I agree that there is no harm in discusing ID but
my people believe in multiple gods. I would be offended if a school board taught monotheism ID when I know for certain the creation of the Universe and all life in it was the collective work of the Gods of Creation, and - to a lesser extent - their three children (who created the beasts of the air, beasts of the sea, and beasts of the land).
I would not want my children to be taught an alternative ID in a public school.

ID strikes me more as a criticism of evolutionary theory than a wholly separate theory of creation.

Its premise, from the reading I've done, is that wholly random chance does not explain how we got here - that by a strict application of the laws of science, we should not be here; and therefore we had to have been given a "boost" by a creator.

The refusal of its critics to engage its criticisms - they simply chant "It's not science!!!!" rather than refute the criticism, they marginalize the criticizer.

There's a world of difference between saying a creator used evolutionary processes to create heaven, earth and man and saying there is no creator, there is only evolution.

The latter is what ID wars against.

"Neither, for that matter, can science. Do you have a snarky friend who thinks that science is the only legitimate type of inquiry? Tell him to prove that one scientifically!"

The scientific method is a result not just of philosophy but also experience -- ie. it is a result of the scientific method! We experience that science works, and thus go on to keep on using it. Other forms of knowing may not conform to material reality, but you'll find that they won't get you very far.

You are right, the ID/Evolution debate is not really a debate about science. It is a question of whether or not we want to promote state sponsored religion in school. The bill of rights ensures that you can talk about ID and any other religious subject in the public square. The recent ruling in Dover ensures that this particular religious view doesn't receive government sponsorship.

We should all fight for freedom of (and from) religion. And above all, we should fight to ensure that the governement has no control over our individual religious views.

ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. One -- myself being an example -- can subscribe to both.

The commentary above is all fine and good, but it does nothing to address the court case (which I assume was covered in part one).

The judge's ruling was absolutely correct. ID should not be part of any science curriculum because, well, it's not science.

I agree, the ID debate has been blown way out of proportion. My view is that ID is being used as a counterpunch to evolution by certain segments of this country. That's a misuse and a misunderstanding of the theory.

ID is faith.

One can just as easily and rationally believe the big bang occurred out of chance rather than by some act of a higher power. Those who believe in ID do not have ANY proof of a higher power. Just faith. Faith that all this means something and did not just happen out of its own accord.

I believe science teachers should be allowed to talk about ID in their class if the topic of religion comes up. Teachers should not be punished for doing so. But, ID should not be taught as science or as an alternative theory to evolution. If a science teacher did either, they should be fired for being poor science teachers.

"Given this, I find ths fuss rather interesting, and believe it has a motive ulterior to the actual question."

Mark, then explain how a church-going, republican Bush court appointment is the one who has given ID in the classroom movement its most public and harsh smackdown.

There is no anti-religion ulterior motive. You can stop playing the victiom here. relax.

Well Tom, even church-going Bush loving patriots can be wrong believe it or not. As an atheist who, as BD describes above, knows the "ID" case primarily as a science-based attack on the "spark and goo" theory of biogenesis, I don't really have a dog in this fight but I've seen plenty to suggest that the evolutionists are not forwarding science for the sake of big T Truth but rather for political reasons. All the caveats of political mindreading apply but it's a judgement call. What this hullaballoo really demonstrates is why the guv has no business designing curricula. Even the smallest communities could support two schools at least if freed from the whip of compelled finance of the public system monolith. The IDers could teach their preference, the evolutionists their's and we will let the produce... the children so enlightened or benighted, work out the relative merits in their lives. I'm pro-choice that way.
Perhaps the "ID" movement is misnamed. Intelligent Design is the default explaination for the plain straight up fact that the mathematics of random biochemistry as we understand it today can not produce what we see with our eyes now. Personally, I'm of the mind that the cosmologists and physicists are missing out on some part of the puzzle. What is that? Hey, I don't know but random biogenesis with the physics as we know them NOW does not survive a close scrutiny. Let's not close the patent office yet. The logical holes and historic deceptions that characterize evolutionary biogenesis as a theory are fair game in a science class or any other that entertains the questions of creation. I don't care who issues the opinion, Bushie, Clintonite or Bull Moose loyalist. Judicial proscription is not the answer and that is what we are talking about.

Megapotamus,

Science is the attempt to understand ourselves and the world around through OBSERVATIONAL METHODS. Science relies on coming to conslusions through testing in reproducable settings.

The theory of intelligent design does not fit scientific standards. Therefore is not science and should not be taught as science. It's that simple.

ID is faith and should be taught in a religious setting. I have no problem with discussions of faith in a science class, but teaching ID as part of a science curriculum is just wrong. Anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong.

Now, science has never claimed to explain everything about the natural world. It's never claimed to have all the answers. Some people fill in the gaps that science can't explain with God, some don't and believe we will someday understand those gaps through science. But this is where we get into faith.

Science is not interested in proving or disproving God. It's very much neutral on the subject. That's the most important point that many people don't seem to understand.

Scientists and the science community are not a bunch of atheists out to disprove god. 80% of scientists believe there is a higher power.

You say you think cosmoliogists and physicists are missing out on part of the equation... well, you're right, and i think they'll admit to that. They are only interested in what they can observe and show as a result of that observation.

As far as a judge saying we can't teach ID in the public school science class? Well, congress shall pass no law establishing religion. If public schools begin teaching that ID is a valid scientific theory or as part of a science class, then public schools are establishing that god exists... without any proof.

That's just wrong. If you want your kid to be taught that god exists, send em to church, send em to catholic school, send em to sunday school. Teach em yourself.

Science class is not a place to teach kids that god exists. In fact, I went to 16 years of catholic school and was never once taught in science class that god exists. It's really kind of incomprehensible to me that people think this is a good idea.

And Mega,

I'm well aware that conservatives can be wrong, but my point is that when the most important and harsh words against ID in the classroom come from a church-going republican, it's hard to say there's an anti-religion motive to those who oppose ID in the classrooms... or at least it shows that prominent people who oppose it do not have an anti-religion agenda.

As I said, Tom, ID may well be misnamed. Mostly it consists in pointing out the logical, mathematical and historical flaws in random creationism. Are you aware of the fraudulent nature of much of the rote evolutionism taught today? To point out that the embryonic sketches that famously show a human embryo identical to a chick, pig or frog were fabricated is ID as currently understood and would be out of bounds. The advances in biological and genetic chemistry of recent years render dubious the efficacy of purely random mutations to produce what we find on the ground. Saying so is ID under the ruling. The existence of God is a default that I don't agree with but the failures of random mutation to stand up to hard analysis IS science. The proper purely scientific position is Socratic ignorance. It is the Darwinians arguing "shut up". In this case they do indeed claim to have "all the answers". As I said, much of this would be moot if we did not have the public school system we do. Your proffered alternatives are good ones... or would be if we weren't obliged to pay vast sums for the status quo regardless of our views or even if we do not avail ourselves or children of it; no doubt you are a big voucher supporter as am I, but as things stand today the decision bans any refutation of pan-evolutionism even if it is scientifically based. Even if God is never mentioned. Again, you ignore the dual nature of "ID" which consists of pointing to the flaws in lightning sparked biogenesis which says that the theory does not prove what it claims (and biogenesis was not a claim Darwin ever made BTW) and those who point and say "Therein is God." Declarations of God's existence OR absence are properly construed as "religion" and properly excluded in a system that improperly empowers the government to decide what our children are taught. That the anti-IDers are anti-religionists, I never said. Rather that the impetus is political. The parties are not defined black and white in religious terms but there are fault lines, trend lines and relative religiosity plays its part. Terry Schiavo comes to mind. The anti-IDers hold their views overwhelmingly in as pure a state of ignorance of what ID as a school of thought really is as those who denounce evolution in Scopesian terms and the ruling promotes MORE such ignorance rather than less. Any scientific criticism is dismissed with the theology AS theology and that, my friend, ain't science. More to the point it should not be a matter for the judiciary, especially the Federal judiciary and would not be if it weren't for the compulsory nature of today's educational monopoly.

Cost's argument is riddled with nonsense and falsehoods. Science was not "invented" by humanity through philosophy. Rather it is philosophy which arose through a crude scientific method. Science is the process of gaining knowledge through trial and error - putting forth tentative explanations of the natural world and then testing them through experience (observation and experimentation). Philosophy itself has developed along these lines, as arguments are put forth, discusssed and then accepted or rejected on the basis of how much sense they make in light of the real experiences that humans have in the real world.

Science is the process of collective rational thought. Faith is not. Faith is the acceptance of certain beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, or no evidence at all. It is profoundly irrational. One can argue that there is nothing wrong with that - that rationality is not the be all and end all of thought. You can argue that faith and science are complimentary aspects of a complex human nature, but you cant argue that science and faith are compatable.

Mega,

Science itself admits there's holes in the theory of evolution. That's why it's a theory.

I recall very well being taught in science class the definitions of theories and scienctific knowledge and all that. science is very careful when it comes to saying theory are not fact or absolute. We don't need ID to come along and say this.

I don't know the current state of the science class room (i haven't been in one in about 15 years), but IF scienct teachers are teaching evolution as fact, then yes, there should be more emphasis placed on the holes in the theory.

But offering up ID as an alternative scientific theory does not fly. It's not. It's faith. And it doesn't belong being taught along side the theory of evolution.

Some perspective:
There are more gaps in the Theory of Gravity than the Theory of Evolution. Yet nobody denies gravity exists.

"it's hard to say there's an anti-religion motive to those who oppose ID in the classrooms"

Spare me the RINOisms. This is like saying that since John McCain wants to coddle terror suspects, there must be a good reason for it, since he is a Republican.

Without foresight, over the last several decades, an increasing number of independent studies have gone to support the theory of evolution. These studies support the ideas that all living beings store their genetic and metabolic information in a sequence of four alphabets, strung together in their DNA (very occasionally as its cousin RNA), that species differ from one another in these sequences, that these differences came about as a result of natural selection, and that the family history (phylogeny) of a species is derived by constructing the branch-off points from the root. Two main points about evolution are (a) that these changes in DNA sequences (mutations) arise totally randomly, driven by environmental factors, and (b) that these changes are not directed towards producing `better' species.

Complexity of design. It is these two points that trouble some who say that to consider us as just another type of chimpanzees is not just insulting but blasphemous.

They refuse to accept that random, purposeless mutations driven by environment can produce such complexity of design, and seek an intelligent designer behind these.

The proponents of ID at Dover and some other places demand `equal time' in the science classroom, to teach ID along with evolution. Their position has a long history. William Paley made these points succinctly, and presciently in 1802 (before Darwin), when he wrote in his book Natural Theology: "Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that it had lain there forever.

But suppose I had found a watch, its own precision and intricacy of decision would force us to conclude that the watch must have had a maker, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use".

In essence, the proponents of ID are Paley-ites, and as Judge Jones pointed out, have a fundamental religious agenda.

Hindsight arguments. The problem with Paley-ites is that their approach to complexity and design is based on hindsight. As Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins notes: "Any old jumbled collection of parts is unique and with hindsight, is as improbable as any other."

The crucial point about evolution is that latter organisms did not arise de novo, but evolved or came out of pre-existing ones. This point is made lucidly by Dawkins in a book by citing the famous statement that given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce Shakespeare.

The operative phrase here is `given enough time.' It is this point that ID people need to understand. Gene mutations occur at random to produce effects — some are useful and some weeded out by natural selection, and given millions of years of time, accumulate to produce properties that cope with the demands of the environment.

And each time, mutations occur on a pre-existing set, or breed from it, albeit randomly. To illustrate this, Dawkins used a random assortment of 28 characters or keys on the computer keyboard, programmed the computer to proceed with the next random hit that changed one character in the immediately preceding set of 28.

Within half an hour, it produced Hamlet's exclamation on looking at a cloud "Methinks it is like a weasel." Each hit at the keyboard took less than a second, and on the 41st generation produced Hamlet. There is no ID here. If we had not known Hamlet, we would have thrown out this statement as babble.

Likewise, starting from the DNA sequence of a primordial organism to generate that of humans can now be traced, thanks to comparative genomics, and the family tree constricted. Such an analysis supports Darwin.

Here is a question left open, Darwin's theory does not address, nor answer, the question of how life originated on earth in the first place. He left the question open.

This is not a deficiency. If an answer is found, that will not throw Darwin's theory about the origin of species or descent of man out of the window. But to misrepresent this well-established theory and introduce ID as an alternative is motivated and unscientific.

It is well to recall what Thomas Huxley said to Bishop Wilberforce: "I am not ashamed to have a monkey for my ancestor but I would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth".

Can't, I would be very interested in a link or other support to that random literature generator story because the only project like that that I am aware of has run for the equivalent of ten billion monkeys typing for longer than the universe has existed and said experiment is yet to produce a word longer than five letters, much less capitalisation and punctuation so please... enlighten me.

*Chuckles*

Well my religious beliefs are my own and they're so messed up and cobbled together there's no need for me to go into them. ;) As for ID though, okay, it's not science and hence not good for science class. Is it okay in a Civics class? Perhaps a Social Studies class?

Serious, I'm curious as to whether the opponents of ID see it as worth mentioning at all in school or that it's not right to mention it period. If so, is it okay to continue mentioning the Indian (sorry Native American) beliefs in Shamanism? Or the Muslum and Christian beliefs that caused all the arguments during the Crusades? I'm just wondering if it's okay to mention ANYTHING religous in ANY class in school.

I know I learned about several differing religious ideas during my Public School years, both through class and my own outside learning, but that's just me and my "back water" schooling talking. ;)

The author of "Darwin's Black Box" is most definitely a scientist, and he's led by the scientific method - postulating explanations based on the historical record - to conclude that the central thesis of evolution, i.e., that all life as we know it is wholly and entirely the result of evolutionary mutations, is implausible.

Once scientific inquiry tells you that the dominant thesis is false - that the emperor of entirely random mutation resulting in all life is wearing no clothes - then any responsible scientist is obliged to posit another thesis.

You can claim that the thesis posited - a creator - cannot be proven by the scientific method, and therefore it is based on faith.

But you cannot belittle the criticism by repeating "it's not science" over and over and over.

OK. Now consider this.
What are you teaching when you teach ID? What is the data being shared with the class?
ID, once you strip away all the hyperbole, states that the probabilities are too high for life to have come into being without an intelligent designer.
That's all.
Books have been written, all of which simply point to things and say "Somebody must have designed that. Random chance couldn't have."
Since when?
Where is the research that ID proponents have performed that show that random chance cannot produce an amoeba, even after a billion years? Where are the results? Can we study them? Have they been studied by a mathematician? A statistician?
ID is a random, unsupported opinion. It can be stated on a poster, stapled on the telephone pole outside the front entrance. It doesn't need to come inside.

Small Town,

Actually, yes, ID has been studied by a mathematician....my father, for one: He worked it out as impossible for there not to have been a designer. I can't pretend to understand the math, but as my father is an honorable man, I'm more than willing to take his word for it. Also, he's not the only person.

Cant,

Still doesn't explain how life arose from lifelessness...while we have about four billion years to go from single-celled organism to me typing on a blog, we've got much less than a billion years to go from base atoms to self-replicating life. Implausible doesn't even begin to describe the chances of that.

What you've got is a great theory of species change, but absolutely nothing on how life began - ergo, a discussion at the start of a biology class including all possible theories of creation, is worthwhile and IN LINE WITH SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.

Mark,

I'm sure your father is an honorable man but that doesn't mean he's not mistaken in his conclusion that it would have been impossible for there not to have been a designer. There is no evidence of a designer. It is entirely possible that life could have originated and evolved over hundreds of millions of years without any intervention from a designer or creator. All life as we know today, came into being through natural processes. There is no reason why life couldn't have always come about this way.

Scientists can and have come up with explanations as to how life originated. They just have not come up with enough evidence in order to determine if these explanations are true. In order for any of these explanations to become widely accepted by the scientific community, there would have to be evidence available to support these explanations. The reason why ID has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community is because it is not based on evidence.

At one time scientists (if there were any at the time) or anyone else were not able to determine the cause of plagues and diseases. The fact that nobody was able to explain how this happened did not mean it was the work of a creator or superior being as most people believed at the time. As advances were made in science, and new technology, such as microscopes, became available, scientists were able to determine what was causing them. Just because nobody is able to determine how certain things happen doesn't automatically mean it is the work of a "designer". What we don't know today, someone in the future might be able to figure out as advances are made in science.

"What you've got is a great theory of species change, but absolutely nothing on how life began - ergo, a discussion at the start of a biology class including all possible theories of creation, is worthwhile and IN LINE WITH SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY."

Mark, I agree that a discussion in science class about the unknowable is appropriate. But, it is still a discussion about the unknowable.

But, only as a discussion about what science doesn't explain. Science class is science class. Any attempt to force ID into the curriculum is asinine. I have no problem with a discussion about ID in science class, just as I have no problem with a discussion about the theory that there is no god in science class. Some people believe that, some people don't. It's natural for that question to come up, and if it does it should be discussed, but it should not be part of the curriculum and any theories without scientific basis should not be discussed in depth in science class.

Do you also propose fair time for atheists' belief that there is no god in science class?

The ID in the classroom movement is an attempt to turn science class into a theology class. Plain and simple.

"Actually, yes, ID has been studied by a mathematician....my father, for one: He worked it out as impossible for there not to have been a designer."

Stop the presses! Your dad proved there is no god?????

Why haven't we heard about this? Where's the press release?

I meant to say your dad proved THERE IS A GOD!

Again, where's the press release?????

Tom,

It went out a couple decades ago, but AP didn't pick it up.

Actually, of course, you can't prove the existence of God - in Nature there is no way to prove that something not in Nature exists. What Dad did was prove that it was impossible to have life generate spontaneously from lifelessness - which, if there is no God, is how life must have started, ergo, we're not here right now unless God exists. To put out some credits for dear, old Dad...he worked on, among other things, the Gemini project, shuttle and the F-117A; so, he ain't no dummy.

Brian,

That is rather funny - ID is rejected because there is no evidence, but the concept of life developing all by itself isn't rejected, even though there is no evidence for it.

Suppose, however, that you create life from lifelessness in a laboratory - still doesn't explain how the matter you used got here...unless you want to believe that Big Bang absurdity...and even that doesn't explain how all the matter in the Big Bang got started.

"To put out some credits for dear, old Dad...he worked on, among other things, the Gemini project, shuttle and the F-117A; so, he ain't no dummy."-Mark

Sweeeeeeeet.

"Actually, of course, you can't prove the existence of God "

Your dad is a quack. 'Proving' ID is proving god. That's why it can't ever be proved.

Over at pharyngula they talk about how its mathematicians that often fall for the ID hoax. Its their ordering, their perfectionism.

This does explain alot though

Okay, we've gotten a bit ahead of ourselves. Again, the ID movement or philosophy or whatever you want to call it is, as BD and I have mentioned over and over, a science-based refutation of the easiest, popular assumptions of random biogenesis. Certainly this accrues to the ledger of the Creationists in a political sense but that does not refute the numbers. As a rationalist I invite and encourage and, truly, pine for someone to deconstruct ID ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS. I notice Republicant has declined to source his random generation experiment and I think I know why. It doesn't exist. Just a simple calculation from a mathematical ignoramus like me is sufficient: 28 characters in a string some 20 0dd characters long, let's say also 28, we have a number 28 to the 28th. I'm not sure there is a word for a number of that size though we could put it in scientific notation. And this is just to produce a single sentence? We must have gotten plenty of other sentences and plenty of gibberish as well as our names, bits of the Bible and the operators manual for a Volvo. It just hasn't happened and the simulators have been running for simulated universal lifetimes many times over. From this it does imply that there is a threshold of randomness beyond which chance does not produce an ordered result. That's not proof of God's existence or lack thereof but it does indicate the limits of pure random chance. That is ID and such heresies are prohibited under this ruling. It is the Darwinians who are arguing, "Shut up." Hey, that's the Left for ya.

Damn Mark Noonan can you read???? Darwin's theory does not address, nor answer, the question of how life originated on earth in the first place. He left the question open. Damn what a thick head you must have!!!! Read first before your stick your foot in your mouth!

Hello all.

I finally got around to reading all the previous posts on ID. It was, by far, the best thread I've read on this blog to date. Kudos to everyone who has posited patient and civil arguments thus far. It was also clear to me, by the postings of Retired Spook and others, that most readers and posters appreciated the largely civil tone that prevailed in the previous thread. So let's try to remember to keep it civil. Perhaps there is more we can agree on than our often divisive invective would indicate.

Now, to offer some more of my never-ending supply of two-cents' worth:

"What Dad did was prove that it was impossible to have life generate spontaneously from lifelessness - which, if there is no God, is how life must have started, ergo, we're not here right now unless God exists."

Well, I'm not a mathematician, so I can't even begin to take issue with the mathematics your father employed, and probably could not understand them anyways. But I can logically complicate your statement. First, assuming the soundness of your father's math, what he did was prove the improbability of life generating from lifelessness, not the impossibility of it. Second, the definition of life that is necessarily utilized for such an equation is life as we know it. In such a vast universe as ours, it is quite possible that life exists in different forms and under different environmental conditions than we currently understand is possible for life. Thus, what parameters do you assign for the variable of life? The only ones you can use are the known parameters (to do otherwise is guesswork).
Mind you, I'm not arguing that any of this has any bearing on the actual existence of God, I am only arguing against the idea that you can prove the existence of God mathematically.
Furthermore, what if life is found to exist on many other planets? Does this cast doubt on the idea that God created life on Earth because life in the universe is now less rare than it was thought to be before? In the realm of scientific inquiry,such a discovery would neither cast doubt on the existence of God or lend observable phenomena to support the existence of God. However, based on a given worldview (namely, whether or not you believe in God), you or I are likely to frame this information in such a way. I interpret many things in life as evidence of God, but I know that my beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with science.

republicant's,

Since you seem to enjoy mathematics, please explain how the following is possible through evolution, or as Darwin explained it gradual changes from existing systems:

Human hemoglobin is a string of 574 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are 10E 654, different ways to combine these amino acids.

That is kind of meaningless all by itself, but consider this: It is thought by evolutionary proponents that life began 2,500 million years ago, which is still a very long time. However, the number of seconds since life began is 10e 17. The number of seconds since the theoretical big bang 5000 million years ago is 10E 18.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of this number, it has been estimated that the number of stars in the universe is 10E 22 and the number of atoms in the universe 10E 80.

The improbability of hemoglobin occurring by random selection is 10E -654. I'm not a math major, but that looks like 0 to me.

Perhaps you can get Shortz, Brian, Christian Right, or Tom Shipley to help you out.

The once you have expalined that please explain how human hemoglobin combined with other existing systmes to form a human being.

The statistical probabilities of this occurance render the idea beyond rational belief. They require a leap of faith greater that that required to believe in God (or a Creator if the word God offends you).

shortz, Brian and others

phnx,

Fascinating - I passed it along to Dad for him to look over. I hope he gets back to me by tomorrow with a comment on it.

mun13f,

Great comment - don't have time right now to give you a worthy response...I'll get one on tonight.

"Human hemoglobin is a string of 574 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are 10E 654, different ways to combine these amino acids."
"The improbability of hemoglobin occurring by random selection is 10E -654. I'm not a math major, but that looks like 0 to me."

Look like zero to me, too. I agree - there's little or no possible chance for a bottle of random amino acids to spontaneously combine into human hemoglobin.
Now, what is the probability of a simpler string of amino acids becoming slowly more complex?
Have a look at what flows around the body of a flatworm, for example.
Also, check out this site: http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/12/26/the_other_pandas_thumb.php
This is another little piece of the evolutioary puzzle.

"The once you have expalined that please explain how human hemoglobin combined with other existing systmes to form a human being."

Why does it all have to be explained? if it can't be, it must be because it was magic? that's silly. Thats the problem with you creationists. Everything you don't yet understand you give up on and let god be responsible for.

Mark,

The concept of life developing all by itself is not accepted by the scientific community and the concept of life being originally created by an intelligent designer is not accepted by the scientific community. Science is based on facts and evidence. There aren't enough facts and evidence to support either concept. How life originated is unknown. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? To say that since it can't be explained how life originated, it must have been created by God or an intelligent designer, is not science.

Phnxbmed,

Your statistics have no relevance to evolution. First of all, evolution is not a random process. Beneficial mutations in plants and animals that make it more likely for them to survive are most likely to be passed on to future generations. Harmful mutations to plants and animals that make it less likely for them to survive are most likely to die off. Second of all, there isn’t only one possible outcome that is necessary for complex life to continue. It wasn’t necessary for hemoglobin to form in the exact combination you mentioned in order for advanced life, such as humans and animals, to evolve. That is just how it happened to turn out.

One could use statistics the same way to prove that you don’t exist. At the time you were born there were probably over a billion men and a billion women capable of reproducing. The probability that of over a billion men, one specific man (your father) and of over a billion women, one specific woman (your mother) would decide to get together with each other and have a baby is one in trillions. Does this mean that you don’t exist?

To respond to your comment in the other thread regarding Michael Behe and irreducible complexity, there is no scientific basis for his claims. His concept is not even based on living things but on a mousetrap. His claim of irreducibly complexity in living systems has been proven wrong. One of the examples he used for irreducible complexity is blood clotting. According to Michael Behe, blood clotting is an irreducibly complex system that would not work without all of its components:

“When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII) sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein.” (Behe 1996a, 84)

“. . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” (Behe 1996a, 86)

Dolphins do not have Hagemann factor (XII), yet their blood is able to clot without it.

"Your statistics have no relevance to evolution. First of all, evolution is not a random process. Beneficial mutations in plants and animals ..."

Brian, that's what you come back with???

Beneficial mutations????

This akin to explaining the evolutionary process as follows:

First primordial soup...then lots of years....then a miracle...life...then lots more years and presto...a beneficial mutation..then another...then another...then man.

Very convincing science you've got there.

"Your statistics have no relevance to evolution. First of all, evolution is not a random process. Beneficial mutations in plants and animals ...blah blah blah..."

Brian, that's what you come back with???

Beneficial mutations????

This akin to explaining the evolutionary process as follows:

First primordial soup...then lots of years....then a miracle...life...then lots more years and presto...a beneficial mutation..then another...then another...then man.

Very convincing science you've got there.

Brian,

How about an "Occam's Razor" argument then?

What is simpler - God creating the universe, or matter just always existing?

What is simpler - God creating life, or life generating from lifelessness?

It just doesn't make sense unless there is a Designer...and I realise that this brings with it all sorts of problems for the relentless secularist: most importantly, if God does exist then there might be some hard and fast rules which you don't want to run afoul of. But, still, it just doesn't make sense without God.

As I said at the start of this thread, I believe that faith and reason are vital co-ingredients. You can't sustain one without the other...what I do wonder is why this concept is so hard for some to grasp.

shortz,

Why insult my father? Does that make ya feel better, or something? Come on, you're better than that...especially in a debate which doesn't have a correct answer.

What we're talking about is whether or not ID makes enough sense to be talked about in biology class - if you can refute it, then lets hear the argument; if not, then what is the harm in just TALKING about something for an hour or two in class?

"Why insult my father? Does that make ya feel better, or something? Come on, you're better than that...especially in a debate which doesn't have a correct answer."

I didn't mean it personally. I mean it as in anyone doing what he's doing is a quack. Sorry.

"What we're talking about is whether or not ID makes enough sense to be talked about in biology class - if you can refute it, then lets hear the argument;"

Its refutation is that its not science but religion. Hours and hours of testimony of that were given and there is a 100+ page opinion of the court that goes over that. Read it. It will allay your fears of this ruling. Its a pretty restrained ruling that answers what the parties requested teh court to answer.

"What is simpler - God creating the universe, or matter just always existing?"

I do not have the knowledge to know which one of these is 'simple' I don't think the question of the existence of god is simple. But here's a solution, why don't you go on believing that God provides what you don't understand and let those who want to use science go ahead and do that?

Mark,

Biological studies on ID are there that you feel it should be included in biology class curriculum?

"I believe that faith and reason are vital co-ingredients."

Key word being believe. Science is about relating to students what has been learned through scientific method.

ID is faith. Not science. Mark, you may believe that your father proved the existance of a designer through a mathematical equation... but

A) That's not observational.

B)It doesn't sound like there's enough people who back your father's findings to start teaching it in high school curriculum.

But, in terms of Intelligent Design being science, these guys say it best:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Mark, are you suggesting something that the US National Academy of Sciences says in not science be taught as part of science curriculum?

I mean to say, "WHAT biological studies are there on ID that you feel it should be included in biology class."

Mark,

You’re coming up with arguments that don’t prove anything either way. Whether your premise is simpler or more complicated doesn’t make it any more or less true. The only way to determine how the universe and life came about is by continuing to do research and examining the evidence. Because the premise, “God did it” is simpler or because you think it makes more sense that God did it does not make it true, especially since you have such an extreme bias towards one side of the issue.

It makes more sense that there isn’t a designer because there isn’t any evidence of a designer. All life as we know it today, from the simplest microorganism to the largest whales, came about by natural processes. There has never been even a single observed instance of a plant or creature coming into existence through a supernatural process with a designer behind it. Astronomers can look through the Hubble Telescope and see stars being formed without any evidence of a designer or creator. If all life today can and does come about through natural processes, there is no reason it couldn’t have always come about through natural processes.

Most people that don’t believe in a designer, don’t believe this because there is no evidence of one, not because of any rules anyone is concerned about running afoul of. Not having a designer does bring with it all sorts of problems for believers, most importantly many believers justify evil behavior, such as flying airplanes into buildings or burning people at the stake for witchcraft, by claiming that the designer approves of these acts.

Faith and reason are completely separate and don’t have anything to do with each other if you mean by faith. Reason is based on logic and facts, faith is belief in the unknown. There are many scientists that don’t have faith and many that do.

Phnxbmed,

Like most creationists, you have a poor understanding of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with life miraculously coming about from primordial soup. That’s just a distortion that creationists often repeat.

Hundreds of millions of beneficial mutations or changes over hundreds of millions of years can be very significant. You said yourself that you consider micro-evolution to be true. If micro-evolution is true, where plants and animals can go through small changes over generations, then after millions of years of going through small changes, you would eventually end up with plants and animals that are very different than their ancestors from millions of years ago.

This is all quite interesting. I think the real question it begs is: "What should science class tell our children when they ask how did it all begin?" No scientist can answer that question. There are many theories: the big bang, etc. but they never answer what existed before that. Science also does not capably answer the question of "Why did it happen?" I think the teachers SHOULD be able to provide some thoughts on the matter, not as science but as a way to refer them to other sources for answers: e.g. "some people believe that it all happened because a super-intelligent being set it all into motion, call it God or whatever you believe in. Others believe it was just random happenstance. The reality is, we don't really know. You might ask your philosophy teacher, parents or your religion teacher his/her point of view."

In college, I argued one of my professors that there is no such thing as "random," only that random is scientist's way of saying, we don't know all the seen and unseen circumstances that led to the "random" outcome. The throw of a dice is random because no one can toss a dice in exactly the same way everytime. There are too many factors to calculate: how it is held in the hand, the distance from the surface, the angle of its fall, the rotation of the earth, the composition of the die itself... all the way down to the microscopic topography of the surface it lands on. He didn't buy my argument, but couldn't convince me otherwise (maybe I'm just dense).

The point is, that what some people call random evolution, may have happened deliberately for a specific reason. It comes down to faith. I believe in God and I believe that it all happened on purpose with prior intent. I believe that species have evolved and that we may have evolved from a one-cell organism. Still, I don't believe it was random. I believe that it happened for a reason and its complexity is beyond our puny minds to understand. There are others who will call me a fool for believing in some unseen, superintelligent being. I have no real proof of this other than my faith. That is why my beliefs do not belong in science class, but rather in Sunday School, philosophy class or religion class.

What is taught in science class should be science. However, a teacher might still have to answer the questions that are unanswerable through science and I believe the best way is to say, we really don't know.

Tom,

Do you think that only doctors should rule on medical practices? That war should be the exclusive province of generals?

Its nice that the National Academy thinks that - but they've simply got it wrong. I can think, old buddy, and in my thinking I've come to the conclusion that life - indeed, the universe - cannot exist without God - the Intelligent Designer - making it so. Lots of people agree with me - and no one can say that it would be harmful or unenlightening to have a discussion on the origins of life in a biolgy class

In the end, you haven't a non-bigoted leg to stand on in the debate...bottom line, you don't want ID in biology because you fear what people might start to believe in a free and flowing dicussion of ideas.

Still doesn't explain how life arose from lifelessness...while we have about four billion years to go from single-celled organism to me typing on a blog, we've got much less than a billion years to go from base atoms to self-replicating life. Implausible doesn't even begin to describe the chances of that.

It might not matter if it's implausible. If the string theorists are right, there could be countless parallel independent universes with slightly different physical properties. Sure, the chance of life appearing might be infinitesimal, but if the number of "experiments" (i.e., different universes) is infinte, then an infinitesimal probability becomes a dead certainty.