[sanctus]

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

If it doesn't contradict science it doesn't imply it is science. Just as the presence of a fish doesn't contradict the presence of a bike, but the fish is no bike...

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

I think the point is that ID does not in any way contradict science.

Oops, I missed this comment. The point is that the proponents of ID claim that it is a science.

If they claimed that it was a philosophical or theological view, there would be no dispute. At least, not with science.

[HydrogenBond]

There is another aspect of ID that is based on science. They don't use the God angle but try to find reason over random, which they assume is a more intelligent design for evolution. With humans, reason evolved after the more random approach of the alchemists. Some of their results are used by religion. They are still scientists and can't fully explain it. The religious replace their unknown cause and affect with God. For example,

Barry Hall did a very interesting experiment with E. coli bacteria. E. coli bacteria naturally produce a lactase enzyme that hydrolyses the sugar lactose into the sugars glucose and galactose, which it can break down further to produce usable energy. What Hall did was to delete this lacZ gene so that these particular E. coli bacteria could no longer make the lactase enzyme. He then grew these bacteria on a lactose enriched media/environment. In a very short time (one generation), these bacteria evolved the ability to use lactose again. Upon further investigation, Hall found that a single point mutation to another very different gene resulted in the production of a lactase enzyme. Hall named this new gene the "evolved beta-galactosidase" gene (ebgA).

They still like evolution but changes are less an accident but has some basis in cause and effect. For example, an animal that develops a new capability isn't due to accident or some random process. There is an environmental pressure that helps this occur. Both approaches will result in the same selective advantage, the difference is one group says cause and affect, and the other group says, it was a roll of the dice.

The roll of the dice approach has the upper hand since they only have to use statistics to get reasonable results. The rational group has a harder burden of proof because they insistent on reason, with the rational details not yet firm. The religious ID jump in and give their bible reasons. This is taken to be the basis of the science movement.

[InfiniteNow]

Regardless of the type of design you describe, inherent in such an approach is the need for a designer. Then, you get into the same reductio ad infinitum on what designed the designer, and what designed that.


Also, evolution by natural selection is NOT random. It's cumulative. You don't start from scratch every time, you build on what came before, so calling it a "random" process is as far from the truth and misrepresentative as you could be.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

They still like evolution but changes are less an accident but has some basis in cause and effect. For example, an animal that develops a new capability isn't due to accident or some random process. There is an environmental pressure that helps this occur. Both approaches will result in the same selective advantage, the difference is one group says cause and affect, and the other group says, it was a roll of the dice.

Evolutionary scientists believe in both random and cause-effect vectors of evolution. So really, your point is completely moot.

[Rade]

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

...Intelligent design is a theory, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong...

No, Intelligent Design, in the form vis-a-vis Demsey, Behe, etc. is not a theory because it is based on the belief that irreducible complex structures exist and were formed by methods outside the known laws and facts of nature. This is why Intelligent Design thinking is outside of science--it is a faith and/or philosophy, etc., but it has nothing to do with science. This is what the Federal judge in the Penna. case concluded.

A 'theory' is a scientific "explanation" that uses facts and known laws of nature in an attempt to understand something. Darwins thinking on Natural Selection for example is a type of theory, Intelligent Design is no theory at all.

[eye on the skies]

Alright already!

I said that the point is that ID does not contradict science.

I did not mean to imply that this was THE point of the thread. I just meant that that was the point I was making.

So sorry to have confused so many.

[InfiniteNow]

Try not to take it personally, eye on the skies.

This being a science oriented forum, we have witnessed countless posts from people attacking evolution on the basis of their faith, and also supporting ideas like ID and creationism without any scientific rigor. If you have been misperceived, it's not necessarily a fault of your own, but an effect of those who came before.

However, ID is a bunk and worthless approach. It posits that some purple unicorn shat everything into existence, but doesn't care to look into the question of what created the unicorn itself.

I find it to be a faith based, empirically weak, and invalid approach. That is not science, that is fiction... story telling.

So, when you said:

Originally Posted by eye on the skies

I said that the point is that ID does not contradict science.

... I wanted to ask you, why not? What is it about ID that you think is not contradictory to science? I can make a case that it IS contradictory, but that has been done countless times already. Please, I want to understand your thoughts on this, but I need you to more clearly articulate your reasons for making the statement:

"ID does not contradict science."


Respectfully.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the evolution of the human mind and science, empiricism evolved before rationalism. Using God to explain stuff was one of the original empirical models. The flat earth was also an empirical model. As long people did not try to sail beyond the horizon, and did not have telescopes to look at the sky, the empirical evidence resulted in a flat earth theory. Even the heavens looked empirically perfect with the naked eye. Once there were telescopes and world sailing, new data was added and the data suggested round. Later the data added a bulge in the middle.

All I am saying is evolution is valid, in a general sense, but it does not yet fully use the next evolutionary rational step. The rapid adaptation of bacteria to medicines is too fast to be purely random. The ability of E. coli to tweak a gene to replace a lost gene is a miracle if we think in terms of evolution being random. The empirical approach, by its own definitions of the odds meets up with many lotto winners that are defying the odds. Some people default to the original empirical God model which allows this. That model uses a rapid change assumption instead of a random assumption, which in the case of these observations, appears to have a slight edge.

They are both empirical. If you replace God with the term natural laws then natural laws caused this rapid change. The other approach says there are no such natural laws that can cause this, it is purely odds and numbers. It is nothing more than playing the lottery, there is always going to be a winner. The ID says, no God choses the winner. The rational mind says this has a logical explanation, which is the third point of view. Logic suggest the ability to chose the winner with logic. But among empirical alternatives this sounds sort of like the God model because it is not playing by the odds. It suggest the ability to pick the winning horse time after time. But this is what rational models are suppose to do, like Newton's laws of gravity.

[InfiniteNow]

Just in case you missed it the last seventeen times you were reminded, evolution is not random. Except for that very serious misrepresentation, the rest was an interesting perspective and I thank you for it.

'Growing Up in the Universe' Ep 3: Climbing Mount...

"I call tihs "smearing out the luck," because we don't have to get our luck in one ridiculously large dollup. Instead, we can get our luck in "dribs" and "drabs." Each drib being aloud to count before the next drab. And we go on to wait until the next bit of luck. It accumulates."