very well put together.

The main challenge that ID has never solved is they claim to have an alternative view of the presently held scientific theories.  Fine, big deal, most scientists have some area of science that they believe they have a better view on (most of their professionional lives are devoted to discovering something new).  What ID fails to do (which the good scientists do) is ever discover anything new.  I wish a debate would start off with:

Moderator:  "Before we begin could each side name a current healthcare breakthrough as a result of your research?"

Biologist:  "The flu vacciness you are all taking are predicated on our understanding of evolution."

ID Proponent:  "Unnhhhh..."

-Matt 

Jason,

You didn't even read Klinghoffer's comments. You stubbornly continue to pretend that the DI opposes evolution. But you know very well, or certainly should know, that they accept evolution and common descent.

There are several different groups involved in this controversy. There are Christian creationists who deny evolution. Almost none of that group are scientists. None of them are educated in the basic facts of biology. Christian creationists might claim to believe in ID, but it's unlikely they understand anything about ID.

ID does NOT oppose evolution and common descent. ID advocates and Christian creationists are NOT the same people, in most cases. Yes, ID advocates oppose the materialist philosophy that dominates contemporary biology. Materialism is a philosophy and scientific research should NOT be dominated by any particular ideology. A scientist SHOULD be allowed to say that some kind of intelligence seems to be at work in nature. A scientist SHOULD be allowed to express the opinion that it seems unlikely that a dead mindless universe would give birth to the complex and intelligent machinery of life.

The evolution controversy is so much deeper and more sophisticated than the silly debate you insist on pretending it is. An uneducated Christians might protest that he "ain't descended from no monkey." But that has absolutely no resemblance to the position of the DI.

I am not a DI member, and I often disagree with them on certain points. But I always defend them against these nonsensical accusations. They do NOT deny evolution or common descent. You do not seem capable of understanding that.

Materialism IS a methodology and scientific research should adhere strictly to methodologies that can provide observable phenomenon and measurable data.

A scientist SHOULD be expected to back up his claim that some kind of intelligence seems to be at work in nature with confirmable, repeatable, and unambiguous research.

A scientist SHOULD be allowed to express any opinion that derives from scientific findings, such as the abundance of amino acids in outer space, the hypothesized existence of proto-membranes, helices, and other organic molecules in space, experiments that demonstrate that comet impacts likely combine amino acids into peptides, and recent studies regarding how quickly and easily protiens can form from simpler molecules.  In this case, the natural conclusion is that life likely arises easily and often in the universe.

"Materialism IS a methodology"

It is NOT a methodology. A dictionary definition:

"a theory that
physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being
and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter"

Materialism is a belief, and it's a belief that doesn't make any sense. We don't even have a definition for "physical matter."

Physicists study fields and energies that are nothing like the "physical substances" of our "physical world." The word "physical" just means natural. And what does "natural" mean?

None of these concepts are easy to define. And there is absolutely nothing in modern science that precludes the idea that nature possesses intelligence. You must agree that something we call "intelligence" exists. You believe it can only exist as a product of a physical brain? Why? How can you assume that? We don't even know what intelligence is, and we have absolutely no basis for assuming that whatever it is we call intelligence cannot exist except as a product of a physical brain. 

" life likely arises easily and often in the universe."

You're sure about that? Life arises easily by accident? Then why haven't scientists been able to create life intentionally? Easy to create by accident, difficult or impossible to create on purpose? Where is the logic in your belief? And where is the evidence? There is absolutely none. You take it on faith that life can arise easily by accident.

We have no theory about how life originates. Remember there is no DNA before there is life, so there are no random mutations to select from. You think you can explain the origin of species that way (although many of us disagree). But you have absolutely no plausible theories to explain the accidental origin of life.

It is NOT scientific to hold beliefs simply because they support a particular ideology. 

"Then why
haven't scientists been able to create life intentionally?"

evolution has had a few billion years head start. scientists have been trying for just a few decades.

When As Usual says that Intelligent Design accepts common descent, he is "correct" only if you use their definition.

When I say common descent, I would mean "living things creating offsrping that are subtly different, until eventually descendents are extremly different organisms.

ID "accepts" common descent only if it means "An intelligent designer took one organism, and then radically improved it to create a new organism from the old.  In that way, the new 'descended' from the old."

Those are not the same conepts. 

"evolution has had a few billion years head start."

 That is the Darwinist all-purpose excuse. You don't need evidence or logic or math to support your hypothesis. It doesn't have to make any kind of sense. Given huge amounts of time, and maybe an infinite number of parallel universes, anything at all can happen. So no one can criticize your "theory." There is no way to prove that something can't happen given unlimited time and parallel universes.

evolution says that billions of years ago there was a chance combination of chemicals in the worlds oceans that made a series of reactions that we now call life. you end up with a "cell" that does nothing but make more of itself and does so by using a molecule (called DNA) to "control" what happens and when.  sometimes the DNA makes a mistake when copping itself and the VAST majority of these mutations are either harmful or useless.  however, sometimes, just by chance, it is helpful then that particular cell can live longer and produce more offspring and pass on that mutation. eventually you end up with a cell that is nothing like the first one. maybe the new kind of cell eats the original and becomes the dominant species on the planet (it can do that because the original has nothing to defend itself with) with so many mutations happening all at once for billions of year you end up with all of the diversity we see today

a billion years is a LONG time longer than most people can comprehend, I know its longer than my interpretation, so perhaps time itself is an intelligent designer. after all its just a bunch of chemical reactions.

"a theory that"

"Materialism is a belief, and it's a belief that doesn't make any sense."

This purposeful misuse of the scientific definition of theory, which should be something like "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world", is going to lead me to violence and I may just break some bones in the next person that deliberately makes this mistake. I will reassure them that the energy transfers that caused the damage are mere theories and should not be any cause for alarm.

http://www.answers.com/topic/materialism

Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality
and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be
explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/materialism

a theory that
physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being
and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter

Realpc says "You didn't even read Klinghoffer's comments. You stubbornly continue to pretend that the DI opposes evolution. But you know very well, or certainly should know, that they accept evolution and common descent."

What? If that's the case, then why are they always arguing against evolution? Have you not read what the DI Fellows actually write? There are even DI Fellows who claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or to be uncertain or agnostic about it, including Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, Dean Kenyon, John Mark Reynolds, and Phillip E. Johnson. Others who have explicitly argued against evolution and for creationism include Raymond Bohlin, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, the CSC program director. There are what, two, DI Fellows who aren't evangelical Christians? Besides Behe and possibly Berlinski, is there an evolutionist among them?

The main intelligent design textbook, _Of Pandas and People_, started life as a creation science textbook that was modified by a search and replace operation into an intelligent design textbook (even leaving behind the intermediate form "cdesign proponentsists"). The Discovery Institute has been a supporter of that book, and its Fellows' names are all over it.

DI is a creationist organization that repeats the standard creationist arguments against evolution while doing its best to remain silent about any actual positive creationist claims, such as flood geology, vapor canopy theory, or the claim of a young earth. Even their alleged "intelligent design theory" has yet to materialize in any coherent, empirically testable form. Rather than actually developing a scientific research program, they engage in PR attacks against evolution based on old-style creationist quote-mining and misrepresentation. They've been caught and called on it again and again, but they persist because it works on the PR front--it brings in the donations and keeps them in operation.

ID advocates are individuals and there must be some differences between their beliefs. Maybe there is a small minority that denies evolution. However, denial of evolution is definitely not typical. I can't imagine how you got the idea that Dembski denies evolution; he definitely does not.

Sometimes people use "evolution" as a synonym for "Darwinian evolution," unfortunately. This creates enormous confusion. ID advocates oppose one particular theory of evolution, which originated with Darwin and Wallace in the 19th century, and is now sometimes called neo-Darwinism. ID does not oppose or deny evolution; it is an alternative theory of evolution.

Yes, Jim Lippard, realpc is correct, you stubbornly refuse to see the DI for what it is and it explictly has nothing to do with creationism since creationist philosophy is specifically associated with the Christian spin on the Bible.  Klinghoffer is Jewish and is no "creationist" and concerning "evolution" per se--no one disagrees in that things change over time --it is the particular definition of evolution that has sensible people opposed to a theory which is in fact, a fantasy and not science.

The DI is very involved in pushing science and not the kind of religion put forward by the public schools which also spends a good deal of time trying to break students bond with the Bible and the concept of God as creator.  This is really offensive and inappropriate.  Our schools need to teach the facts pure and simple and neither unproven secular religion nor spend time in science class telling students that God exists only in a spirit world and not as creator in the real world. 

Mr. Rosenhouse, that has to be the worst comb-over I have ever seen.

If I never read another one of these stupid internet debates again, I will die a happy man.

Anonymous, you're confusing the idea of abiogenisis (life arising from previously inorganic matter) with evolution. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the beginnings of life, merely every step after that first one.

From TalkOrigins.org:

<blockquote>"The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all
organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often
called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms
appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis.
And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean
natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution."

<br>And "One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the
first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis
wouldn't affect evolution in the least."</blockquote>

I don't want to say characterizing evolution as explaining the origins of life is "playing right into their hands", but I believe that is a major reason why many people so quickly dismiss it.

Jim Lippard:   Just as a curiosity, I looked up the credentials behind those names you mentioned.  All of them are associated with the ID movement, the Discovery Institute, and many of them are near the tops of their own  organizations.  Of those, I noted that only one of them had any background in biology.  I'll admit, it was a quick search, I may have missed one or two.  I'll be generous and say that at most, three of them have spent any time with biological studies.

Check out <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/"Project Steve</a>.  For every biological scientist that's been quote-mined into an ID standpoint, and even for the ones that went along willingly, there are more biologists named "Steve" (or some variation thereof) that agree with the findings of evolution.  Among scientists, there is no controversy.

I have no problem with ID as a scientific theory - provided it can be tested and it makes measurable predictions.  If it can't be tested then it isn't a useful theory, true or not.  The problem is that if it can't predict anything then it shouldn't be dressed up as a science.

ID advocates are making a big claim - that there is something guiding the hand of evolution.  Biologists make the opposite claim - that there doesn't need to be a guiding hand.  The phrase "Russell's teapot" springs to mind.  ID is a hypothesis.  So is evolution by natural selection.  I'm open minded, but the problem is that the evidence only points to natural selection.

Now, could somebody (e.g. realpc) please point me to one concrete measurable prediction of ID?  Thought not.  ID advocates may genuinely believe that they have evidence, but it never survives even casual scrutiny.  Which of course makes me question what kind of truth these people are peddling.  If what they claim about biology is wrong, maybe what they claim about theology is also wrong?

Another thing - why pick on biology?  I mean, we could have a theory of "intelligent gravitation", or a theory of "intelligent thunder", or a theory of "intelligent supersymmetry".  Thunder is too complex to arise naturally - it must be Thor.  Science actually started making progress when we stopped looking for God in the clockwork.

C'mon CG, please stick to the point and stick to the science.  Thunder is a well-understood natural phenomenon.  There is not one scientist that disputes gravity.

Concerning what drives evolution and what natural selection  can actually create--this is a real scientific dispute and it will remain a problem since there is no real science behind the claims made by the "evolutionists."  If 700 scientists are sign a petition publicly acknowledging the fact that natural selection and random mutations fail to describe life processes--there are surely thousands more who also doubt that we have a hold on the problem.

For me, a rational skeptic--this is more solid proof of the design hypothesis.  The more we know about nature, the more we do not know.  Thunder is not at all intricate--it is very simple.  Life is enormously difficult to get a handle on the issues--science does not have gaps--it has profound ignorance.  Compared to what we do not know, what we actually know is tiny.  This is good evidence of design.

Take one plant hormone named auxin as one example.  The news came out about one year ago as a claimed "victory for Darwin" that scientists can now chart auxin after about 80 years of struggle.  A team of scientists with some high powered computers can chart the hormone!  How is this a victory for Darwinists?  It points in the opposite direction--obviously.  Step by step, every step is crucial and nothing is redundant, the hormone can be charted but science has no idea how it actually works--nor could they ever duplicate it.  It is one regulatory function among several others--all working together and if you actually want a functional blade of grass--it all must work in perfect harmony.  To put it all together exhausts a team of scientists and a bundle of high-powered computers--that is just to chart it. The HOW part is the job of science and this team can chart it, but they have no idea HOW it works or how it could have evolved.  It "emerged" we are told--over and over.  The fine print says "we have no idea how this works and we don't even know where to begin!"

How can one claim that this is "natural?"  It not only appears designed--I can't get see how one can even make the argument that it is an evolved process and believe it.

This has no similarity with simple chemical reactions or natural phenomenon like thunder and lightening. 

When we say "designed" we are not thinking of some guy with a white beard at a drawing board. It should be framed more scientifically -- for example, the universe, and nature, possess some kind of intelligence which guides and motivations the creation of the complex machinery of life. Complex machines are expected to emerge in a universe which is naturally intelligent and creative.

Is there any way to test this kind of idea? It is assumed in the sciences of systems, complexity, chaos and information. Can't we apply these principles to biological evolution and find a way to test them?

Mr. Friedman, you wrote:  "Life is enormously difficult to get a handle on the issues--science
does not have gaps--it has profound ignorance.  Compared to what we do
not know, what we actually know is tiny. This is good evidence of design."

 Please explain how this is evidence of design. Utter ignorance is not "good evidence" of anything.  It is exactly what it is, a lack of evidence.  For at least thousands of years, nobody had any clue how lightning worked.  They explained away their ignorance by explaining it was the work of gods.  They were ignorant of the processes behind lightning, and at the time, it was enormously difficult to get a handle on the issues.  The science of the day had profound ignorance of the workings of lightning.

Your gap may (or may not) be as big as the Grand Canyon, but this is still a god-in-the-gaps argument.  I'm not saying that there is no designer, but the argument is specious and a false dichotomy.  Lack of scientific evidence is not evidence for divine intervention. 

 Also, keep in mind that the length of time science spends studying something has nothing to do with its validity.  Quantum theory has been around since the early 1900s, billions (if not trillions) have been spent on understanding it, and it was only until 20-30 years ago that we've been able to test any of it at all.  Science certainly doesn't know everything, and most definitely doesn't claim to, but saying "God did it.  All of it.  We give up."  is the surest way to stop scientific advancement and rational thought.  Sorry, I'm getting off-topic and ranty.  I'll shut up now. :)

Lack of scientific knowledge does not prove God--true.

The ignorance of the ancients regarding lightening is evidence of their ignorance, and no implication that gods caused the thunder.  The contrast with today's scientific world is extreme.  I hold no respect for the expertise for the ancient Greeks--by contrast, I hold great respect for the expertise for modern science.  We are able to decipher and study a whole heck of a lot.

 For example--please consider my example about the plant hormone auxin.  Even though today's science cannot approach how it works--I am granting the fact that one day science will be able to not simply chart it, they will have a good understanding of how it actually works.  I am making this extrapolation.  My trust that this is a sign of design has nothing to do with the fact that we are currently ignorant and everything to do with the monumental complexity of the process.

The kind of complexity that is so specified and so precise in its inner workings has sure trademarks of design.  We know enough right now to understand that even if we knew all the secrets, the belief that it could have emerged randomly and naturally strains all credibility.  This is why I am happy to grant some miracles--since miraculous things might happen.  What I am not willing to grant is so many miracles that we stubbornly ignore a plan and a purpose that is evident when you see a live organism in operation.  Modern science has its hands full with quantum theory.  By contrast, I think modern science should be able to figure out the cell and how a blade of grass grows.  The fact that such matters are highly clouded in mystery has a clear message and a clear implication concerning the designing power of raw, natural agents acting without an alleged plan or purpose.  If modern sophisticated scientists cannot decipher many things--no problem.  On the other hand, if they cannot get a grip on a blade of grass and a guess as to how it could be naturally manifested in terms of its total working parts--this implies that it has a kind of sophistication that is much higher than human beings armed with very good tools of analysis.

We should never give up trying to understand how nature works and this is why your concluding shot is such a contortion of the truth.  The suggestion, forced down kid's throats with the full force of the law, that a natural mechanism drives the evolution of life is precisely the kind of thing which harms curiosity. The auxin story is a great example--the secularists merely chart one hormone and then fold up tent by saying that it is a victory for Darwin.  Evolution works, that's it.  Let's pretend we know it all, even when it is clear we know almost nothing. 

The job is to understand HOW it works.  It is much more empowering for many more people to say, gee, this looks like it was planned.  Let's try to figure out how it was planned.  Indeed, if a purposeful agent (God)brought a universe into existence out of nothing and made  a planet capable of producing life and culminating in creatures (Mankind) made in his image with the ability to see the patterns and the purpose--that message is much more motivating in favor of scientific discovery than to tell our kids that we are only the evolved descendants of pond scum and we have emerged only as a fluke.

Thanks--I will keep responding. 

Thanks for your response.  To be sure I'm not misinterpreting your writing again, let me ask you a question.  To you, god, or the designer, was the one that put everything into motion, and today's scientific inquiry is reaching the point where we're beginning to uncover design instead of just physical laws and constructs?  If this is true, I can see where you're coming from, and though I disagree on that specifically, I think I understand.

It seems we agree on most of the rest of your points.   Scientific progress is a good thing, and we can only have real research if scientists can keep an open mind and unbiased viewpoint.  At the very least, scientists should be aware of their prejudices and biases and account for them.  I once read that "The best science is conducted when something unexpected happens."  I think it's true, precisely because the unexpected precludes judgement and bias.  

However, I disagree about the message to children.  Outside of learning about mythology, I was never told of any higher powers, or plans for the world.  I've always been under the impression that the only underlying reason anything happens is cause and effect, and that extends to (specifics not withstanding) how everything started out.  It could be just that I'm a naturally curious person, but I spend a good majority of my time learning or experimenting in order to better understand the world around me.  Any time I was told something happened "just because" (This is admittedly my own bias here, but I group "God did it" in with that answer), I would find another method of obtaining the information.

 Granted, I was never told that evolution was the only possibility.  I don't think it's the message that stunts curiosity so much as it is the method.  I think saying "Shut up, it's science!" to a child amounts to the same thing as saying "Shut up, it's Jesus!".  I don't mean to single out any one religion.  The "Sit down, listen, and obey" message will cause the same damage no matter what ideology is backing it.

Even though  I disagree on your viewpoint, I think that we can both agree that as long as we can pass on curiosity and independent thought to the next generation, the world could be a better place.

I'm sorry, I didn't really respond to the brunt of your writing, and I apologize for basically blowing it off.  As much as I'd like to think I'm better than this, I see where you're coming from, but I'm too stubborn to accept the idea, and specifically, not knowledgeable enough in reference to the plant hormone issue to discuss it.  I don't know how you'd respond, but I have the feeling that if I kept discussing the subject, I'd let it deteriorate into a typical flamewar scenario.  Thanks for your understanding.

DNF - You seem to think that religiosity and ID are completely independent concepts.  I would actually argue that religiosity is the main motivator behind ID - therefore cannot be dismissed as not "sticking to the point".

As for gravity - this is one of the most difficult challenges facing theoretical physicists.  If you are going looking for god in nature, that is as good a place to look as any.  My point is, where do we look for God in nature?  Sorry if that parallel is too far off topic for you.

ID advocates claim that there is a debate about evolution when there is none.  It's done and dusted.  Any claims to the contrary are FUD.  On the other hand, gravitation is right there at the bleeding edge (unifying the standard model with general relativity is one of the hardest challenges physicists face).

DNF - you didn't answer my challenge.  What does ID predict?

I wonder why scientists put their faith in the asumption that standard model and general relativity can actually unified.

I don't see it as an act of faith, rather a hope. It's possible that science one day hits a brick wall and can get no further on various fundamental topics, but we're not there yet. Who knows. I think physicists have good reason for optimism.

So what would that mean? There'll always be room for uncertainty, and things we don't know. Whether you choose to fill those gaps with God is up to you, though beware, giving the gaps a name does not mean that you understand the gaps any better.

I was thinking about my previous glib comment about thunder caused by Thor. I see Thor as a "god of the gaps", and is a natural logical fallcy. The point is, we should be a little wary about explaining various natural phenomena with gods and godesses.

I suppose my difficulty with your points, cg, is that you fail to separate what is science, what is religion and what is philosophy.

If you wish to make the point that Phillip Johnson, for one, is a strong Catholic and his "theism" colors and animates his science, I possibly honor the point but I would say that his theism is his philosophy.  As for the debate over evolution, it is a scientific debate and even if those who are skeptical about the power of natural, undirected forces to explain the evolution of life and complex systems--belief or non belief in God is clearly a separate consideration.

Rav Kook was quick to embrace Darwinism and he felt if Darwin was true, this is an even greater tribute to Hashem.  Today, a good minority of Orthodox Jews accept what could be called the "party-line" on evolution and this does not at all diminish their faith in God.  Natan Slifkin has led this movement.  It is my belief that Slifkin is wrong on the science.

Further, when Dawkins said that belief in evolution allows oneself to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist--he made several points.  First, he speaks for a lot of people with an anti-God mindset that wish to employ science against those who believe that God created our physical reality.  Further, he is demonstrating that science can easily be contorted to fit an agenda and if you quickly suspect  the majority for not finding a full truth in the party line of evolution, one can just as easily find a related bias in the eyes of the minority who may be looking for a scientific justification of their atheist philosophy.

It is my point of view that science should be kept free or competing philosophical claims and as pure as possible to research the facts.

Because the Left has a loud voice, they have quickly and adamantly demonised ID  and claimed, like you--that they are simply creationists. This is why they have put together a list of hundreds (over 700) scientists (most having PHD's) who will publicly come forward in opposition to the party line of evolution as testimony that a better answer lies elsewhere.  For objective people, this is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is a legitimate scientific debate concerning the basic creative force of life on this planet.

By contrast, there cannot be a real debate over the fact and basic reality of the theory of gravity.  Do not change the topic by suggesting that no one studies gravity or if gravitational effects are understood or not.  The force of gravity is right in front of us to test and observe.

No one has ever seen an act of macro-evolution and there is no coherent theory as to how how nature could manifest the evolution of life on its own without direction.  There is no theory as to how DNA and RNA could have evolved, there is no understanding even how it is possible for amino acids to combine natural to form a functioning protein.  The evolutionary paridigm is simply an ad hoc theoretical formulation.  Further, another really telling sing is despite the fact that evolution (meaning the specific formulation concerning natural selection and random mutations plus luck as the driving force behind the creation and development of novel forms) is promoted and pushed as such a supposedly critical feature of science, its actual scientific study at the university level is very small. They are told in high school that is the wondrous catch- all that makes science what it is and then it is rarely referenced as a day to day study when a student develops a specialty.

This is why evolution is more dogma than science and more philosophy than testable formulations. Design, is a good beginning premise and its actual utility as a working scientific discipline is being worked out.  

Regarding the predictions of ID--I find it very valuable and scientific as an "if,then" proposition.  Please give me some sense of the prediction of evolution regarding, for example, malaria and I will better understand your question. 

DNF,
Thank you for your response.

I suppose my difficulty with your points, cg, is that you fail to separate what is science, what is religion and what is philosophy.

It is my point of view that science should be kept free or competing philosophical claims and as pure as possible to research the facts.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that God does not seem to have a place in science. Many ID advocates would disagree, but I see you are the noble exception. Let's stick to the science.

Because the Left has a loud voice, they have quickly and adamantly demonised ID and claimed, like you--that they are simply creationists.

Please point to where I used the word creationist. I didn't so don't say that I did.

By contrast, there cannot be a real debate over the fact and basic reality of the theory of gravity. Do not change the topic by suggesting that no one studies gravity or if gravitational effects are understood or not. The force of gravity is right in front of us to test and observe.

I think this is a side-issue.

No one has ever seen an act of macro-evolution

Wrong

and there is no coherent theory as to how how nature could manifest the evolution of life on its own without direction.

It's called evolution by natural selection. It's perfectly coherent.

There is no theory as to how DNA and RNA could have evolved,

Wrong

there is no understanding even how it is possible for amino acids to combine natural to form a functioning protein.

Wrong again

Further, another really telling sing is despite the fact that evolution (meaning the specific formulation concerning natural selection and random mutations plus luck as the driving force behind the creation and development of novel forms) is promoted and pushed as such a supposedly critical feature of science, its actual scientific study at the university level is very small.

Do you have statistics to back this claim up, or is this just what you reckon?

Regarding the predictions of ID--I find it very valuable and scientific as an "if,then" proposition. Please give me some sense of the prediction of evolution regarding, for example, malaria and I will better understand your question.

Here is an example of the evolution of the malaria parasite.

Other examples of successful predictions, to name but a few.

"where we're beginning to uncover design instead of just physical laws and constructs?"

It is not a question of "design" vs. "physical laws and constructs." I think design is a law of nature. Nature designs, and creates. Nature is intelligent.

And it is not a question of evolution vs. Intelligent Design. ID does NOT oppose evolution, only a particular theory of evolution.

The currently accepted theory grew out of Darwin's hypothesis about the cause of evolution. After the discovery of DNA, Darwin's hypothesis was accepted, almost as a fact.

ID says that the current theory was accepted to easily, without evidence. The evidence for evolution, which is plentiful, has been misconstrued as evidence for neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism says that random variations acted on by natural selection can fully account for the origin of species. This is merely a claim, without evidential support. Neo-Darwinists often argue that many factors in addition to random variations and natural selection are involved. But any other factors they mention turn out to be some version of random changes and natural selection.  Gene duplication? Well that's a random change isn't it? Sexual selection? Well that's a type of natural selection. Population drift? More random changes.

 We already have scientific evidence that genetic mutations can respond in quality or quantity to environmental challenges. DNA somehow "knows" what's happening outside the organism, at least in some cases. No one is suggesting God is directing the DNA and giving in inside info. But we are beginning to see signs of purpose and intelligence within the cell.

Contemporary materialism assumes that intelligence is something created by brains. How was  that conclusion reached? It is entirely an assumption. Computer scientists know that anything can be a computer and information processing does not depend on any particular medium. Why does it have to be brain cells? Why can't information processing happen within cells, molecules, or atoms? It should be obvious that it can.

If intelligence is information processing, and information processing can happen in any medium, then materialist science has been wrong all along. Nature can be intelligent.

And that is what the science of Intelligent Design is all about. 

"Other examples of successful predictions, to name but a few."

All of those predictions are about evolution, NOT about the neo-Darwinian hypothesis about the causes of evolution.

Talk Origins is a propaganda site, dedicated to defending the status quo. They make no attempt at intellectual honesty. They know that no one is seriously questioning evolution theory. But it's easy to find evidence for evolution, impossible to find evidence for Darwinian evolution.

"Materialism: A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter."

If we take out the parts about physical matter being the exclusive source of causes and effects in our reality, everyone would agree with the idea. No one's going to legitimately debate that matter does not have some cause and some effect in our reality.

Now, let's consider the exclusivity that the definition theorizes for matter with a metaphor: painting houses. Let's say you see 20 houses being painted with paint brushes and have never seen a house being painted any other way. While we can't rule out that other methods have been used to paint houses, it would be absurd to make any claim that houses have been painted a different way without any evidence of it. So, we would theorize that all houses are painted with paint brushes.

Later, we discover that some houses are painted with rollers. So we revise the theory to say that all houses are painted with paint brushes or rollers. It remains absurd and unproductive to wildly speculate about alternative causes in the absence of evidence. For example, I could add "...or fountain pens dipped in the paint." The statement would remain just as logically correct (because adding such a disjunction always maintains truth), but the theory becomes far less useful.

This problem arises whenever people propose to inject supernatural causes into a theory. Injecting such causes doesn't make a theory less logically correct, but assuming supernatural causes is even more absurd than assuming some houses may have been painted using fountain pens.

David Strauss,

Your example is irrelevant. We know all about how houses are usually painted. There is  no mystery. The cause of evolution, however, is a complete mystery. You do not know, you only claim to know.

ID does not have to be about "injecting" supernatural causes. Yes some IDists make it sound that way, unfortunately. But it's really about saying that nature is infinitely more than what is currently assumed.

And my opinion is that nature includes intelligence. If you insist on calling the intelligence of nature "supernatural," that makes it sound unscientific. But there is no reason why ID has to be unscientific, and ID does not have to inject the supernatural into its arguments. All it has to do is look for signs of intelligence, and creativity, in nature.

The intelligence that seems to emanate from our little human brains is actually something much more general, and is found in every wave and particle of nature.

The last comment was me.

For an idea to be a scientific one it must:

a) explain previous measurements (data)

b) make predictions of future measurements.

period.

ID does NOT satisfy these most basic criteria. It is no more science than it is a recipe for muffins.

case closed.

Materialism allows us to include anything in the natural world in scientific study. An attempt to include something that materialism rejects (like otherworldly intelligence in nature) is an attempt to include something supernatural.

"Materialism allows us to include anything in the natural world in scientific study. An attempt to include something that materialism rejects (like otherworldly intelligence in nature) is an attempt to include something supernatural."

Science DOES NOT equal materialism. And besides, how can we know what materialism rejects? It doesn't reject electromagnetic fields, or gravity, for example. In what sense are they "material?"

Materialists accepts anything that has already been studied by science. It rejects anything that has not. So materialism must remain stuck in the already-known, and it cannot go forward. It tries to prevent science from studying anything not already studied.

Materialism is not science, it is ideology. 

Magnetic fields and gravity yield material effects that we can measure and predict. The idea that materialism is limited to current knowledge is absurd.

"Magnetic fields and gravity yield material effects that we can measure and predict."

Of course! Because science has discovered and studied them! What about all the as-yet unknown fields, energies and particles? Materialism denies their existence because science cannot measure them. And science cannot measure them because it has not yet discovered them!

A lovely catch-22.

"The idea that materialism is limited to current knowledge is absurd."

No, materialism is absurd, meaningless. And certainly does not equal science.

And by the way this captcha challenge is buggy. 

Having said that (see my last entry "case closed" above).... 

This does not mean that a scientific idea/model/theory that predicts well is necessarily "true". Nor does it mean that an idea that makes no predictions is "false".

But science doesn't care about truth. It cares only about how well ideas can explain and predict measurements. 

Note that the idea of evolution DOES make predictions about future measurements, and hints at where one aught to begin looking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&eurl=http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-chimp-chromosome-2-proves-evolution.html 

" the idea of evolution DOES make predictions about future measurements"

Yes, of course, but Intelligent Design does not question evolution. Evolution is just fine. What is difficult is making and testing predictions of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. Why don't you address that, instead of pretending we are debating whether evolution occurred?

(Please fix this captcha thing.)

to realpc,  

I have enjoyed your trolling above but no way are you sucking me in.

"Materialism denies their existence because science cannot measure them."

Yes. 

"And science cannot measure them because it has not yet discovered them!"

Hardly. 

"A lovely catch-22."

I think you have some reading to catch up on before you throw around that claim again. 

David: You make some excellent points here, and I would like your permission to quote you elsewhere in the metaverse. I particularly like the house-painting allegory.

Tompalmchicken: "What is truth, said jesting Pilot." You mention materialists denying truth. Until it can be observed and quantified, an ongoing process, should we accept on 'faith' any mortals vision of the answers to the countless possible unknowns? Isn't this irrational embrace of omnipotence and absolute though unverifiable truth what lies at the base of many of the world's conflicts?

A: Did you ever read Heller's Catch 22? Funny how many are confused about the concept. If you ask me to reject David's argument on the grounds that he's failing to see the truth, I will. You must see something I don't. But if you DO ask me, it will prove you are quite uncertain, and looking for others to reinforce your beliefs which have NO real evidence to support them.

Therefore, I will agree with you if you ask me to, but in doing so you will prove I shouldn't agree with you so I won't. If you don't ask me, I will assume you have 'seen the light' and realized your deconstructions of David's comments were specious at best.

"Materialism denies their existence because science cannot measure them."

"Yes. "

"And science cannot measure them because it has not yet discovered them!"

"Hardly. "

Where is the logic in the above David? Materialism denies the existence of anything science can't measure at this time. It cannot hypothesize the existence of anything it does not already know how to measure. New fields, substances, etc., cannot be discovered within the materialist framework.

" think you have some reading to catch up on"

No one can read everything and no one can know anything. I have read as much as anyone. Your statement simply dismisses my arguments because you think I have not read enough. It implies that you have read enough and your opinions are therefore valid where mine or not. But you don't find anything wrong with my logic. You just dismiss it, because I have not read enough, you assume.

You expect everyone who has been educated in science to agree with materialism. Anyone who does not agree must be ignorant, must have missed some important reading. For you, this goes without saying. There is no need to argue logically and make your case. Just dismiss any dissidents who do not fall in line with current scientific materialism.  What if the status quo turned out to be not entirely correct? That would be very unsettling and lots of people would lose their complacency.

It's better, easier, to call the dissenters ignorant, unscientific, not worth listening to. Because you really don't like to question your established beliefs. You don't really want to learn anything disturbing.

"
No one can read everything and no one can know anything."

Meant to say: "
No one can read everything and no one can know everything."

The modern theory of evolution, even in its many incarnations, definitions and modes fails the basic test of a working scientific theory.  It is much more of a hope than a working theory and should find its place in the trash heap of history since it has no scientific utility. 

It is the winning formulation because of its political and anti-religious implications.  Science needs to be about science alone and if we substitute politics for science, we are making a very poor exchange.

I must add that modern science was the invention a few hundred years ago of  God-obsessed men that worked from the premise of design.  Design remains a compelling base formulation.  At this moment, the business of science should be to teach what man knows about nature. The tendency to scream "evolution" as the source of almost everything, without any explanation, must end since it verges on both silliness and contempt for learning.

It is with a lot of "chutzpah" that persons wish to allege that it is those who see the obvious:  design in nature--have and hold chutzpah and contempt for science. 

The talk.origins website has become (by default) some kind of alleged gold-standard for evolutionary dogma that seeks the demonization of creationists.  I am no Christian and no Christian creationist and I do not work for the Discovery Institute.  Thanks for the links, ,cg, but I am afraid to say that they provided no facts and no science very obviously.  More telling, they provide no argument.  They are big on conjecture.

It is both scientific and truthful to say, when asked about origins and about HOW nature works--we do not know.  Please help us figure it out.  A stopped clock is correct twice a day and we recognize it is broken--by contrast, evolution is correct only about tiny matters and yet we are willing to give it credence that it is somehow the catch-all answer to almost everything.  Case closed?  Preposterous.  Wake up, people.