to changes the genome is.
Can be in some cases. Problem for Axe is he can't explain the variation in cytochrome C. Large areas of the gene are quite variable over the different taxa.

The claim it "clearly evolves by Darwinian process" is false. Darwinian processes work on functioning proteins, not nonfunctional ones.
Nope. That's a common belief among IDers. But that's wrong, too...

New genes spring from non-coding DNA


However, there is a non-Darwinist explaination for some other evolutionary traits. Like genetics, punctualted equilibrium, and the non-heritablility of acquired traits, it's one of the ways that modern evolutionary theory differs from Darwin. There is a sort of exception to acquired traits in epigenetic processes, however.
 
Any argument ID theory is religion or a form of creationism fails since scientific journals don't publish forms of creationism or religion.
It caused quite a stir when it was realized that Richard Sternberg slipped an ID article into a real scientific journal, having bypassed the usual review by an associate editor. The journal repudiated the article,and Sternberg resigned,

The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting pseudoscientific intelligent design creationism in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals.[1] On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.
The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor.
 
There are, of course, true irreducibly complex systems in living things. The lac operon, discovered by Dr. Barry Hall is one such. It consists of an enzyme, a regulator that only allows the enzyme to be produced in the presence of lactose, and lactose itself. If any one of these are missing from the organism, the system does not work.

Which pretty much proves evolution can't happen? Well, no. Dr. Hall observed this system as it evolved.

He had predicted that if bacteria could not efficiently use lactose as an energy source, and were placed in an environment rich in lactose, they would evolve an enzyme that would do so. He was right about that. But to his surprise, the bacterial also evolved a regulator, making the system irreducibly complex.
 
All the evidence being cited shows the point of Discovery Institute. The entire point of ID theory is to advance science.

They started by publishing in the peer reviewed journal the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. They continue to publish in peer reviewed journals and publishing books.
Also, this is their official policy:
"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively."

Besides the Dover trial, what have you seen indicating the opposite?
See above, they don't want it taught in schools.
If it's effectively dead somebody didn't tell these people:
"Intelligent Design (ID) has gained a lot of interest and attention
in recent years, mainly in USA, by creating public attention as well
as triggering vivid discussions in the scientific and public world."


ID theory goes back long before 1987. So it's nonsense to say something that's been around over 100 years is a response to a court ruling. It's based on the observation of design in biology. ID theory was properly formulated in the 1990's.


Originally you said "That quote wasn't the start of anything, nor was it even a crucial component of the ruling."
My reply: "The Judge indeed said it was a crucial part of his ruling"
Your reply: "Read more closely. Judge Jones said it was substantial evidence"
Sooo.. I get the feeling you're not actually following the conversation rather just arguing with everything I say.


While your list is impressive, it isn't decisive. What moves the needle is whether they publish in peer reviewed journals or books. It's not much different than the list of scientists objecting to Darwin. Interesting, but ultimately does not decide the fate of Darwin's theory or ID theory.


The court said ID theory is a form of creation but the scientific journals publish ID theory articles. Some
The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Journal of Theoretical Biology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Molecular Biology, Protein science, to name a few.
ID theory made it's way into peer reviewed journals so at some point people just have to get over it.
Well, we're now to the point in the "debate" where you're ignoring the majority of what I post to you and are simply repeating your claims over and over. That sort of exchange doesn't interest me at all, so....good day.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,717.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top