ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis, so ID should not be taught in science class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ID does not predict that we find the universe to be any particular way. It is not a theory, because it is not even a hypothesis. It is an observation. The universe appears in some ways to be designed. Ok, so what? From that point we either try to explain why things appear to be designed or give up on science.
But evolution doesn’t predict things either - except in the case of fossils “after the fact.” Or in general - “something will evolve into…something else.” Those may be predictions but they are absolutely useless (I’m an engineer, so I’m making that statement from that perspective.)

But I’m absolutely delighted that you say “…we either try to explain why things appear to be designed…” That shows much more open-mindedness than many others on these threads.
At most, ID, if thought to be true, tells science to stop doing science. But scientists don’t want to give up on looking for natural causes because they continue to be successful in making, verifying, falsifying, and adapting hypotheses based on new experiences.
I know of no one who says that if the universe is designed, that we should stop doing science. Could you provide me with a reference? I think this is a straw man totally fabricated argument that gets passed around a lot.
Remember that the point of this thread is to discuss whether ID should be taught in school science classes.
OK - you got me there. When these threads get going, I sometimes forget what the point was. Forgive me! I guess I was trying to clear up some misconceptions about ID.
Of course, biology teachers need to talk about the fact that some aspects of nature appear to be designed if they want to teach evolution, because it is this appearance of design in nature that evolutionary theory hopes to explain.
OK - I’ll go along with that.
But it would be wrong for a biology teacher to talk about design as a theory since it predicts nothing and guides inquiry in no way whatsoever. It is an observation, a fact, not a theory. Theories are supposed to explain facts. ID is not a theory because it has no explanation for the appearance of design other than the unfalsifiable religious one, “God did it.”
Certainly if something were proved to be designed vs. happening randomly, it would change our investigative strategy, and lead to a better understanding of the thing under examination. Do you disagree?
Well, that’s fine if you want to believe that God did it, but your belief in God is irrelevant to science and should not be taught in science class as if it were a scientific theory.
Back to my original “Mars” analogy. I’m not suggesting that it be taught that God designed the Martian prime number generator. I’m merely suggesting that if there is evidence of design, that it be noted. In science class. One is allowed to note observations in science class, even if the observations do not constitute a theory. I’ll assume that you agree with this and continue. Why would you allow the prime number generator to be designated as “designed”, but not the universe in general, if such evidence comes to light. You would not mock someone who wished to investigate the Martian device for design details, but you mock (perhaps not you personally) those who look for design details in the universe. Why do you allow one, and not the other?

I suggest that it is because you know in your heart that life (or the universe) is just so complicated that if it was designed that there must in fact God who did it. But…In theory, one need not invoke God for either - and belief in God is a philosophical jump, not a scientific one.

I’m doing a lot of speculating here…so forgive me if I’ve misunderestimated your position 😃
 
But evolution doesn’t predict things either - except in the case of fossils “after the fact.” Or in general - “something will evolve into…something else.” Those may be predictions but they are absolutely useless (I’m an engineer, so I’m making that statement from that perspective.)
Evolution is not just a scientific theory. It is the overarching theory within which pretty much every other biological theory is contained. It provides the broad context in which biological study is done. And it does not merely predict the past. For example, anyone working on viral infections will tell you that the evolutionary arms race is something that they are dealing with all the time as they seek to create better treatments.
But I’m absolutely delighted that you say “…we either try to explain why things appear to be designed…” That shows much more open-mindedness than many others on these threads.

I know of no one who says that if the universe is designed, that we should stop doing science. Could you provide me with a reference? I think this is a straw man totally fabricated argument that gets passed around a lot.
It is not a call to end all science, but if we accept design as an explanation, why would we continue to look for natural causes? Note that the examples that ID proponents point to have themselves evolved as the ID God of the Gaps is forced to retreat time and again as evolutionary biologists explain how Darwinism suffices to explain the evolution of eyes, wings, and blood clotting.
Certainly if something were proved to be designed vs. happening randomly, it would change our investigative strategy, and lead to a better understanding of the thing under examination. Do you disagree?
If we thought that something was designed, we would stop looking for natural causes, but we would gain no understanding into the design by claiming a supernatural designer.
Back to my original “Mars” analogy. I’m not suggesting that it be taught that God designed the Martian prime number generator. I’m merely suggesting that if there is evidence of design, that it be noted.
What would constitute evidence of design? That implies that some things are designed and others not. It seems to me that any evidence real or imagined would be consistent with design.
In science class. One is allowed to note observations in science class, even if the observations do not constitute a theory. I’ll assume that you agree with this and continue.
Sure, but note that the controversy surrounding ID is that people are claiming that ID is a competing theory to Darwinism. I hope we agree that ID is not a theory at all let alone in competition with Darwinism.
Why would you allow the prime number generator to be designated as “designed”, but not the universe in general, if such evidence comes to light. You would not mock someone who wished to investigate the Martian device for design details, but you mock (perhaps not you personally) those who look for design details in the universe. Why do you allow one, and not the other?
I have no problem with looking for evidence of design. I have a problem with calling that pursuit a theory.
I suggest that it is because you know in your heart that life (or the universe) is just so complicated that if it was designed that there must in fact God who did it. But…In theory, one need not invoke God for either - and belief in God is a philosophical jump, not a scientific one.
Saying that the universe is designed necessarily implies that the designer must stand somewhere outside the universe and is then by definition supernatural. This is a clear attempt to slip God or whatever name you have for a supernatural creator in the back door.

Best,
Leela
 
It is not a call to end all science, but if we accept design as an explanation, why would we continue to look for natural causes?
Must everything have a natural cause? For a long time, I designed electronics and software. They did not have natural causes. Someone could look at the products, and see how they were designed. Knowing that they were designed would not lead to disinterest.
Note that the examples that ID proponents point to have themselves evolved as the ID God of the Gaps is forced to retreat time and again as evolutionary biologists explain how Darwinism suffices to explain the evolution of eyes, wings, and blood clotting.
God of the gaps is not an ID idea, but a young earth creationist idea. You are mixed up.

Darwinism doesn’t explain as much as you think it does. I’ll just ask you to keep an open mind, and I’m not asking you to accept a “God did it” substitute. I’m actually impressed that you put up with all us religion minded folks and talk to us in a reasonable manner 🙂
If we thought that something was designed, we would stop looking for natural causes, but we would gain no understanding into the design by claiming a supernatural designer.
Claiming that something is designed does not require claiming that it has a supernatural designer. That was the point of my Mars example.
What would constitute evidence of design? That implies that some things are designed and others not. It seems to me that any evidence real or imagined would be consistent with design.
That’s a reasonable question and I don’t have a good answer for it.
Sure, but note that the controversy surrounding ID is that people are claiming that ID is a competing theory to Darwinism. I hope we agree that ID is not a theory at all let alone in competition with Darwinism.
Actually, here’s what they claim (from the Discover.org web site FAQs on ID):
Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
Code:
                                  It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
I have no problem with looking for evidence of design. I have a problem with calling that pursuit a theory.
I actually don’t disagree with you on this. I would hasten to add, however, that all science does not fit into the category of “theory.” I disagree above with the Discovery.org calling ID a theory - it may get there some day but I don’t think it’s there yet (unless one is just using the lay person definition of theory).
Saying that the universe is designed necessarily implies that the designer must stand somewhere outside the universe and is then by definition supernatural. This is a clear attempt to slip God or whatever name you have for a supernatural creator in the back door.
That’s actually a profound religious statement you made there (note: I do not intend that comment as an insult of some sort). But there are many scientists who postulate a multi-verse “theory” in which there is no God but a bunch of undetectable and therefore not falsifiable alternate universes. I wonder what they are trying to slip in the back door 😛

You can believe that the Martian device was designed, and not invoke a divine creator. It seems to me that one might invoke a non-divine creator for life, or even for this universe. Perhaps we are just some grand experiment of some advanced universe-creating race of super beings. Still no need for God.

Any decision to invoke God into this is a philosophical leap - which many of us make, of course. It seems that you are afraid to pursue a path that might lead to a designed universe for fear that the designer might be God.
 
Darwinism predicts that species will adapt to changing conditions though genetic drift and natural selection.

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions - trillions if you count microfossils - have been uncovered. The peppered moth evolved black colouring to adapt to pollution-stained trees when industrialisation took place. Remove the pollution and, evolutionary theory predicts, the light strain should once again predominate - which is just what is happening. Evolutionary theory predicts that if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, this will lead to the evolution of insect strains which resist that pesticide, but it also predicts that you can slow the spread of resistance genes by growing regular plants alongside the modified ones. That has proved to be the case.

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was “inexplicable” and that the lack might “be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can’t tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil’s head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone’s astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability.When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

In “The Origin Of Species” (1859), Darwin said:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return.

A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world’s islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

An animal’s bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature’s bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales. Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins. It’s been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

Does any of this prove that Darwinism is correct? No, theories are never proven. We just accumulate such data that is consistent with a theory, or need to revise the theory when contradictory evidence is found. The point is that these predictions could have been proven wrong, but weren’t, and that evolutionary theory was useful in telling people what sort of evidence to look for and where.What does ID predict?
Anyone can predict that species will adapt to changing conditions. You don’t need to be a Darwinist you just have to be observant and apply a little common sense.
 
Evolution and Darwinism are two different things.
Evolution is the phenomenon. Darwinism (in the current form, the Modern Synthesis) is the only theory that adequately explains it.
Evolution is a fact that describes the fossil record. Like 90% of all science it is purely observational (think botany, geology, archeology, astronomy, etc.) and needs no falsification. Evolution means that life has progressed from the simple to the complex at the same time as it increased in diversification and cephalisation.
Or simplicity and acepalization. Both have occurred.
Your rabbit and kangaroo example would be considered as aberrations and readily dismissed by the scientific community, as are many other aberrations in the fossil record. Darwinism, on the other hand, is an extrapolation that implies that humans are at the end of a long string of small increments of development that extends back in a smooth curve to a pool of slime about 3-billion years ago, while conveniently skipping over a couple of nasty gaps in which that spoil sport God is still lurking.
Sounds interesting. Let’s hear about those “gaps.”
I think you still owe me an answer to my question and leave the please out. But before you try, let me warn you that in order to validate a hypothesis whether by the classical method and testing or by the Popperian method and falsification, in both cases the hypothesis must provide a prediction. What does Darwinism predict?
Let’s see…
  1. Speciation (verified)
  2. There must have been, at one time, whales with functional legs. (verified)
  3. Common descent of living things on earth (verified)
  4. Transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds (verified)
  5. Humankind first appeared in Africa (verified)
  6. Fish with functional legs (verified)
The list goes on for a very long time. How many would you like?
 
But evolution doesn’t predict things either - except in the case of fossils “after the fact.”
The fact that it so accurately predicted what is (and more importantly, what isn’t) in the fossil record is a powerful confirmation of the theory. But as you see, that’s not the whole story.

Evolutionary theory is the basis for antibiotic protocols, for example, and is regularly used by agronomists to predict the fitness of new strains of plants.
 
Barbarian observes:
Um, “evolutionism”, like Creationism/ID, aren’t really philosophies. They are simply weird misunderstandings about evolutionary theory (evolutionism) and God (Creationism/ID)
Oh really now.
Yep. People like to say “everyone has a philosophy”, but just dabbling in metaphysics of the Unification Church does not make ID a philosophy.
Why not just empirical science in science class?
That’s what makes you guys so riled up now.
 
Intelligent Design is good science, but ideologists fear it only because it may touch on the concept of God, which is frustrating for them, especially after so much work has been done to kick God out of public life.

Scientists involved in SETI are doing what? Looking for signs of intelligence with no empirical evidence that A. There is an intelligence out in space using a means of communication we can detect, and B May be totally unlike us and therefore, may communicate in ways unknown to us.

The archaeologist finds a triangular rock. He can determine if it is a piece of rock or an arrowhead. Happens all the time.

“Discussions” like this one appear only to reinforce a particular reaction to the letters ID, not rational thought.

If we found a city on Mars, what? Nature did it? I don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed
 
Since Intelligent design implies a non-material (spiritual) cause for life; it is easily falsifiable by creating life in the laboratory. Now please tell me how to falsify Darwinism?

Yppop

That does not justify the perversion of science by the religionists. Religion does not answer scientiffic quiestions by scienific critereia, & is therefore totally & utterly useless for science. They do not mix, because their methods are not the same. Science, as a body of academic disciplines, includes reviews of positions by the scientific peers of the scientist who has put forward the position-paper. To be consistent, ID would inflict the clergy on the reviewers, which would lead to the complete bastardising of scientific work (it would also bastardise religious faith, and pervert it as surely as mixing the Church with the State has perverted it in the past. Clergy & religious types generally have as such not the slightest competence in any science whatever - so they should mind their own business. Sir John Polkinghorne is qualified as a scientist on scientific grounds - not by his position as a Christian believer or a clergyman or a knight, even though he is all of these. His being a knight, a member of the Church of England & a British subject are parts of his identity - but they do not make him a scientist. The advocates of ID are confusing what a person is as a scientist, with what the same person is all the othger things that he may be. So the fact that an Italian-American scientist is a Christian believer does not mean that the Christian faith is scientifically useful, unless it also means that being Italian-American is also scientifically useful. Let us suppose that our Italian-American scientist is from Detroit - the logic of ID would then allow Detroiters, & perhaps Michiganders generally, to insist that being a Detroiter & Michigander is relevant or useful to scientific work.​

All of this foolishness comes from the notion that the scientific enterprse can be furthered by non-scientific methods, such as religious faith. For if that is so - why privilege religious faith as a scientific instrument ? Maybe being a Michigander can also further science, or being an Italian-American, or a Detroiter, or a homosexual, or an adulterer, or a Marxist, or a million other things. If ID can let religion be directly relevant to science, any member of any other group can too: that is where the logic of introducing irrelevant considerations leads. 😦

That is another problem with ID - it privileges Christian faith. But that excludes scientists who are not Christian, & on grounds unrelated to science; it utterly destroys the “ecumenical” character of scientific work as an academic discipline, because scientific work is not based on religious confessions, any more than plumbing or hiking are. Besides, Christian faith cannot be privileged without becoming an orthodoxy - which would be a very bad thing for scientific work, because there is nothing in the nature of Christian faith to give it this unique status, except for what belongs to it as an expression of faith. In all other ways, it is no more than one religion many others, so it has no more & no less scientific value than any other.

If people ***wish to interpret ***science religiously, relating faith as a meta-question to science, let them do so - what they must on no account do is mix up science with religious faith. In what concerns method, these are not two ingredients in one cake - one is the cake, & one is the recipe for it. ID misperceives the way in which they might perhaps be related. This indicates an unsound Christology - one that sees the incarnation as the mixing of God with man, rather than their union. From such confusion, flow many others. A realist metaphysics is quite enough for science - God may or not be believed in.
 
Barbarian observes:
Um, “evolutionism”, like Creationism/ID, aren’t really philosophies. They are simply weird misunderstandings about evolutionary theory (evolutionism) and God (Creationism/ID)

Yep. People like to say “everyone has a philosophy”, but just dabbling in metaphysics of the Unification Church does not make ID a philosophy.

That’s what makes you guys so riled up now.
Not me. I love science. Empirical science should be in schools. Testable, predictable and repeatable. If it doesn’t fit, get it out. I would think all scientists would agree…

…unless…

…they want their ideology pushed. Hmmmmmmm!:hmmm:
 
(Barbarian notes that buffalo is upset that only empirical science is allowed in public school classes)
Not me. I love science. Empirical science should be in schools. Testable, predictable and repeatable. If it doesn’t fit, get it out.
That’s what the judge ruled in the Dover case. ID, being a sort of religion is out.
I would think all scientists would agree…
Not all, but the overwhelming majority.
…unless…
…they want their ideology pushed. Hmmmmmmm!
That’s what the judge said. It was particularly damaging for ID that Michael Behe, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that Astrology is science.

And then there was this from a document inadvertently leaked by the Discovery Institute:

**Governing Goals
  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. **
That was, as Discovery Fellow Phillip Johnson admitted, a “train wreck.”

Not much hope of restoring that one. Maybe if they start a new organization, and find another new name for creationism…
 
(Barbarian notes that buffalo is upset that only empirical science is allowed in public school classes)

That’s what the judge ruled in the Dover case. ID, being a sort of religion is out.

Not all, but the overwhelming majority.

That’s what the judge said. It was particularly damaging for ID that Michael Behe, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that Astrology is science.

And then there was this from a document inadvertently leaked by the Discovery Institute:

**Governing Goals
  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. **
That was, as Discovery Fellow Phillip Johnson admitted, a “train wreck.”

Not much hope of restoring that one. Maybe if they start a new organization, and find another new name for creationism…
Hello! Read the posts. Buffalo supports only empirical science in science class.

I never ever never ever - did you get this - ever stated ID should be taught in science class. An apology is in order.
 
(Barbarian notes that buffalo is upset that only empirical science is allowed in public school classes)

That’s what the judge ruled in the Dover case. ID, being a sort of religion is out.

Not all, but the overwhelming majority.

That’s what the judge said. It was particularly damaging for ID that Michael Behe, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that Astrology is science.

And then there was this from a document inadvertently leaked by the Discovery Institute:

Governing Goals

*** To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.**

*** To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. **

That was, as Discovery Fellow Phillip Johnson admitted, a “train wreck.”

Not much hope of restoring that one. Maybe if they start a new organization, and find another new name for creationism…

Astrology began in Mesopotamian religion; or culture - there is a problem of definition here, because we moderns see distinctions where they often did not. Maybe it could be regarded (anachronistically ?) as a proto-science, as a science in the making. As we, like them & like all generations before us, are not at the end of human history, there is also a problem of perspective: to someone living in 10,000 AD we may seem as unscientific as the ancient Mesopotamians of three or four thousand years ago seem to us. But that does not make ID science by today’s standards.​

 
Since Intelligent design implies a non-material (spiritual) cause for life; it is easily falsifiable by creating life in the laboratory.

Now please tell me how to falsify Darwinism?

Yppop
ID argues for more than a spiritual cause for life. See the bacterial flagellum and the human eye.

Rabbits in the precambrian
 
Hello! Read the posts. Buffalo supports only empirical science in science class.
The judge agreed with you. Evolution, being an empirical science is permissible. ID, being a religion, is not.
I never ever never ever - did you get this - ever stated ID should be taught in science class.
I said you did? (Barbarian checks) Not that I can see.
An apology is in order.
Nonsense. I will assume you were mistaken, not malicious.
 
The judge agreed with you. Evolution, being an empirical science is permissible. ID, being a religion, is not.

I said you did? (Barbarian checks) Not that I can see.

Nonsense. I will assume you were mistaken, not malicious.
You were mistaken. This is your statement:

(Barbarian notes that buffalo is upset that only empirical science is allowed in public school classes)
 
Anyone can predict that species will adapt to changing conditions. You don’t need to be a Darwinist you just have to be observant and apply a little common sense.
Does ID preict any of the following> Does ID predict anything at all?

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions - trillions if you count microfossils - have been uncovered. The peppered moth evolved black colouring to adapt to pollution-stained trees when industrialisation took place. Remove the pollution and, evolutionary theory predicts, the light strain should once again predominate - which is just what is happening. Evolutionary theory predicts that if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, this will lead to the evolution of insect strains which resist that pesticide, but it also predicts that you can slow the spread of resistance genes by growing regular plants alongside the modified ones. That has proved to be the case.

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was “inexplicable” and that the lack might “be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can’t tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil’s head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone’s astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability.When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

In “The Origin Of Species” (1859), Darwin said:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return.

A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world’s islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

An animal’s bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature’s bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales. Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins. It’s been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

Does any of this prove that Darwinism is correct? No, theories are never proven. We just accumulate such data that is consistent with a theory, or need to revise the theory when contradictory evidence is found. The point is that these predictions could have been proven wrong, but weren’t, and that evolutionary theory was useful in telling people what sort of evidence to look for and where.What does ID predict?
 
Does ID preict any of the following> Does ID predict anything at all?

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions - trillions if you count microfossils - have been uncovered. The peppered moth evolved black colouring to adapt to pollution-stained trees when industrialisation took place. Remove the pollution and, evolutionary theory predicts, the light strain should once again predominate - which is just what is happening. Evolutionary theory predicts that if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, this will lead to the evolution of insect strains which resist that pesticide, but it also predicts that you can slow the spread of resistance genes by growing regular plants alongside the modified ones. That has proved to be the case.

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was “inexplicable” and that the lack might “be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can’t tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil’s head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone’s astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability.When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

In “The Origin Of Species” (1859), Darwin said:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return.

A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world’s islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

An animal’s bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature’s bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales. Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins. It’s been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

Does any of this prove that Darwinism is correct? No, theories are never proven. We just accumulate such data that is consistent with a theory, or need to revise the theory when contradictory evidence is found. The point is that these predictions could have been proven wrong, but weren’t, and that evolutionary theory was useful in telling people what sort of evidence to look for and where.What does ID predict?
Isn’t all of the combative dialog rather useless?
All of this stuff is in our minds.
None of it is really real.
Think about the dialog herein.
Nothing but heresay.
Nothing more than thoughts of thoughts.

jd
 
Must everything have a natural cause? For a long time, I designed electronics and software. They did not have natural causes. Someone could look at the products, and see how they were designed. Knowing that they were designed would not lead to disinterest.
Darwinism only explains the development of life in terms of natural causes. It has nothing to say about electronics.
God of the gaps is not an ID idea, but a young earth creationist idea. You are mixed up.
It is neither. It is a criticism I’m making and others have made about both ideas.
Claiming that something is designed does not require claiming that it has a supernatural designer. That was the point of my Mars example.
If you are talking about the universe itself, since the universe is everything, then it does. If not, then not.
I actually don’t disagree with you on this. I would hasten to add, however, that all science does not fit into the category of “theory.” I disagree above with the Discovery.org calling ID a theory - it may get there some day but I don’t think it’s there yet (unless one is just using the lay person definition of theory).
Agreed.
That’s actually a profound religious statement you made there (note: I do not intend that comment as an insult of some sort). But there are many scientists who postulate a multi-verse “theory” in which there is no God but a bunch of undetectable and therefore not falsifiable alternate universes. I wonder what they are trying to slip in the back door 😛
It’s an oxymoron to talk about multiple universes in a way. If other “universes” exist, then they are part of everything that exists. I’m not sure how we could ever know about them. It may just be a useful postulate to get some math to work out.
You can believe that the Martian device was designed, and not invoke a divine creator. It seems to me that one might invoke a non-divine creator for life, or even for this universe. Perhaps we are just some grand experiment of some advanced universe-creating race of super beings. Still no need for God.
Okay
Any decision to invoke God into this is a philosophical leap - which many of us make, of course. It seems that you are afraid to pursue a path that might lead to a designed universe for fear that the designer might be God.
It is not fear of the existence of God that concerns me about ID. It is concern about teaching a religion based “theory” in place of science. It is no wonder that American students are lagging in science education when so many here oppose the foundation of biological study.

Best,
Leela
 
Darwinism only explains the development of life in terms of natural causes. It has nothing to say about electronics.

It is neither. It is a criticism I’m making and others have made about both ideas.

If you are talking about the universe itself, since the universe is everything, then it does. If not, then not.

Agreed.

It’s an oxymoron to talk about multiple universes in a way. If other “universes” exist, then they are part of everything that exists. I’m not sure how we could ever know about them. It may just be a useful postulate to get some math to work out.

Okay

It is not fear of the existence of God that concerns me about ID. It is concern about teaching a religion based “theory” in place of science. It is no wonder that American students are lagging in science education when so many here oppose the foundation of biological study.

Best,
Leela
Suppose ID rises to empirical science? What say you then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top