Centre for Intelligent Design

[DannyM]

Recently I've been reflecting that we in the UK do not have the Intelligent Design 'resources' anywhere near the magnitude that you have in America. But today I came across a good website.

http://www.c4id.org.uk/

If you're interested then take a look. Watch the concise four minute introduction video. I'm positive that Intelligent Design is genuine science, and attacks from ‘evolutionists’ are the product of fear rather than science.

Danny
-
-
-

[zoegirl]

cool thanks, Danny

[DannyM]

cool thanks, Danny

Just wondered, Zoe, knowing you know your stuff, what do you think of the merits or otherwise of ID?

[DannyM]

Good little video this:

http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... 31#barnard
-
-
-
-

[Murray]

I might buy intelligent design more if it followed any of the laws set by god when he created the universe......

Do you truly believe that god magically popped every living thing into existence?
Poof a dog, poof a rabbit, poof a human

There is a good reason ID is not taught, not even by Christian by bio majors, it is because Evolution is truly a scientific and testable theory which has been tested repetitively and found to be the best explanation for how we got here.

The only argument ID has is pointing out tiny flaws with evolution, that's it. There are tiny holes in the theory of gravity but does that make it wrong? No. There are tiny wholes in the Theory of relativity but does that make it untrue, no.

[jlay]

There is a good reason ID is not taught, not even by Christian by bio majors, it is because Evolution is truly a scientific and testable theory which has been tested repetitively and found to be the best explanation for how we got here.

You obviously have no idea what ID is actually teaching. The whole point of ID is that it is 100% scientific. Testable, repeatable, observable, relating to how information appears.

Darwinian evolution is not observable, as no one can travel back in time and test the past. There are parts of evolutionary science that use evidence that is testable and observable. Such as DNA sequencing and natural selection. However, this is the same evidence that is being used by ID. Your error is that you think the evidence 'belongs' to 'evolution.' It doesn't.

There are gaping holes in evolution when it comes to molecules to man.

I might buy intelligent design more if it followed any of the laws set by god when he created the universe......

Elaborate with specifics.

[Murray]

The laws of science. Thing do not appear out of nothing, probably the only exception to this is when a molecule appears in a quantum vacuum. Humans do not spontaneously appear.

And how is ID testable?

And to add on, I really would rather not debate this.

1) I really do not care if evolution happened
2) I would prefer to believe in ID, but I do not find it scientifically suitable, mostly because the humans and all animals spontaneously appearing thing.
3) Debating this has no gain for me because I do not even like evolution, I'd prefer not to be descended form an ape, but fossil records, such of those found in early humans (like homo habulus) seem to resemble us far far far to closely just to be a accident.

Why would god make these "things" that resemble us so closely? To test us? What the hell is the point of testing us on how we believe god made us? He did not make these "things" to test us, they ARE our ancestors. And these "things" look half ape-half man, why did they exist? Were they just highly adapted apes that kept getting better? Why did god magically poof these "things" into existence? Was he trying to find the perfect body for souls or something

So instead of debatin, let's go explainin

[jlay]

The laws of science. Thing do not appear out of nothing, probably the only exception to this is when a molecule appears in a quantum vacuum. Humans do not spontaneously appear.

Well there are plenty of 'scientists' hypothesizing that things in fact did. But that's a different topic. No matter how far back you go, you are eventually going to have to deal with the alpha event. That everything appeared out of nothing.

If you can't believe that God created man specifically because it defies the laws of science, then how in the world do you deal with a man rising from being graveyard dead back to life, and performing miracles that defy science? What happens when you follow your reasoning through to it's logical conclusions is you preclude yourself from being Christian. At least as far as being logically consistent. I'd say that leaves you with some explaining to do.

ID is not the argument that things 'appeared' out of nothing. But that we have observable, testable and repeatable examples of how information appears. That info requires intelligence.

And how is ID testable?

I would suggest you get Stephen Meyer's signature of the cell. It is essential to know what ID is actually making a case for. If you are genuine about wanting explaining, then get Meyer's book, instead of making misinformed statements about ID.

I'd prefer not to be descended form an ape, but fossil records, such of those found in early humans (like homo habulus) seem to resemble us far far far to closely just to be a accident.

And a Camaro resembles a Firebird in many respects. Why? Because they had a commone designer. Again, it is all what perspective you start from. Of course and early HUMANS would resemble us. We are human. Just as I resemble all other humans on the earth, even though modern humans have differences. I have differences from the Aborigines, but I wouldn't say I'm more evolved.

[Murray]

So when we find life on another planet, did god "poof" them on that planet it as well?

This universe is well designed to have life exist. It exist somewhere else.

How did it develop? From natural causes....


Life, in the right conditions will develop, and will evolve, that is fact. Why do you see it as a far shot to say we developed from perfect circumstances?

And you mentioned scientist that back ID.

I would love to see the number that supports evolution in comparison to ID.

Think of it this way, 1000 engineers called for a re-investigation of 9/11, does that mean 9/11 was an inside job because a minority of engineers believe that. No of course not, the vast majority of engineers (like 97%) believe the explanation was solid. Now the offensive anti-American dumm dumms known as “truthers” use this as proof that we attacked ourselves while ignoring the infinite amount of proof that denies them.

Now it works the same way with ID. Believers in ID attach themselves to a minority and use them as proof. My father has masters in sentimental science; he opposes evolution even though he is un-religious. But I could go out and find 20 other masters in environmental science that believe in evolution.

Just because a vast minority of a population believes something does not give it more credibility.

[Reactionary]

There is a good reason ID is not taught, not even by Christian by bio majors, it is because Evolution is truly a scientific and testable theory which has been tested repetitively and found to be the best explanation for how we got here.

Life, in the right conditions will develop, and will evolve, that is fact. Why do you see it as a far shot to say we developed from perfect circumstances?

Those are just-so stories, Murray, and you know that.

And you mentioned scientist that back ID.

I would love to see the number that supports evolution in comparison to ID.

What does that have to do with anything? The truth doesn't depend on the number of people who favour it.

Think of it this way, 1000 engineers called for a re-investigation of 9/11, does that mean 9/11 was an inside job because a minority of engineers believe that. No of course not, the vast majority of engineers (like 97%) believe the explanation was solid. Now the offensive anti-American dumm dumms known as “truthers” use this as proof that we attacked ourselves while ignoring the infinite amount of proof that denies them.

So, did the proof or the number of engineers convince you that it wasn't an inside job? Those two are not the same, you know.

Now it works the same way with ID. Believers in ID attach themselves to a minority and use them as proof. My father has masters in sentimental science; he opposes evolution even though he is un-religious. But I could go out and find 20 other masters in environmental science that believe in evolution.

Have you asked your father why he opposes evolution?

Just because a vast minority of a population believes something does not give it more credibility.

True, but neither does a majority. Evidence is what matters. Examine it and make up your mind - that's what rational people do.

Now, as for the evidence - It seems to me that your arguments against ID boil down to:
1) You can't comprehend an ex nihilo creation, and
2) A majority of scientists believe in evolution.

That's not very convincing, now is it?

The only argument ID has is pointing out tiny flaws with evolution, that's it. There are tiny holes in the theory of gravity but does that make it wrong? No. There are tiny wholes in the Theory of relativity but does that make it untrue, no.

Spontaneous creation of life - NOT observed
New information added to the genome - NOT observed
Interbreeding of different species that produces fertile offspring - NOT observed

Science, as defined by Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary, 7th ed. =
"knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example by experiments"

Now, it sometimes happens that we can't prove something to an extent that we consider it a fact - we've neither observed Creation, nor evolution. There are, of course, two possible explanations to our existence - we were either created by a supreme Being, or we came out of nowhere. Based on the following facts:

- Nothing ever comes from nothing,
- Information requires a designer, and DNA may be the most complex code ever seen,

We can, IMO, safely conclude that the evidence points to a Designer. Of course, I oversimplified the situation (as there are many other arguments in favour of a Designer, furthermore the Christian God), but as you can see, the reasoning is simple.

What do you want to prove anyway?

[Murray]

Well reactionary I do not want to prove anything really. I'd prefer to believe in ID, but I think the evidence that we have at the current time leans slightly in favour of evolution.

And yes I have asked my father why he opposes evolution. I have talked with him many times about it and that is why I was an OEC for a period of time.

I have shady memory but I think he was saying something along the lines of "why did monkeys not all evolve and disappear like australopithecus and all the other homo’s supposedly evolved and then disappeared, and if just some monkeys evolved and some stayed why did some homo’s not evolve and survive. And if Australopithecus truly did evolve from a monkey why did the more fit to survive Australopithecus not outlive the monkeys it evolved from "

Something along those lines, not even close to the exact words but you get the point.

[Reactionary]

Well reactionary I do not want to prove anything really. I'd prefer to believe in ID, but I think the evidence that we have at the current time leans slightly in favour of evolution.

Why? And what kind of evolution? Theistic, or naturalistic evolution? Some Christians believe in TE - it's legitimate, I believe in OEC (although I flirted with YEC for a while - I don't believe is a very important issue, however I won't concede to TE without hard evidence), so I'd like to know what led you away from OEC, and in which direction?

[Murray]

Well i'm still christian , I believe in god, I just take the framwork creation stance instead of OEC. What led me from OEC is just lack of legetimacy and support for OEC, along with the fact I strugle with picturing every living thing being poofed into existance out of mid air.

[Seraph]

Here is what I consider to be evidence for evolution

http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/life4CK.jpg

This picture shows the supposed evolutionary "Tree of Life". When fossils are grouped together by the time period as well as what genus they seem to fall under, they make appear to show a steady progression in complexity. It completely contradicts the idea that species first appears spontaneously in their current states. The non-evolutionist would pretty much have to believe that God created simpler life forms in the past, and more complex creatures later on that appear similar to past species, yet didn't have them descend from them, which would seem to suggest that God was trying to make it appear like evolution took place but actually didn't. I strongly think theistic evolution fits the evidence much better than creationism. If creationism was true, you would expect species to not appear anything like previous species and seem to originate completely from the time period they first appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Those are the transitional fossils. Creationists always claim that there are no transitional fossils, but they are out there. There really is as much evidence out there for evolution as one can expect to find.

You can say that the evidence doesn't "speak" to us and the evidence still has to be interpreted. But I only see so many ways it can be interpreted. I believe God has created us, but the evidence looks like He almost certainly did it through evolution, or else He was trying to make it look like He did it through evolution.

Note that I'm not saying one needs to be an evolutionist, but I think the arguements sway that way. Evolution has a lot of evidence in favor of it and pretty much none against it. The only refutation I've seen is people basically saying that evidence doesn't prove a thing. But how many people actually structure their life by that principle in areas aside from evolution?

[DannyM]

Here is what I consider to be evidence for evolution

http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/life4CK.jpg

This picture shows the supposed evolutionary "Tree of Life". When fossils are grouped together by the time period as well as what genus they seem to fall under, they make appear to show a steady progression in complexity. It completely contradicts the idea that species first appears spontaneously in their current states. The non-evolutionist would pretty much have to believe that God created simpler life forms in the past, and more complex creatures later on that appear similar to past species, yet didn't have them descend from them, which would seem to suggest that God was trying to make it appear like evolution took place but actually didn't. I strongly think theistic evolution fits the evidence much better than creationism. If creationism was true, you would expect species to not appear anything like previous species and seem to originate completely from the time period they first appeared.

The fossil record *fails* to support the tree of life. Darwin knew it, acknowledging that the phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record. In direct contradiction to his theory of a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with the differences slowly becoming bigger until you get the major differences we see now, the evidence in the fossil record shows the opposite: the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences of the Cambrian explosion. Darwin believed that his theory would be vindicated by future fossil discoveries, but this just hasn’t happened. Fossil discoveries from his day until now have turned Darwin’s tree of life on its head. The record shows jellyfish, sponges and worms prior to the Cambrian explosion. Then ‘all of a sudden,’ representatives of the arthropods, whose modern representatives are insects and crabs, echinoderms, chordates ... were right there at the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. All of these animals, so fundamentally different in their body plans, appeared fully developed, and so abruptly. The fossil record since Darwin’s day has completely overturned his tree of life. Instead of coming last, at the top of his tree, the major groups of animals came first, right when animals first appear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Those are the transitional fossils. Creationists always claim that there are no transitional fossils, but they are out there. There really is as much evidence out there for evolution as one can expect to find.

“Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.” (Michael Denton Evolution: A Theory in Crisis pg162.)

You can say that the evidence doesn't "speak" to us and the evidence still has to be interpreted. But I only see so many ways it can be interpreted. I believe God has created us, but the evidence looks like He almost certainly did it through evolution, or else He was trying to make it look like He did it through evolution.

You just hit the key note: interpretation.

The fossil record does not support your view.

Note that I'm not saying one needs to be an evolutionist, but I think the arguements sway that way. Evolution has a lot of evidence in favor of it and pretty much none against it. The only refutation I've seen is people basically saying that evidence doesn't prove a thing. But how many people actually structure their life by that principle in areas aside from evolution?

What is evolution? We know that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We know this happens in the course of biological reproduction. If you want to convince us of your theory of evolution, then, quite frankly, you need to explain away a fossil record that does not support your view.