As far as I know, the scientific world no longer accepts Darwinian theories of evolution. Certainly evolution is accepted. But not Darwin’s theories of evolution. In addition, as my understanding serves me, Darwin was not an atheist and did not intended to promote atheism. That came later.
True. Evolutionary theory is a jumbled patchwork of speculations and conjectures – contradictory claims, disputes among evolutionists, more and more unanswered questions, natural selection having less and less explanatory power, various claims falsified by data and then “explanations” created to cover up the lack of validation …
So “specification” is redundant, and not essential. Functional Information is only measured with respect to a particular function. A DNA sequence which performs one function is non-functional when measured against a different function. An enzyme which can digest protein is not going to be functional as an oxygen carrier.
We disagree. The function is specified; the information is not specified. A change to the function can result in a change to the amount of Functional Information measured. One of the points of Hazen’s definition is that there are many possible different sequences which can perform the given function.
Again I will point out that it is the function that is specified, not the sequences.
It is possible. There are many experiments showing the evolution of Functional Information. For example, Lenski’s E. coli experiment showed the evolution of DNA sequences that performed the function “Can digest citrate”. In the wild there are further examples, such as “Can digest nylon oligomers”.
Did he argue against the Christian faith, or interpretations of Genesis?
To some extent that is correct. A great deal has been added to the theory since Darwin first proposed it: Mendelian genetics, neutral drift, DNA and the data from DNA sequencing. However the core of the theory is still recognisably the same as Darwin proposed. More mechanisms have been added and much more has been learned about genetics and DNA but at heart it is still Darwin’s theory. What Darwin said was correct insofar as it went; his basic insight of variation, competition for resources and natural selection is still valid.
Here is the definition of ID, the science:
What is intelligent design? See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
**Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
**Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.Yes, well when it comes to the theories of evolution and natural selection… it is a lot more than an opinion. It is more than 100 years of solid research by many thousands of scientists. You are right, that you are merely venturing the opinion of a few fringe thinkers if you claim that it is “falling apart”. At least you recognize your position as nothing more than an opinion, as opposed to an established scientific theory. That is all I have to say on this, since this is not the place to discuss this topic. All you are likely to find here are people who venture an opinion and declare it to be “science”… There are plenty or sites devoted to the topic, or you can pick up any decent biology textbook, subscribe to any of the hundreds of academic journals, attend any of the thousands of decent schools, talk to any of the tens of thousands of people who actually work in fields with rely on evolutionary science… or you can promote the ideas of a few crackpots and fringe thinkers, who are pretty much laughing stocks among reasonable people who are informed on the topic.
Well said, Rock Happy.
This would be were I would stand as well. In accepting evolution, we do not have to accept it happens independently of God and outside His will.
So where does this leave the ‘natural selection’ part of the theory when God is placed in the drivers seat?
ID the science, does not exist.
I suppose all of the research into cryptography is lumped into something else…biology perhaps?
If God created the laws of nature, then He obviously also created the process of natural selection. God is put in the driver’s seat by designing it, but this does not mean that natural selection is anything but that: natural selection.
Correct. Because methodological naturalism, the search for natural causes for effects in nature, is inherent in the definition and work mode of science (the natural sciences).
Anti-ID scientists who believe in God? I’m not sure what their vocation has to do with it, but if someone believes in God, then presumably they believe that God created the world. If not, then I’m not sure which religion they belong to, and I can’t speculate on every variant of every sect of every religion! After all, they all believe different things, and all believe that only they are right…
In the Wedge document, which was released by CSC (a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, who through Bill Dembski have promoted ID into the irritatingly and unjustifiably popular hypotheis it is today amongst theists).
No, I meant, do you believe in the hypothesis of Intelligent Design as the way in which the world came to be?
No - I know what ID is, and I know what it claims to be. The two things are not the same.
The CRSC (now called the CSC) is a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a well-known pseudo-scientific organisation which exists mainly to debunk the fact of Evolution and to promote religious answers to questions about our origins. I find it difficult to believe you haven’t heard of the DI!
Paper was compiled by a group of people, think Dembski was one of them.
1999, I think (you sure do ask a lot of questions).
In my post, for one.
Read the Wedge document. Read the DI’s rhetoric.
I don’t oppose a group that concedes the findings of science, I oppose a group that grudgingly, with no real choice, concedes the findings of science and then puts forward an arbitrary, evidenceless, supernatural-based hypothesis for the origin of life and arrogantly (and wrongly) calls it a scientific theory in an attempt to get it accepted as a science topic in schools. In an attempt to get the God hypothesis taught as science.
I agree on this point as well.
Although medical science administered by a Catholic doctor is effective as a result of the science, not of the religious affiliation of the doctor.