Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

That is why I asked for clarification. I wanted to know exactly what was being discussed – in the document cited from the Vatican, Intelligent Design was in fact part of the document.
Why was it being ignored?

Because Intelligent Design isn’t part of that paper. Intelligent Design is a ruse to get God inserted into science classrooms. The document acknowledges God as the creator. That’s not the same as Intelligent Design.

Sure, but many is not all. Theories until fully proven, are just theories.

You are using the common definition for theory, not the scientific definition.

Is the examined fossil record is sufficiently complete, then one ought to be able to trace out ALL small mutations in speciation (regardless of their source) without inexplicable jumps.

If the fossil record is insufficient, or Darwinism (small mutations) is incorrect, then there will be gaps.

The theory of evolution is supported by numerous areas of study, not just the fossil record. That being said, the fossil record very strongly supports the theory.

There will be gaps in the fossil record because of the nature of fossilization. The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution.

No proof, therefore, exists yet for the theory – other theories may fit the facts better.
(e.g. evolution occurs only in large jumps – inexplicable by random mutations).

Proof, no. Masses of evidence do point to evolution, though. That’s why the theory of evolution is the theory of choice - it is the theory that best explains the data.

You are correct about other theories. When a theory comes along that better explains all the evidence, it will supplant or supplement the theory of evolution. The actual mechanism(s) of evolution is debated. The fact that evolution occurs isn’t. By the way, Intelligent Design is not the theory that will supplant evolution because Intelligent Desing is not a scientific theory.

My father is fond of pointing out that all the scientific experiments undertaken in his day (e.g. using radiation to cause rapid mutations, etc.) led not to speciation, but to destruction.

Here is some recent examples of observed speciation.
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Variations in environment, seperation in breedability, and time are some of the factors in classifying species. However, small “random” mutations being the only or even sufficient source of major speciation has not been proven. That is what I would ask of you concerning the fossil record – does it prove the case.

Are you asking for transitional fossils? If so, I can give them to you.

Small variations exist in the gene pool already and selective breeding can draw them out. ( But only so far, you can’t selectively breed a rabbit into another species e.g. dog, cat, prarie-dog, … – it has been tried ).

Breed a rabbit into a dog, huh. Let’s try staying with the scientific version of evolution, shall we?

Peace

Tim

 

[Sirach14]

When one traces our behavior from Adam&Eve, I really believe it is an insult to a monkey, to ask that question.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Certainly. You can find primitive art work in many areas (Pictoglyphs in the American Southwest, the caves of Lascau). You can see more developed but stylized work (Egyptian paintings, the Archaic smile in Greek sculpture), and the development of more realistic and natural-appearing sculpture and painting, and finally the development of perspective.

nice vern.
My son can only do pictoglphs today, tomorrow perspective.
That’s not quite what I had in mind.
I am asking for the steps leading up to drawing, across widely different species in the “human chain”.
A pictograph uses the full functionality of a human mind to produce art – just as a perspective drawing does.
Do any of the ape species available today draw things on walls inherently, do they draw elsewhere in their spare time.
Do they do ‘part’ of a drawing, and then quit?

why not, if they are our ancestors? Since the intelligence to produce art, flies, artificial lures, and the like is part of the human race, how did these things develop in ‘small’ steps from the ‘monkeys’ like Darwin would suppose? what evidence exists in the HUMAN ancestors for these characteristics.

I am not arguing against evolution, per se, but I don’t believe in Darwanism. I am asking for clarification from Orogeny on what he is talking about.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Orogeny,

Because Intelligent Design isn’t part of that paper. Intelligent Design is a ruse to get God inserted into science classrooms. The document acknowledges God as the creator. That’s not the same as Intelligent Design.

Orogeny, this is the link you gave earlier to ‘that’ paper.

Vatican Document

Here is a quote from ‘that’ paper.

Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology

So, whatever, ID is talked about by the document.

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

In other words, that which appears to be totally random may in fact have been designed that way providentially. God is a source of ‘randomness’ if he so chooses.

The document does not require one to believe in Intelligent Design as currently propagated.

As far as the speciation link provided,
I can’t address all of it, so one comment will need to suffice until I get more time:

Take the last example from the link provided on speciation:
Hybridization is a breeding process, not a mutation.
Nothing new is generated in the genetic material, the material is simply selected from the parents. All genes were taken from the parents.

The plant example was:
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey
remarkable goatsbeard

and it IS classified as a new species. It is a hybrid which has gone through duplication of the chromasomes in a process called anthiploid. The doubling of the chromasomes.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was alluding to earlier when talking about reduplication of genetic material.

The doubleing of the chromasomes allows the hybrid to reproduce.
This type of ‘evolution’ is not always classified as a new species – it depends on WHO classifies it. There are examples of plants which meet the same critera, yet are arbitrarily not called a new species.

A couple of comments: Anthiploidy is not uncommon in plants, it lleads to a hybrid which can reproduce. This is not sufficient for evolution of plants, as the nucleus is limited in size.
I believe the plant has 12 chromasomes, from six. The original parent, then could only have had 3 chromasomes at minimum.
Each hybridization requires a doubling of the chromasomes to produce offspring (doubling is not uncommon).
It automatically prevents breeding with the parent source of genetic material. To get 256 new ‘species’ would take >6 doublings leading to >100 chromasomes in a plant.
Not even humans have that many chromasomes!

So the one example I did have time to examine merely shows that breeding can be classified as ‘evolution’. If that is what is meant by evolution, then by all means – evolution happens.

the horse-mule pairing could be made fertile by doubling of chromasomes as well, it is still a breeding descendancy.
I have no problem with that.

 

[Philip_P]

Huiou Theou:

nice vern.
My son can only do pictoglphs today, tomorrow perspective.
That’s not quite what I had in mind.
I am asking for the steps leading up to drawing, across widely different species in the “human chain”.
A pictograph uses the full functionality of a human mind to produce art – just as a perspective drawing does.
Do any of the ape species available today draw things on walls inherently, do they draw elsewhere in their spare time.
Do they do ‘part’ of a drawing, and then quit?

why not, if they are our ancestors? Since the intelligence to produce art, flies, artificial lures, and the like is part of the human race, how did these things develop in ‘small’ steps from the ‘monkeys’ like Darwin would suppose? what evidence exists in the HUMAN ancestors for these characteristics.

I am not arguing against evolution, per se, but I don’t believe in Darwanism. I am asking for clarification from Orogeny on what he is talking about.

I have pretty much nothing to back this up, but I would say that art is one of the uniquely human traits that separate us from the rest of creation. Why should our biological ancestors have been able to do art? They weren’t necessarily human. The point at which our biological ancestors became human is when I’d expect to see art, not before. I suspect there’s more to being human, and more to being created in the image and likeness of God, than mere biology.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Orogeny,

You are using the common definition for theory, not the scientific definition.

I already anticipated and responded to this, Please read the post which followed the one you are complaining about.

A theory which stands the test of time and experiment becomes trusted to the point of being called a law. We don’t have Darwin’s law yet.

I notice you are taking great pleasure in tearing down what is being said, but you are not lifting much of a finger to define the issue.

Where was your definition of theory to replace the ‘common’ one?

I would enjoy the intermediate fossils. I always laugh when a new ‘missing link’ is discovered for humans. The Scientific American pictures are new and different every time I see them too.
Great artistry.

ID. might not be ‘science’ according to your definition, but that is irrelevant. ( It would be nice to other viewers if you would define your terms and show why ID cannot replace current theories of evolution. Some ‘basic science’ would be useful if expressed rather than implied. )

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Gee, I go away for a few days and look what happens
Huiou Theou:

……A theory which stands the test of time and experiment becomes trusted to the point of being called a law. We don’t have Darwin’s law yet.

Sigh. That is not the way it works
A hypothesis which is the best fit to an observed set of data (i.e. Facts) becomes a Theory

Scientists really don’t use the “L” word any more for new theories

The “laws of motion” are actually far less accurate than the “theory” of relativity
The use of the word “law” is an anachronistic holdover from an earlier time. It is used out of custom rather than because one is better than the other.

The conservation of energy and the equation of state are far more rigorous and universal principals and they are not referred to as “laws” so dismissing something because of the mere choice of nomenclature is…silly.
Huiou Theou:

I would enjoy the intermediate fossils……

Every fossil is an intermediate one!
Every living creature is a transitional one.
Did you read the information and links I had posted earlier?
Huiou Theou:

ID. might not be ‘science’ according to your definition, but that is irrelevant.

It is not science by ANY definition. But real science has only one definition so there is no personal definitions here
Huiou Theou:

( It would be nice to other viewers if you would define your terms and show why ID cannot replace current theories of evolution. Some ‘basic science’ would be useful if expressed rather than implied. )

ID has several flaws
(1) It presupposes a deity that, because of its supernatural nature, cannot be measured and tested. Thus it is not falsifiable. Any sound theory must be falsifiable.
(2) ID has no predictive capabilities. Any real theory must make predictions.
(3) ID, in its best form, agrees with current science theory and then adds the complication of a designer. It thus doesn’t comply with the principal of parsimony.
(4) ID not only presupposes a deity but, in its worst forms, presupposes the Christian Deity rather than a Hindu, Viking, or Aztec one. Thus it calls for 2 great leaps of faith.
(5) ID ignores the facts that most designs are not that intelligent, rather they are jury rigged from previous creatures. All creatures alive today contain evidence of the creatures that went before them. From the non-active parts of our genes that we share with invertebrates to the appendix, our body is full of leftovers that clearly show we weren’t designed from the ground up in our present form.
see

(6) ID does not explain extinctions.

I chose to believe in a God
But trying to prove it is hubris
Trying to embarrass other people of faith by claiming ID is science is almost scandalous

 

[Steve_Andersen]

On a side note I ran across a debate on another thread where a proponent of ID had sort of given up on biological systems as his argument for evidence of design and was championing Atoms as evidence since they are “perfect, indestructible, & eternal”

The physics was really bad but I imagine that he had gotten it from some book and we will be bombarded with this same argument over and over again just like the “eye” question

Very sad, it can take quite a while to compose a well thought out and researched response to these questions but with just a couple of points and clicks they will cut and paste any old thing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huiou Theou:

nice vern.
My son can only do pictoglphs today, tomorrow perspective.
That’s not quite what I had in mind.
I am asking for the steps leading up to drawing, across widely different species in the “human chain”.
A pictograph uses the full functionality of a human mind to produce art – just as a perspective drawing does.
Do any of the ape species available today draw things on walls inherently, do they draw elsewhere in their spare time.
Do they do ‘part’ of a drawing, and then quit?

The development of art is one thing, the development of the ability to create art is another. Art requires a certain level of technology – the ability to work stone, wood, clay, to make pigments, and so on.

Homo Habils could make crude stone tools, and there are some fashioned in a way that indicates aesthetics as well as utility influenced their form.

Modern apes do some spontaneous things that might be called “art” or “craftsmanship.” For example, gorillas make elaborate nests with several different kinds of knots tying the vegetation together. Chimps, if given finger paints will use them to create colorful “abstractions” but will not model figures.
Huiou Theou:

why not, if they are our ancestors?

They are not our ancestors. Our ancestors were hominids. Hominids spilt off from the ancestral line long before any modern apes evolved.
Huiou Theou:

Since the intelligence to produce art, flies, artificial lures, and the like is part of the human race, how did these things develop in ‘small’ steps from the ‘monkeys’ like Darwin would suppose? what evidence exists in the HUMAN ancestors for these characteristics.

They didn’t develop from monkeys – nor did we. Monkeys are far more distant from us than the apes, and as I pointed out, we are not descended from modern apes.

Among hominids, the ability to create art follows the development of technology. We have examples of scratches in bone and ivory that are clearly pictures. These are quite old. The Neanderthals (who are not our ancestors, but whom most authorities consider a separate species) created drawings, placed flowers in graves, and did many things modern man would understand.
Huiou Theou:

I am not arguing against evolution, per se, but I don’t believe in Darwanism. I am asking for clarification from Orogeny on what he is talking about.

I think you should study on your own a bit. The idea that somehow we descended from apes or monkeys is so far from the modern concept of evolution, I think you need more background.

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

Orogeny,

I already anticipated and responded to this, Please read the post which followed the one you are complaining about.

A theory which stands the test of time and experiment becomes trusted to the point of being called a law. We don’t have Darwin’s law yet.

Nor do we have the law of relativity. Are you suggesting that relativitiy is bs?

I notice you are taking great pleasure in tearing down what is being said, but you are not lifting much of a finger to define the issue.

Excuse me, but I gave you the definition that you asked for.

Where was your definition of theory to replace the ‘common’ one?

Is this good enough for you?

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

from wilstar.com/theories.htm

I would enjoy the intermediate fossils. I always laugh when a new ‘missing link’ is discovered for humans. The Scientific American pictures are new and different every time I see them too.
Great artistry.

Here is a link to some transitional species, although from the tone of your post I’m sure you won’t accept them.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

ID. might not be ‘science’ according to your definition, but that is irrelevant.

It is not science by any definition. Prove God. If you can’t, ID fails the test as a valid scientific hypothesis.

( It would be nice to other viewers if you would define your terms and show why ID cannot replace current theories of evolution. Some ‘basic science’ would be useful if expressed rather than implied. )

Science cannot prove, measure, test, validate or invalidate the existence of the supernatural since science is the study of nature. Since the basic proposal of ID is that there is an intelligent designer directing either the evolution of life or the special creation of life, it is not within the realm of science. Therefore, ID cannot replace the current theory of evolution. Doesn’t get more basic than that, does it?

Peace

Tim

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thank you, Orogeny, that is what I have been asking for all along.
Clarification.

Nor do we have the law of relativity. Are you suggesting that relativitiy is bs?

No, not BS anymore than selective breeding, which I have agreed to. As I have also said, I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution, but there may be some type of “evolution” etc.

Also, there is not one theory of relativity but two.

The point is that these theories have KNOWN PROBLEMS and will fail to correctly predict some phenomina in their domain.
Special relativity is very useful, but it has to be applied with caution. It is only valid for non-accelerating frames of reference.

My definition of theory compatible with your link, but my definition of ‘Law’ is not.

As to “any definition of science”, that is simply not true. Theology is a sacred “science” by a definition which predates the “scientific method”. “Science”

It is irrelevant whether ID is a “scientific method” or not unless you are really an Atheist. I would like to know that status if it is what I am in discussion with.

The point of many ID arguments (God aside) is that there are some systems which are irreducably complex, and hence could not have evolved in small steps. These systems are outside the realm of Darwinian evolution. (That is my understanding of the argument). That does not mean I reject evolution altogether.

I will look at your fossil record link.

–more later, probably tomorrow–

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Huiou Theou:

……… As I have also said, I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution, but there may be some type of “evolution” etc.

evolution is not something that is believed in or not
the word decribes two phenomenon:
(1) The fact of evolution. The observed evidence that things share common ancestry and change over time.
(2) The theory of evolution which proposed natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.
Huiou Theou:

Also, there is not one theory of relativity but two.

Are you referring to special and general relativity? Come on now, that distinction is specious at best. After all there are 3 laws of motion……and 3 laws of thermodynamics
Huiou Theou:

The point is that these theories have KNOWN PROBLEMS and will fail to correctly predict some phenomina in their domain.

Of course they do. That’s the way science works. A hypothesis merely has to be supported by the preponderance of the evidence to be accepted as a theory. It isn’t an all or nothing proposition. That is why we have scientists; to do more reasearch and refine our theories.
Huiou Theou:

…….It is irrelevant whether ID is a “scientific method” or not unless you are really an Atheist.

It becomes relevant when the folks in Kansas try to teach it in a science class.

If they want to teach it in a philosophy or theology class, fine. But don’t put a false nose and glasses on it and call it science.

……The point of many ID arguments (God aside) is that there are some systems which are irreducably complex, and hence could not have evolved in small steps.

Sigh
Yes I know that, Darwin himself suggested it. But the irreducibly complex arguments have been thoroughly discredited for decades. Behe was just beating a dead horse when he published his book. They are nothing more than arguments from incredulity.

please read

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

Thank you, Orogeny, that is what I have been asking for all along.

You’re welcome.

The point is that these theories have KNOWN PROBLEMS and will fail to correctly predict some phenomina in their domain.
Special relativity is very useful, but it has to be applied with caution. It is only valid for non-accelerating frames of reference.

So do we put stickers on science books stating that relativity is only a theory and that there are other theories that some people accept as just as valid?

My definition of theory compatible with your link, but my definition of ‘Law’ is not.

What is your definition of a scientific law?

It is irrelevant whether ID is a “scientific method” or not unless you are really an Atheist. I would like to know that status if it is what I am in discussion with.

What does my belief have to do with whether or not ID is science? Science is not a religion.

The point of many ID arguments (God aside) is that there are some systems which are irreducably complex, and hence could not have evolved in small steps. These systems are outside the realm of Darwinian evolution. (That is my understanding of the argument). That does not mean I reject evolution altogether.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a geologist not a biologist, so my understanding may be wrong, but it seems to me that the argument of irreducible complexity is based on the assumption that the subject just appeared in it’s present form. I don’t believe that that is an assumption most biologists would agree with.

Peace

Tim

 

[ISABUS]

Huiou Theou:

It is irrelevant whether ID is a “scientific method” or not unless you are really an Atheist.
[snip]
The point of many ID arguments (God aside) is that there are some systems which are irreducably complex, and hence could not have evolved in small steps.
[snip]

Hello Huiou Theou,

After extensive research into ‘Intelligent Design Theory’, I’ve concluded that the intent of the movement is built upon layers and layers of religious and scientific thought which is firmly fixed and centered in “a” GOD.

I’m totally in agreement with the thoughts presented by Father George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory Research Group, when interviewed by Wired Magazine (December 2002):

"Coyne rejects much of the current discussion about science and religion. Echoing Immanuel Kant, he insists that belief in God is independent of anything scientists discover. More than two centuries ago, Kant argued that science could never disprove the existence of God. But neither, he said, could it prove Him. That hasn’t stopped many people from trying, and today there is a new fashion for the so-called anthropic principle.

"Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?

"Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. “God is love.”

"What’s missing in “this privileging of the cognitive over the empathetic,” as Coyne puts it, is the concept of faith. The crux of the problem is that belief in God requires a leap outside anything science can describe or prove. Coyne insists that this leap does not happen on its own and does not sustain itself. For him at least, it must be continually rekindled: “I thank God constantly that He chose me. But it is not a rock of ages. It’s something I have to renew every day.”

wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
Nowadays, when it comes to push and shove, the Catholic Church will lean toward their scientists. We’ve come a long way BABY! [She gets down on her knees and thanks God.]

 

[ISABUS]

ISABUS:

Hello Huiou Theou,

After extensive research into ‘Intelligent Design Theory’, I’ve concluded that the intent of the movement is built upon layers and layers of religious and scientific thought which is firmly fixed and centered in “a” GOD.

I’m totally in agreement with the thoughts presented by Father George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory Research Group, when interviewed by Wired Magazine (December 2002):

"Coyne rejects much of the current discussion about science and religion. Echoing Immanuel Kant, he insists that belief in God is independent of anything scientists discover. More than two centuries ago, Kant argued that science could never disprove the existence of God. But neither, he said, could it prove Him. That hasn’t stopped many people from trying, and today there is a new fashion for the so-called anthropic principle.

"Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?

"Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. “God is love.”

"What’s missing in “this privileging of the cognitive over the empathetic,” as Coyne puts it, is the concept of faith. The crux of the problem is that belief in God requires a leap outside anything science can describe or prove. Coyne insists that this leap does not happen on its own and does not sustain itself. For him at least, it must be continually rekindled: “I thank God constantly that He chose me. But it is not a rock of ages. It’s something I have to renew every day.”

wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
Nowadays, when it comes to push and shove, the Catholic Church will lean toward their scientists. We’ve come a long way BABY! [She gets down on her knees and thanks God.]

Drats! I’m having a burger of a time with these urls. Try this one:

wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html

Sorry. [Head hanging low she slinks off . . . laughing to herself, Ahhh it was only another one of those pesty obstacles.]

 

[buffalo]

Steve Andersen:

Gee, I go away for a few days and look what happens

Sigh. That is not the way it works
A hypothesis which is the best fit to an observed set of data (i.e. Facts) becomes a Theory

Scientists really don’t use the “L” word any more for new theories

The “laws of motion” are actually far less accurate than the “theory” of relativity
The use of the word “law” is an anachronistic holdover from an earlier time. It is used out of custom rather than because one is better than the other.

The conservation of energy and the equation of state are far more rigorous and universal principals and they are not referred to as “laws” so dismissing something because of the mere choice of nomenclature is…silly.

Every fossil is an intermediate one!
Every living creature is a transitional one.
Did you read the information and links I had posted earlier?

It is not science by ANY definition. But real science has only one definition so there is no personal definitions here

ID has several flaws
(1) It presupposes a deity that, because of its supernatural nature, cannot be measured and tested. Thus it is not falsifiable. Any sound theory must be falsifiable.
(2) ID has no predictive capabilities. Any real theory must make predictions.
(3) ID, in its best form, agrees with current science theory and then adds the complication of a designer. It thus doesn’t comply with the principal of parsimony.
(4) ID not only presupposes a deity but, in its worst forms, presupposes the Christian Deity rather than a Hindu, Viking, or Aztec one. Thus it calls for 2 great leaps of faith.
(5) ID ignores the facts that most designs are not that intelligent, rather they are jury rigged from previous creatures. All creatures alive today contain evidence of the creatures that went before them. From the non-active parts of our genes that we share with invertebrates to the appendix, our body is full of leftovers that clearly show we weren’t designed from the ground up in our present form.
see

(6) ID does not explain extinctions.

I chose to believe in a God
But trying to prove it is hubris
Trying to embarrass other people of faith by claiming ID is science is almost scandalous

Bingo.

1. ID has no predictive capabilities. Any real theory must make predictions.

State some predictions about human evolution.

1. You call them leftovers. I call them commonalities. Not uncommon given the building blocks of life are the same.

Again, science by definition is self limiting. To argue all we can know about the world has to come through science is contrary to the inquisitive nature of scientists.

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

Hello Huiou Theou,

After extensive research into ‘Intelligent Design Theory’, I’ve concluded that the intent of the movement is built upon layers and layers of religious and scientific thought which is firmly fixed and centered in “a” GOD.

I’m totally in agreement with the thoughts presented by Father George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory Research Group, when interviewed by Wired Magazine (December 2002):

"Coyne rejects much of the current discussion about science and religion. Echoing Immanuel Kant, he insists that belief in God is independent of anything scientists discover. More than two centuries ago, Kant argued that science could never disprove the existence of God. But neither, he said, could it prove Him. That hasn’t stopped many people from trying, and today there is a new fashion for the so-called anthropic principle.

"Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?

"Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. “God is love.”

"What’s missing in “this privileging of the cognitive over the empathetic,” as Coyne puts it, is the concept of faith. The crux of the problem is that belief in God requires a leap outside anything science can describe or prove. Coyne insists that this leap does not happen on its own and does not sustain itself. For him at least, it must be continually rekindled: “I thank God constantly that He chose me. But it is not a rock of ages. It’s something I have to renew every day.”

wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
Nowadays, when it comes to push and shove, the Catholic Church will lean toward their scientists. We’ve come a long way BABY! [She gets down on her knees and thanks God.]

Beyond anthropics is quantum physics. Spend some time there.

And what Coyne is saying - it is easy to fall victim to the siren song of science.

 

[ISABUS]

buffalo:

Beyond anthropics is quantum physics. Spend some time there.

And what Coyne is saying - it is easy to fall victim to the siren song of science.

What’s your point Buffalo? How dare you attack Father Coyne with such a snide remark. He is a great scientist! Are you a scientist?

By the way, I have every book written by David Bohm and studied under David Peat. I’m familiar with quantum physics. Quantum physics doesn’t have anything to do with GOD. Renew your membership into reality. Truth is simple. Information (data) has to do with human beings. We are not gods nor are we his sock puppets! One reason I left this forum is because you always troll me with your nonsense. At least you could contribute something intelligent rather than torment me. Please stop or I’ll report you to the mods. It’s not nice. Take a nap or get some fresh air and leave me alone you TROLL. [she walks away, feet firmly planted in the ground, laughs and says, "Ahhh, another obstacle flung into the aether!]

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

What’s your point Buffalo? How dare you attack Father Coyne with such a snide remark. He is a great scientist! Are you a scientist?

By the way, I have every book written by David Bohm and studied under David Peat. I’m familiar with quantum physics. Quantum physics doesn’t have anything to do with GOD. Renew your membership into reality. Truth is simple. Information (data) has to do with human beings. We are not gods nor are we his sock puppets! One reason I left this forum is because you always troll me with your nonsense. At least you could contribute something intelligent rather than torment me. Please stop or I’ll report you to the mods. It’s not nice. Take a nap or get some fresh air and leave me alone you TROLL. [she walks away, feet firmly planted in the ground, laughs and says, "Ahhh, another obstacle flung into the aether!]

Wow! I thought you left perhaps to study up.

Quantum physics accepted now for over 70 years is probabilistic. That means that you need to be outside the events frame of reference to observe the outcome. As you continue extrapolating this you end up in the area of consciousness and beyond

BTW - I certainly did not attack Fr Coyne. I simply remarked he himself has acknowledged he has to continually rekindle his belief in God. (taken right from your quote)

Now about your troll remark - are you the only one who contibutes anything intelligent? If anything I have posted is out of bounds I ask the mods email me privately.

 

[ISABUS]

buffalo:

Wow! I thought you left perhaps to study up.

Quantum physics accepted now for over 70 years is probabilistic. That means that you need to be outside the events frame of reference to observe the outcome. As you continue extrapolating this you end up in the area of consciousness and beyond

BTW - I certainly did not attack Fr Coyne. I simply remarked he himself has acknowledged he has to continually rekindle his belief in God. (taken right from your quote)

Now about your troll remark - are you the only one who contibutes anything intelligent? If anything I have posted is out of bounds I ask the mods email me privately.

MODS, buffalo is trolling me again! Please warn buffalo to take his cognitive study to ARN and not use it on Catholic forum members. I’m tired of buffalo playing me for a dumb MONKEY! Thank you.