The Central Flaw of Evolution

The idea that ID is really creationism in disguise is blatantly false. Creationism(like young earth creationism) is a model(like, a huge flood covered the earth) where you fit the facts, ID is a theory on whether life was designed or not. Many ID theorists may accept common ancestry, but will reject chemical evolution(accepted naturalist theory on the origin of life). ID theorists were once Darwinists but started doubting pure natural causes as the explanation for life's existence.

 

Dead WRONG Genius!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

It is a modern Form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which Avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American Creationists who Reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to Circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally Redefine Science to accept Supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12]
The Unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is NOT science.[13][14][15][16]

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are NOT science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it Pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it Junk science.[19][20]......"

Overview

The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state endorsement of a religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".[24] In drafts of the creation science textbook 'Of Pandas and People', almost all derivatives of the word "Creation", such as "Creationism", were Replaced with the words "intelligent design".[21] The book was published in 1989, followed by a "grass-roots" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes.[25]....."​

It absolutely is 100% Stealth/Replacement Creationism because of a court ruling.

You can't debate me!
You've been indoctrinated with god/Dog instead of Taught science.
+

 

You're projecting.

 

ID still depends on their assessments of odds of certain events. That is "god of the gaps" in that it searches for two points where (they claim) it would be too unlikely to get from one of the points to the other without divine intervention.

BTW, ID is an example of confirmation bias as they are not looking for how things work - they are looking for confirmation of the only answer they could possibly accept - that god did it. Look at the arguments of ChemEngineer. Like ID, he searches for huge numbers and then claims that means there is a God. Of course, the motivation is to find large numbers that confirm his immutable religious conclusion, not to use science to find out how things work - a difference between religion and science.

I think the problem here is one of attempting to mix religion and science.

I mean, belief in God certainly isn't the problem. And, I don't think scientific method is the problem, either.

 

Quoting what some people said doesn't make your point any more convincing.
Your making two assumptions with what your saying:
1. In Intelligent Design theory, the designer is the God of a specific religion.
2. Creationism is simply a religiously motivated belief in some designer designing life.

Your first assumption is incorrect, the theory of Intelligent Design doesn't claim the identity of the designer, just that life was designed. This designer can be a lot of things.
The second assumption comes down to semantics. By creationism, I mean the model of young earth creationism(definitely not the same). By that court case you brought up, they seem to be defining it as the religious belief in the creation of God. ID doesn't assume God(just implies a designer) and is not religion. You can definitely tell that there is fear of the religious implications of ID in that court case. Even though ID doesn't imply creation by some God from a religion, people just want to assume it is. Intelligent Design is really just an explanation for the origin of life, some scientists started doubting the Darwinist view of mainstream science and came up with ID as a plausible alternative.

I am not trying to debate, just providing a point.

 

Nothing is 100% proven, so establishing that design is likely doesn't make it "god of the gaps". ID theorists don't rely on the unlikeliness of Natural causes for evidence of design, but instead, examine biological structures to detect whether they may have been designed by using certain methods. Actually, this may surprise you, but ID is actually an example of a plausible explanation for certain features of life, not religious bias. ID came to be from observation and evidence, not people who wanted to bring "God" into science. This turns out to be science leading to a conclusion that has religious implications.

 

If Intelligent Design was actually about how a GOD used both Quantum and Biological Evolution to create the Universe, Multiverse and all within both living and non-living then I would say it was something that was based upon Logic but unproven.

Right now Intelligent Design in the manner the authors of that GOD awful of People and Pandas book is without a doubt the single most idiotic thing ever written!!

Even the Christian Church Leadership has BANNED IT'S USE in Christian Schools!!

DUMB!!!

AA

 

No, ID absolutely came from wanting to bring God into science. There is absolutely NO doubt about that.

ID is a pseudoscience that attempts to use statistics to argue that there is a god. They attempt to create a gap in evolution that they see as insurmountable by natural processes - thus proving God, they claim.

ID is not science. ID has no hypotheses or theories conforming to scientific method. In fact, ID proponents recognize this and their fearless leader advocates ditching science for what he calls "theistic realism" - thus avoiding the many ways in which ID is NOT science. "Theistic realism" - so much for not wanting to bring God into it.

Another problem with ID is that it is an example of "argument from ignorance". That is, they come up with something that we do not understand and use that lack of understanding as an argument for the precise answer they were looking for!! That's totally dishonest. When we don't understand something, our answer has to be "we don't know". We're humans. There are lots of things we don't understand. And, we keep making progress in understanding how things work - which is what science is for.

 

Proponents of ID attempt to make it more palatable by omitting all religious terms from what is essentially a religious claim.

 

Actually, there is design in the universe but it is not from God, it is from the programmers who created this simulation. See, we are just living in a big computer simulation created by a very advanced alien race.

Care to disprove that?

 

Can I press reset?

LOL!!

AA

 

No doubt!

 

Whether you are a creationist or not doesn't change that evolution is an observed fact with a theory that explains it. That is how science works, by observing a phenomena and then attempting to explain it.

 

I think you're getting bogged down in moving goal posts, worrying about the word 'proof'. In science, you 'prove' a theory by experimentation.. repeatable, observable 'proofs' that support the theory. THAT is what a scientific 'proof' is. That is what i have been calling for. Not logical fallacies. Not deflections. Not condescending, unscientific diversions. Not moving goal posts or obscure definitions. Just show me the proofs of macro evolution, & we will be on the scientific method train.

I'm not asking for 4 million papers, from millions of accredited scientists, or billions of people who will testify of their sincere belief in this theory. Just one. One proof. One repeatable, observable experiment that shows that this concept of increasing complexity, or adding to the genetic structure is even possible. ALL of science, observation, & common sense for millennia say otherwise, so all you have to do is define a mechanism by which this phenomenon can occur.

That's it. Simple. Easy. Science. Leave the logical fallacies for political debates, & bring the science to this one. Is that too much to ask?

 

Proof does not cease to exist just because you don't accept it. In your OP, you claimed that it is scientifically impossible for human chromosome 2 to be a fusion of two ape chromosomes. The process by which this can happen, called aneuploidy, has been known for decades and repeatedly observed, even in humans.

 

No, mere assertions will not be acceptable. Deep Time? Another link? C'mon, DD, just show me the evidence.. not 4 million of them, just one will suffice.

That is what this thread is about.. not making a bunch of logical fallacies, but PROVING, with evidence, via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that a specific theory is a plausible, credible theory. If said evidences cannot be produced, THEN the conclusion that the THEORY is flawed is a reasonable, logical conclusion.

Show me the evidence. If you don't know any, or do not know the basis for your beliefs, why are you here arguing for them? You are merely carrying the water for those you BELIEVE know these things. You don't actually have the evidence & proofs yourself. You believe they exist, but you have no proof. This has a look & feel of a religious belief, to me.

You are also welcome to rebut my list of logical fallacies, since you dismiss them so readily. If my list is flawed, please demonstrate how. Otherwise, you are just committing ANOTHER logical fallacy, argumentum ad lapidem, or argument by dismissal. You do not refute any of my points, just dismiss them with some implied ad hominem. Two for the price of one!

Facts. Science. The Method. That is what is being asked for here, not links, not insults, not more logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. Present some easy scientific proofs that this phenomenon of increasing complexity, added chromosomes, added genes & traits can happen, & you will be involved in the scientific method. But merely flooding the thread with fallacy after fallacy, with NO facts, NO evidence, & not even compelling arguments has no bearing in this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me the evidence, then. You have provided NONE.

 

You merely assert this. There is a lot more involved here than mere chromosome fusion. All the genes are different... as different as human & ape. So HOW did those 2 ape chromosomes somehow magically become infused with human genes? This has been addressed before, & is still not a valid evidence for the ToE, & certainly not for the origin of Man. This 'theory' opens up more questions & flaws than it purports to solve.

You do not have definitive proof that humans descended from apes, via chromosome fusion. That is at best a far fetched 'theory' with no corroborating evidence. It is speculation, hardly proven fact.

Don't you get it? The genes are all different, WITHIN the chromosomes.. claiming they are merely fused & descended is a HUGE leap, with no explanation as to how all the genes are different, why the mtDNA is different, & a host of other genetic structural differences. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that humans are a result of ape chromosome fusion. You cannot present a valid scientific argument for this completely speculated belief.

Look for yourself. Read through all the links you provide, desperately searching for the holy grail of evolutionary proofs. NONE of them prove anything. All they do is render a philosophical belief..a plausible scenario of naturalistic origins, but with no science or evidence to back it up.

 

I did more that assert it, or didn't you bother to read the links in my post? And it is not chromosome fusion or any other single change in our DNA that differentiates humans from other apes. It is the sum total of millions of years of mutation and natural selection that make us different. And the same genetic markers that would prove in a court of law that two people are related are more than enough evidence to support the scientific theory that humans and other apes are related.

 

Intelligent Design isn't about how the designer designed, but IF certain features of life were designed.

 

You don't understand ID at all, I tried to explain, but I realized it isn't my explaining that's the issue, it is your ignorance. You remind of 90% of the atheists out there, they claim that religious people are stupid and ignorant, but are ignorant and arrogant themselves. Your only saying ID is attempting to bring God into science because you are afraid of the conclusion of a designer, your brain is so wrapped up around naturalism that you can't accept anything else. ID theorists don't create a Gap in understanding of evolution by natural process to prove there point, they use biological structures and their methods to detect design. ID does follow the scientific method, ID theorists observe that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information, they then hypothesize that if biological structures contain what is common to what intelligent agents produce(if they contain CSI), they then seek to find it.
You just can't accept that design can be demonstrated in structures, so you call it a "god of the gaps". If Darwinian evolution makes you comfortable, then believe what you like, but you should know what ID is before making claims about it.

 

So, your problem with it is that it is using scientific method for a claim that has religious implications?

 

It is not impossible, but is not our assumption of existence(which would be that we are biological entities living on a planet). You can't disprove it, but we all make assumptions that are the basis of our claims. Barely anybody would assume that some scientist is just creating a false reality in a brain in his laboratory. However, ID is not inconsistent with our assumption of reality.

 

DZero, this is why DarkDaimon and so many others just like him should be ignored. You may as well bang your head against the wall as to try to talk sense to them. They frequently engage in elephant hurling.
This is where Darwinists hurl summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, while uncritically accepting any and all arguments from their own side.



Pierre Paul Grassé is a French zoologist and the former President of the French Academy of Sciences:

"Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped."

Prof. Cemal Yıldırım is a Turkish evolutionist, and Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:

"There is no need to query Darwinism’s thesis of natural selection. It moves away from being a scientific concept to the extent that it regards the truth as an evident principle and acquires the nature of an ideological teaching." [ii]

Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977, p.107.

[ii] Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık, [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”] , p. 51.

 

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. Literal evolution just means change over time, that would be a fact. If you mean Natural Selection, that is a fact as well. If you mean macroevolution of all species by purely natural means(purely through natural selection), that is not a fact. Darwin's theory attempted to explain our existence with Natural Selection, he thought that if a bird can adapt to its environment by a change over time(traits being passed), it might be able to explain how we got here(by evolution through Natural selection). If it was true, all animals would have a common ancestry and we would be here through purely naturalistic means. I believe this theory is problematic.

 

Do you NOT read my posts? As I said, I am not a scientist, I cannot give you evidence. The best I can do is point you to the right place. If that is not good enough for you, then I don't what to say.

Let me let you on a secret, I have no interest in convincing you as we both know that you will not change your mind. The only reason I do this is to convince those on the fence who are reading this thread. So I just make the best, most logical arguments I can, and educate as much as I can. To anyone who is still unsure about evolution, I invite them to read some books on the subject and make your own decision. You are not going to learn what you need to know from a political forum.