Comments on Creation Evidence: Is ID Science? Part 1

the flying spaghetti monster (sorry i had to post ...

2005-12-21T01:11:00.000-06:00

the flying spaghetti monster (sorry i had to post this being that this is an ID/Creationism board) also tells us who the intelligent designer/creator is. so does greek/roman mythology. so does the cult of scientology which seems to bring so much ridicule upon itself. its also a stretch of the imagination to dream up a supreme being would give us so many redundant features and would allow so many of his "people" to commit so many atrocities in his name. if he's so intelligent, why are those who are created in his image so stupid? is he black? is he white? is he asian? does he have kyle orton's neck beard? and tonsils do serve a purpose. they help to prevent early respiratory infections from getting deeper into the lungs or into the blood where they can cause much more damage.

Mike West Monroe wrote: "but the question of who ...

2005-11-07T10:22:00.000-06:00

Mike West Monroe wrote: "but the question of who the intelligent designer is...well, that is puzzling. Are we to imagine UFO visits to the earth long ago? a divine being?"

The Bible does tell us who the intelligent designer is. His description is not like that which would be found in a dictionary or an Encyclopedia but rather through discovery as found in a mystery novel. Learning about God can be like finding jewels in South Africa. It takes search but they are there to be found.

Mike wrote: "You may say "faith." yes, but is it wise to trust "faith" alone ?"

I do not believe in faith alone. There are many evidences for the supernatural nature of the Bible. Check out this web site http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm

Matt wrote: "This hypothesis has been absolutely d...

2005-11-07T09:49:00.000-06:00

Matt wrote: "This hypothesis has been absolutely disproven. Viable evolutionary pathways have been found for each of Behe’s examples."

"Absolutely disproven" is absolutely nonsense. It is only in the imagination of evolutionists that pathways are found. There are no experiments which provide evidence for irreducibly complex pathways. From Matt’s point of view if evolutionists can faintly imagine how it might have happened, it is suddenly proven scientifically.

Matt wrote: "It was found that nature has many redundant features and that some animals have bodies with incomplete building blocks."

I did a search on "incomplete building blocks" but did not see anything remotely similar to what Matt is suggesting here. Matt needs to provide some examples and references, not just imagination and creativity.

Matt claims that the specified complexity formula does not explain canals on Mars being natural while others on earth being man-made. But if one was to actually examine these canals using the specified complexity formula it would become abundantly clear that the formula does work.

It is unfortunate that Matt has not taken the time to seriously think through the possibilities and the usefulness of the specified complexity formula.

If we accept intelligent design as an explanation ...

2005-11-07T07:45:00.000-06:00

If we accept intelligent design as an explanation for life on earth, this raises the question: who is the intelligent designer? what is his, her, its origin?

Of course, we can jump right to the King James Bible, but then the question arises: what is its origin? on what earlier texts and translations was it based? who originally selected the various texts that we know as the Bible?

The question of the origin of the Bible can be explored with a simple Google search, but the question of who the intelligent designer is...well, that is puzzling. Are we to imagine UFO visits to the earth long ago? a divine being?

You may say "faith." yes, but is it wise to trust "faith" alone ? After all, the 19 fanatics of 9/11 had greater faith than anyone I ever met. But wasn't their faith a kind of madness?

what dumbass gave us tonsils?

2005-10-25T18:14:00.000-05:00

what dumbass gave us tonsils?

Your response relies on the hypothesis that “new g...

2005-10-21T08:12:00.000-05:00

Your response relies on the hypothesis that “new genetic material” suddenly appeared, as by magic. That some stuff in nature is so complex that it couldn’t have evolved naturally. This hypothesis’s most recent proponent was Behe who suggested that some things in nature will stop working if individual parts are removed and as such could not have evolved independently with examples such as blood clotting. This hypothesis has been absolutely disproven. Viable evolutionary pathways have been found for each of Behe’s examples. It was found that nature has many redundant features and that some animals have bodies with incomplete building blocks. In short the notion that genetic material can’t just appear when none existed before is of course correct. Instead a series of building blocks exist, they can begin as mutations and end up being components in a complex system. But they only appear “new” because they have a new function. The fact is that there are many mutations that are complex, but without a function. In short irreducible complexity was a mutation of science that did not have any function for the majority of mankind. It may be a building block of ID, but only time will tell if that has a function for mankind or is just another irrelevant mutation.

You say “Specified complexity is a simple tool that helps to determine the confidence one can have that an item was designed or not”. No it does not. It determines if something is very unlikely to have appeared naturally. Take the canals on two planets, earth and mars. Obviously the ones on earth are designed and mars are not. We know that the canals on mars on not designed because we have experimented and found natural processes that explain their existence.
Specified complexity attempts to set arbitrary limits on what can be designed or not. A better approach is to seek explanation for complexity. What you find is that nature is capable of things that seem improbable to the human eye. But to an impartial observer (such as an ant, or a solar system) no such complexity exists. To an ant humans are just another mountain. To the solar system humans are just another grain of sand on an insignificant rock. You only see complexity because that complexity matters to you. ID and evolution are two methods of explaining that complexity. One is scientifically plausible and falsifiable, the other is not.

Matt,I think your example does of a better job of ...

2005-10-20T16:34:00.000-05:00

Matt,

I think your example does of a better job of illustrating that science is ever-changing which also means it is often wrong.

You said, "They are so well designed because they have adapted over generations to be well designed for their situation." I agree that natural selection brings change. Similarly artificial selection can bring us tastier peaches, tomatoes and colorful flowers. However, neither natural selection or artificial selection can create entirely new genetic material where none existed before.

You go on to say, "Specified complexity may be a verifiable scientific tecnique. But it it is not evidence that design exists." Why? Because you say so? As stated in the article scientists from various fields detect intelligence as a natural part of their scientific inquiry. Specified complexity is a simple tool that helps to determine the confidence one can have that an item was designed or not. The only reason to deny it is because you do not like the outcome.

I agree that complexity can be used as a measure o...

2005-10-20T08:35:00.000-05:00

I agree that complexity can be used as a measure of design, but only when evidence to the contary does not exist. Many years ago people thought that the world was flat. If anyone said otherwise people would think them insane. People thought the world was flat because, well it looked really really flat, and didn't look round. This belief was based on good science. The earth really does look flat, and it looks like it has an edge, so its flat. But as we all know the world is really round, and that the evidence for it being flat also supports the theory that it is round.

Just like the evidence for flatness also support roundness, evidence for specified complexity inidcating design also support evolution. Things look so designed because they have evolved. They are so well designed because they have adapted over generations to be well designed for their situation. Specified complexity may be a verifiable scientific tecnique. But it it is not evidence that design exists.