digg

Join DiggAbout

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Ken Miller on "Intelligent Design" watch!

youtube.com — Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long expos é in which he explains the tactics creationists use to get it shoehorned into the American school system.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • speedstream, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40exposé actually wasn't a typo - I hit the back button and checked. Oddly, it just came out that way. It must be part of god's plan I suppose.
    • toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+94No matter which way you believe, I think everyone agrees that ID is not Science. Even I, as a Christian, know it's not science, and thusly, it should not be taught in a science class. We don't teach Art in Math class, don't teach Theology in a Science class.

      Oops, meant to reply to Scott1
    • shakin, on 11/10/2007, -4/+73"It must be part of god's plan I suppose."

      No, the accented 'e' evolved from a regular 'e'.
    • sinfree, on 10/12/2007, -79/+8@toekneebullard

      If there is a God and if he created everything, then he created science. So, in that case, science and God would be very much intertwined.
    • dpalmer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37The bottom line is that scientific theory can be tested and evaluated empirically. Intelligent design cannot be tested (therefore not proven or disproven), thus it is not science and should not be taught to impressionable young students who often believe everything presented in a classroom to be fact.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -26/+11"The bottom line is that scientific theory can be tested and evaluated empirically. Intelligent design cannot be tested (therefore not proven or disproven), thus it is not science and should not be taught to impressionable young students who often believe everything presented in a classroom to be fact."

      While I agree with you that ID shouldn't be taught in schools, I wonder what you believe should be taught about the origins of the universe? Considering pretty much every thing I've seen proposed violates MANY laws that science has given us so none of them could really be "tested".
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23As a guy who just graduated from a Kansas high school just 4 years ago, I can say that during my sophomore year, in Biology, the teacher had to give a handout stating that evolution is just a theory and he will not press us on the issue. He was even considering not teaching it at all because of angry parents... In the end though, he pretty much made us go over everything, just having us keep that paper in handy, which we had to sign along with having our parents sign.

      Don't think everyone in Kansas is anti-evolution-teaching, because they aren't. It's just the few who are anti-evolution have a much larger voice in the communities, specifically with lawsuits. I'm glad to say though that the Judiciary system in Kansas has done a great job with the issue, several times. The legislature however hasn't done a great job, especially on election years.
    • GeneralFault, on 11/10/2007, -11/+103I wish I wrote the following, but it is a funny view of the "debate" on ID vs evolution.


      grabbed from an ongoing discussion about teaching ID in schools:

      ------------------
      Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

      (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

      Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

      (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

      Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

      Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

      Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

      Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

      Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

      Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

      Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of ***** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

      Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form *****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
    • dpalmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@ iceperson

      The different theories on the origins of the universe can and should be taught in science classrooms as long as these theories can and have been evaluated using empirical data obtain from endeavors such as the COBE and other exploratory satellites. An example of a theory on the origins of the universe that should not be taught is one of creationism because it is not possible for science to collect any data on the presence or absence of a God who created everything.
    • ErrandboyOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -31/+5"The bottom line is that scientific theory can be tested and evaluated empirically. Intelligent design cannot be tested (therefore not proven or disproven),"

      Intelligent design posits the existence of an intelligent creator. Statements of this type ARE scientific. Do virus-like fungi exist? Do Amazonian Monarch Butterflies exist? Do fickle, humanlike creatures that lounge in clouds and poop lightning exist?

      These statements are all verifiable in the same way: show me an example.

      Pending such verification, we don't teach them in science classes because there are just too damn many things that might exist. We wouldn't have time for all of them.

      But it has nothing to do with whether or not a claim is scientific. All proper claims are scientific, by definition.

      (Read more Quine, reject logical positivism!)
    • chosenone-, on 11/10/2007, -11/+50Forgive me, but I think it's time we drive this through to the masses who don't get it:

      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
      Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
    • Mabu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The best part about this presentation is that the theist who was supposed to debate this guy didn't have the balls to show up. He actually blew off the whole debate and then made some lame excuse afterwards. All the better, to save these college students unnecessary exposure to tired strawmen and other logical fallacies.
    • da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Here's what I find interesting. When you watch this you notice that people of faith are just as against ID as any of your non believer's now me I'm inbetween I don't like organized religion but still somewhat believe in a higher power.

      Now I think anybody who watchs this or looks into it will notice, that no matter who you are or what you believe, we can all agree that are beliefs are our own and science is based on facts.and to put these two against eachother is wrong because it's silly to think that either your with god or your with science because god is a belief and beliefs can't be disproven and something that can't be disproven isn't science

      all and all this has almost been good for evolution because all the attacks made had some small merit and were like hey I wonder then we research them and find out more then we knew before(in the process disproving the attacks on evolution).
    • Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2Apparently not many of you have read the works of William Dembsi who has quite a case for the design inference being an inherently scientific process.
    • Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2For those interested in an older spat involving Ken Miller:

      http://www.trueorigin.org/behe02.asp
      http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp

      Whether you agree with it or not how anyone can say it isn't scientific is beyond me.
    • ErrandboyOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Guess no one on Digg likes Analytic Philosophy.

      You really should read some Quine.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine
  • scott1, on 10/12/2007, -69/+26Intelligent Design is just theory anyway.
    • vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30"Easy to rip something apart in a speech. Much harder during a good discussion"

      Umm, yeah...that discussion was made in court. Did you watch the video? Ken Miller basically went though what happened to the Dover ID trial. I just finished reading the judgement in that case and the judge blasted the ID camp.
    • Hermitwise, on 10/12/2007, -10/+97Theories are testable, ID is faith.
    • cdm014, on 10/12/2007, -88/+23"Intelligent Design is just a theory anyway."
      So is Evolution. It's just that only one of the theories tend to be taught in classes and then it get's taught as fact rather than theory. e.g it gets presented in classes as evolution is true end of discussion. rather than "many believe the theory of evolution is true because of the following facts." i respect the second approach.
    • sinfree, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42Pretty much everything we hold as true is a theory. The fact the the existence of God cannot be proven says nothing of his existence, it only says something about the nature of proofs. When you get right down to it pretty much nothing can be proven. Testable, perhaps, but not proven beyond doubt. You can't prove to me that we all weren't just created 10 minutes ago with our memories in place ;).
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27no is not. doesn't fit anywhere in the scientific process, just like religion.
    • BlakeEM, on 11/10/2007, -15/+43Evolution is fact; the process by which it happens is the theory (natural selection). It is fact because we can observe and replicate it in microevolution. Microevolution is the same as normal evolution, the only difference is the organisms are replicating so fast that it doesn’t take many years for each generation so we are able to observe them evolve in our lifetimes.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -7/+84"Intelligent Design is just theory anyway."

      No, it is not. The conjecture termed "Intelligent Design" does not meet the minimum requirements to be termed "theory".
    • poipoipoi, on 11/10/2007, -3/+25scott -- some of us got the joke, don't worry.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16In layman's terms yes, ID is a theory. In science, however, theory is the top of the line and ID is just supposition arising from a wilful lack of understanding.
    • DarkXanthos, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7I got the joke too man. Sorry you got hit so hard for everyone else having an overly tight *****.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27No, ID is just stupid.
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Scott made a joke. The joke is that Kansas was seriously considering putting this sticker on the inside cover on science textbooks in its state's schools:
      http://whyfiles.org/216evolution_qu/images/book_sticker.gif

      From the sticker: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origination of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

      Here's why calling evolution a theory does not discount it's reality. From Stephen Jay Gould:
      "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
    • kylebrothert, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Evolution may give an explanation of how we got here. But it doesn't tell us where we came from. Cosmic explosions require pre-existing matter. Where did those basic elements of matter come from? That's the question that ID attempts to answer. Is it science? Maybe not. But I don't think a brief mention of ID is a threat to the scientific process.

      Speaking of origins.. Where did God come from? Better save that one for philosophy class.
    • Knives, on 11/10/2007, -0/+7@kylebrothert

      Who says that the universe is finite? Maybe the universe has been expanding and collapsing forever, back and forth. This is one theory. It's not impossible for something to be infinate, it's just hard to grasp since everything we know is finite.

      And you say "who created God?" Well, nothing. we don't even have ANY proof that it exists, except for a book. Then you might say "Well then maybe God has always been here like you say the universe was." and to that I say "Then if the universe was always here, there's no need for a God is there?"
    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@mikesherov

      Amazing how religious nuts always tell you to test evolution and other scientific theories backed up by millions of smart people who worked in their field their whole life and that are also testable by you in real life (e.g. theory of gravitation) with critical mind and doubt them or refuse them immediately, while the bible, intelligent creator and other ***** handed to you by a guy with weird education (priests..) should be accepted with no objections whatsoever
  • SqueakyWheel, on 10/12/2007, -55/+13Easy to rip something apart in a speech. Much harder during a good discussion. We are such a divided country because we only listen to our own side talk and never discuss things with people who disagree with our views.
    • NachoBusiness, on 11/10/2007, -5/+44Er, not totally familiar with this specific situation, but it sounds like he was invited to do such a debate, but the Intelligent Design guy didn't show, so he just had to give a lecture.
    • scott1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12It's mostly because we only have two parties really.

      People would probably listen to other side when there is no majority party to control congress and pass laws without listening to the other party.
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I think it's more that both sides are arguing from a lack of knowledge, so name-calling and politics work their way in. ID is not a theory and Evolution is not a theory. They are both philosophical frameworks for scientific theories. The underlying scientific theories for Evolution have been changed over time, but the philosophical framework is still there. Even stupid disproved early hoaxes didn't do too much to lessen the impact of Evolution itself.

      If you understand that you are not arguing for a scientific theory, but for a philosophical framework, then you realize why the creationists and ID advocates don't go away. The theories that underlie Evolution can be seriously and scientifically debated, but debating philosophies is like debating the best ice cream flavor.
  • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -126/+22Everything just created itself. !!?? I'm amazed how people buy into this without ever questioning it. My guess is that is has a lot to the with being flooded with evolution through schools and TV. I believed evolution for most of my life because it was all I was offered. Must be true right?

    It was mentioned that evolution is the cornerstone of Biology.? This is ridiculous. You don't have to study origins to understand biology. The thing is that evolution is mixed in with science. The Rub comes in when you start talking about macro/micro evolution. Where larger changes occur and not just the character traits that are passed on from the parents or the so call beneficial mutations. There is genetic variability. Much different concept then something evolving. That's all Darwin saw when he observed his birds.

    He said Democracy works. Does he know that our founding fathers hated Democracy. America is a constitutional republic. Or at least we use to be. Big difference. Then talks about the whole court case issue. I would assume he bases his arguments on “separation of church and state”. O boy. This is not a concept found in the constitution. There is an easy solution to this. Public schools are a joke. Get out or get your kids out! I know the evolutionist so badly wants evolution be part of science but its no less religious then creation or intelligent design. So if you really want your “separation of church and state” then get your humanistic evolution(naturalism) out! I'm all for that.

    He mentions that the definition of science was changed. Well that is because it was changed by naturalists to exclude the possibility of a creator. If evolutionary scientists are so open minded why not consider ALL possibility's. Defining science as only naturalistic is only making bias definition. Its is like saying God is the creator of science so lets determine how he created it. If everything did evolve then you would never come to that conclusion even if it was staring you in the face. The bias can go either way.
    • snupples, on 11/10/2007, -11/+78I have a bias against long-winded *****. So I'm going to have to mod you down.

      Try actually watching the video next time. He explains EXACTLY why the theory of evolution is gaining more and more scientific weight as research continues into various genomes, and as paleontologists etc. make more discoveries in so-far-unturned corners of the natural world.

      Until you come up with a better theory that gains the respect and passes the critique of the entire scientific community, keep your opinion out of our science classes. You're welcome in the theology courses though.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -102/+11I never said I wanted my theory in 'public' science class. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that. I would simply be for getting the lies out of our textbooks. But you wouldn't know anything about these lies.

      So until I come up with a better theory you and your gurus have proclaimed you are our omnipotent dictators of what will be tough in school as fact or theory. There are plenty of theories out there. But have you or your evolutionists ever carefully them. Not likely. Evolution is nothing but a carefully controlled religion in our government/public schools.

      I watched up to about 26 min. Nothing new there. So lets just hear your best evidence! Or give a time frame from the video.
    • Xanin, on 11/10/2007, -11/+61You really don't know what you are talking about, do you Jereome? Science is seperate from politics and religion, it's just the ignorant or those with an agenda that try to bring it into those topics.
    • BigHeadOne, on 10/12/2007, -46/+23I wish cancer upon people who claim evolution is a theory. Science is science because its verifiable through experiment. That's the great thing about it, it can all be proven again, by looking at someones research and running the same experiments and observations as they did. Its really quite airtight you zealot headcase dunderhead douche bag.
    • xutopia, on 11/10/2007, -10/+50How is it more extraordinary to believe that the universe "created itself" than to believe someone did?

      We have evidence that the universe is here and none that God has anything to do with it. So far evidence of God is nil. Universe is all around you.
    • Carnifex0, on 10/12/2007, -31/+8BigHeadOne: zealot headcase dunderhead douche bag

      I lol'd
    • feylanks, on 11/10/2007, -9/+34Thanks for using the term "evolutionists" because it saved me from reading that spam.

      These idiots want you to believe science can be discredited and so they give you a new term to use on scientists with absolutely no agenda other than to learn. Then they tell you absurd reasons why their unbiased thorough processes are an attack on your beliefs.

      Way to be a tool for an arcane and illogical cause.
    • cybermort, on 11/10/2007, -3/+22there isn't enough time and users to digg down your comment to a number that accurately represents its value.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35"Everything just created itself. !!?? "

      If you are ignorant enough to believe that anyone actually postulates such a thing, then you are insufficiently educated on the subject to make any credible statements.
    • jonathono2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24@jerome209

      Just because you read one book written from a scientific viewpoint that claims evolution is impossible because it doesn't jive with recent research in microbiology doesn't mean that you can use that as point to say that evolution is bull. The reason scientists write that kind of literature is to challenge other scientists to make a better case, not for ***** like you to use as "proof" that evolution is not a plausible theory.
    • Feanor, on 11/10/2007, -4/+31Evolutionists? You mean Scientists. Its not like evolution is some cult people follow, its not a way of life. Its simply something that has come about through scientific evidence. ID may be a theory, but it is one with little evidence to back it up. Scientist take evidence and attempt to classify it and learn the detail behind it. Currently scientist think that Evolution has the best explanation given the evidence they have. Theories are fluid because the evidence could change; we haven't studied everything in the Universe yet.

      As for this bull about the creation of the Universe - It has nothing to do with evolution. BIG BANG THEORY covers the origins of the universe, NOT evolution.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 11/10/2007, -8/+16@BigHeadOne
      "Cancer" as you call it is just a theory. There is no solid "proof" behind it. I'm sick of people talking about it as fact, when it is just as likely that "cancer" is really punishment by God for one's sins, or demons infesting one's body.

      Please, try and educate yourself!!
    • Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -61/+3I still don't get it. If you believe that the universe created itself, how exactly would that be possible? I mean planets were created by so called meteors that broke off from each other.

      Where did the meteors come from? Space dust?

      Where did the space dust come from? Random matter?

      Where did the random matter come from? And so on.

      Here's a little sceince experiment for all the little diggers... Take a glass box. Remove all air from the box. Remove all the "matter" in the box. Remove every single possible ounce of anything from that box. Leave the box alone, in an envirornment with no light.

      Now let's see if anything "evolves" out of nothing after a few million years, and get back to me with your "proof".
    • geocar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"I wish cancer upon people who claim evolution is a theory"

      Wishing is like praying. That some wishes come true is about as valid as some prayers coming true, and prayers have been demonstrated to increase complications after heart surgery.

      People who claim "evolution is [just] a theory" don't know what [scientific] theory means any more than they know what wishing is.
    • feylanks, on 11/10/2007, -3/+32yep its official. Jaymoon has had the least amount of proper education of anyone in the history of the internet.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -4/+29"If you believe that the universe created itself, how exactly would that be possible?"

      Who has professed such a belief?


      "Here's a little sceince experiment for all the little diggers... Take a glass box. Remove all air from the box. Remove all the "matter" in the box. Remove every single possible ounce of anything from that box. Leave the box alone, in an envirornment with no light.

      Now let's see if anything "evolves" out of nothing after a few million years, and get back to me with your "proof"."

      That you suggest that anyone has stated that evolution can occur in the abscence of any matter demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of the theory of evolution and, as such, you are not qualified to speak on the subject.
    • fantasticFlan, on 11/10/2007, -3/+20@Jaymoon

      First of all, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. Second, what the hell is random matter? Did you hear that from an actual scientist?
    • sinisterkungfu, on 11/10/2007, -3/+13@Jaymoon
      You've already proved yourself to be completely clueless when it comes to politics, it's really not surprising you would continue that trend with science as well. Let me guess, you're a fan of those idiots Kent Hovind and Ken Hamm, aren't you?
    • mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1@Y2JCrisis

      Cancer is a fact we know many different causes, not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but it is not like we need anymore ignorance brought into this discussion
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -37/+1Jonathono2000 wrote
      "Just because you read one book written from a scientific viewpoint that claims"....

      One book huh. Non of you even attempted to give me any of your best evidence for evolution. You wouldn't want what you believe to be challenged.

      Feanor wrote
      “Evolutionists? You mean Scientists. Its not like evolution is some cult people follow”

      It really is. The only difference is your false prophets are scientists who believe in evolution. But I understand this is not something you want to admit.
    • circusbred, on 11/10/2007, -5/+23I am sick and tired of Christians claiming that they are persecuted. The fact of the matter is the majority of this country is Christian, if anyone is being persecuted, it is the non-Christians.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -1/+10"One book huh. Non of you even attempted to give me any of your best evidence for evolution. You wouldn't want what you believe to be challenged."

      ERV patterns across lines of species previously determined to be closely related.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -20/+1Dimensio

      Remember genetic variability is a reality. You get genes from each of your parents. Much different from evolution. Your answer is really just a generic non answer. You didn't give any specific evidence.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Ok, dumbass, if everything is created, where did the creator come from? And where did whatever created the creator come from?
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -1/+9"Remember genetic variability is a reality. You get genes from each of your parents. Much different from evolution."

      I am not referring to genetic variability. I am referring to patterns of viral insertions in genes repeated through lines of different, related species.


      "Your answer is really just a generic non answer. You didn't give any specific evidence."

      ERV patterns have been detected through multiple collections of interrelated species. Many such patterns have been observed in primate species, including humans.
    • Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Jereome "It really is. The only difference is your false prophets are scientists who believe in evolution. But I understand this is not something you want to admit."

      False Prophets?? This isn't religion! Science is a study of fact, Religion is a group of people with a Faith. Scientist aren't following Evolution because they have faith in it, they are following it because it offers a good explanation for fact.

      Evolution is observable. ID is not. Hell they aren't even in the same category. Evolution is the study of how organisms adapt over time, ID is a theory for the initial creation of life. ID requires a leap of Faith, whereas Evolution is observable in a relatively short order of Human Time.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1DaveV,
      The Creator is eternal. Meaning He has always existed. Hope that doesn't go over your head.

      Dimensio,
      So species that are related have common ERV patterns. I wouldn't disagree. If you go back in the past to what you call 'primate' they are going to be similar to what we have today. Doesn't do anything for your theory. Again give something specific. Your just give general statements. Almost like you are trying to sound smart without saying anything with real substance.
    • DaveV, on 11/10/2007, -1/+7@Jereome209


      "The Creator is eternal. Meaning He has always existed. Hope that doesn't go over your head."

      Is that your answer? Really? ID is not about religion but creator is eternal? Where is your proof of a creator? Where is your proof of an eternal being?

      Show me anything that has existed before there was a universe and will endure after the universe is gone. Please point to another creature in nature that is "eternal". If the creator is not apart of nature, doesn't that make the Creator supernatural? Show me some other part of science that relies on something supernatural that has no proof.

      And, you didn't answer my question. Where did the creator come from? "The creator has always existed" is not an answer. As far as ants are concerned, I have always existed. But, I came from somewhere.

      I hope that didn't go over your head.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1Feanor wrote
      “Evolution is observable.”

      Genetic variability and adaptation is not evolution. I hope that's not what you mean. You don't observe evolution. Micro evolution maybe. But micro evolution really isn't evolution. And I would agree science is the study of fact but the prophets of evolution have been getting a little confused about what is fact when it comes to evolution.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -1/+7"So species that are related have common ERV patterns. I wouldn't disagree. If you go back in the past to what you call 'primate' they are going to be similar to what we have today. Doesn't do anything for your theory."

      Then please provide an alternate explanation for identical ERV insertions across primate species.


      "Again give something specific."

      Most mammals are able to produce ascorbic acid internally. Primates are unable to do this. The gene responsible for the production of ascorbic acid has been identified, and discovered to be broken in all primate species. Curiously, the break in the gene is identical across primate species. If humans and other extant primate species do not share common ancestry, why then does there exist an identically broken gene in all such species?
    • DaveV, on 11/10/2007, -1/+10@Jereome209

      There is no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". Those terms were invented by creationists as an attempt to get around the evidence of evolution at the microscopic level because it is easy to show it at that level. Many generations of bacteria live and day in a single day. The larger the subject, the longer it takes to show change.

      There is only a single Theory of Evolution. It applies on all levels.

      The only difference between what happens in a petrie dish and what happens on an island is that the time scale is different. The same driving forces and mechanisms are at work.
    • firefoxguy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4this debate is stupid, No one was there when the world began and we will never be able to fully prove either way so every one get over it
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1Dimensio

      Your pointing out similarities. There are thousands of similarities between different kinds of animals. I agree. It doesn't prove we all evolved from one life form. I know thats what many want to 'believe' by faith.

      You also mention that there is a break in the gene. And that it is identical. across species. That doesn't prove anything. My car can brakes down the same way as a motor cycle. And if something is braking down it just tells you that evolution isn't working. And that our genetic code use to be better and is getting worse.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1DaveV
      “There is no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". Those terms were invented by creationists “

      Haha. Have you taken a class in biology yet? Creationist didn't invent them. They simply further defined them. So that it is understood what exactly is being talked about. The terms are really just used to blur the line between fact and faith.
    • dassin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"I wish cancer upon people who claim evolution is a theory"

      Wish in one hand, ***** in the other. See which one fills up first.

      BTW, Jerome, don't you have some crusades to start or something? Or maybe some Aztecs to slaughter?

      Meh, ignorance
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1dassin

      No I'm more of a peaceful type. My words are my weapons. About as violent as your going to see me. Plus I'm doing enough slaughtering here.
    • Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, contradiction of the smallest part of peoples argument can be be considered slaughter in the pacifists world.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -3/+9"Your pointing out similarities. There are thousands of similarities between different kinds of animals."

      I am not merely "pointing out similarities". I am pointing out similarities in noncoding regions of DNA across species previously established to be related. These are insertions of identical code at identical locations within the genome. Evolution posits an explanation for this observation: that the insertion occured in an ancestor organism whose descendants branched into the various species observed still carrying this insertion today. Ignoring the details of my statement does not make the find less significant. If you disagree that common descent is a credible explanation for this observation, then please provide an alternative testable explanation for this observation.


      "It doesn't prove we all evolved from one life form."

      Nothing in science is "proven". Explanations are either established as credible due to succesful predictions or disproven due to the observation of contradictory events.


      "You also mention that there is a break in the gene. And that it is identical. across species. That doesn't prove anything."

      It is evidence, not "proof". You are holding the theory of evolution to a standard not applicable to any explanation in science.


      "My car can brakes down the same way as a motor cycle. And if something is braking down it just tells you that evolution isn't working."

      Your analogy is poor. The point is that the means by which the gene became 'broken" is identical in all primate species. It is far more likely that such a break occured once and then spread to all descendants than it is that an identical break occured across all primate species. It should also be noted that it is known that the break can occur in a different way, as guinea pigs also posess a broken Vitamin C synthesis gene, but it is broken in a way different than the break in the primate gene.


      " And that our genetic code use to be better and is getting worse."

      Please show that this is a more credible explanation for an identical 'break' in a gene across various species.
    • FoxtrotUSAF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Everything just created itself. !!?? I'm amazed how people buy into this without ever questioning it."

      We did question it and test it, that's how it was fount it to be the most likely cause for our existance.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"DNA across species"

      Depends on what you mean by species. You would have to have a clear distinction between what your considering to be species. What animals are you working with specifically. if it is a primitive wolf and a common dog for example your observation isn't even worth mentioning.

      Another thing you need to remember if you are working with similar DNA locations or similar part that this section could just be susceptible to the change. I could go on there are lots of possibilities. But your asking me to prove it for you.

      Why should I buy any evidence that come out for evolution when much of what shown from the past to be non-evidence, deceptive or even out right lies.


      “It is evidence, not "proof". “

      Well you sound like you are intellectually honest. So please help your fellow believes that evolution can not be proven. Simply supported.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -1/+5"Depends on what you mean by species. You would have to have a clear distinction between what your considering to be species. What animals are you working with specifically. if it is a primitive wolf and a common dog for example your observation isn't even worth mentioning. "

      I am referring to finds across species already determined to be closely related; such finds reinforce confidence in established lines of descent. It is possible for this research to uncover observnations contradictory to common descent. Thus far, no such observation has occured.. A specific example is all extant ape species.


      "Another thing you need to remember if you are working with similar DNA locations or similar part that this section could just be susceptible to the change. I could go on there are lots of possibilities. But your asking me to prove it for you. "

      I am not. I am asking for a plausable alternative explanation. Thus far, you have offered none. Your above statements are vague and do not even demonstrate an understanding of the basic concepts.


      "Why should I buy any evidence that come out for evolution when much of what shown from the past to be non-evidence, deceptive or even out right lies. "

      Please provide specific references for your claim.


      "ell you sound like you are intellectually honest. So please help your fellow believes that evolution can not be proven. Simply supported."

      This is true of all science. Nothing in science is ever proven.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2“I am referring to finds across species already determined to be closely related; such finds reinforce confidence in established lines of descent. “

      Well then there is probably no disagreement at all. You would have to be more specific. I would agree that animals have changed over time. But for this kind of argument to even be helpful to you would need to show that these two animals you are comparing are significantly different. A good example of significantly different animals would be a bird and a dog. It sounds like your example is just trying to blur the lines between the different kinds of animals when you really just have the same animal.


      “ Please provide specific references for your claim. “

      Human embryo has gill slits. http://www.rae.org/gillslit.html
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6" It sounds like your example is just trying to blur the lines between the different kinds of animals when you really just have the same animal."

      Are you suggesting that humans, gorillas and chimpanzees are the "same animal"?


      If you are suggesting that embryonic recapitulation is a lie, then you have not actually studied the subject. Haeckel did commit fraud in attempting to exaggerate the subject, but embryonic recapitulation has been observed.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1“Are you suggesting that humans, gorillas and chimpanzees are the "same animal"? “

      Humans are obviously not the same as gorillas and chimpanzees! But I have no idea of what you are comparing if you just say “across species already determined to be closely related; “. I can only assume. That's why i kept asking you to be specific. You still leave me without specifics.

      “If you are suggesting that embryonic recapitulation is a lie “

      While I do believe that is true, What about my statement: “Human embryo has gill slits. “ are you avoiding it?
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4"Humans are obviously not the same as gorillas and chimpanzees! But I have no idea of what you are comparing if you just say “across species already determined to be closely related; “. I can only assume. That's why i kept asking you to be specific. You still leave me without specifics."

      I specifically referenced "all primate species", which includes humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. If you are not aware that primate species -- and within primates, apes -- are already determined to be closely related then you are insufficiently informed to make the criticisms that you have been making.



      "While I do believe that is true, What about my statement: “Human embryo has gill slits. “ are you avoiding it?"

      Humans do not have "gill slitl". However, all mammals -- including humans -- show gill pouches during embryonic development.
    • Jereome209, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1“then you are insufficiently informed to make the criticisms that you have been making.”

      Your right. I try to stick to common sense not psychobabble no one else can understand. You are mistaken on this. You assume that these insertions are nonfunctional just because they do not express any RNA or protein. This happens a lot with much of the evidence used to support Evolution. Same as was done with many of the so called vestigial organs.

      “Humans do not have "gill slitl". However, all mammals -- including humans -- show gill pouches during embryonic development. “

      haha. Ok “gill pouches”. Want to explain that one.
    • ozroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't really understand what the hell you are arguing anymore Jerome209, but it seems to me that you really don't understand what you are trying to argue either. You don't seem to understand what it is that science tries to achieve.

      Science is not about providing facts. Facts are something you go out and observe. Ape's have 48 chromosomes, Humans have 46 chromosomes. That is a fact. Theory is what interests science, and theory is something that is used to explain facts. That is what evolution is. It's a theory that explains the origins, and diversity of species. It is a theory that is backed up by facts. It is a theory that is able to make predictions about findings. It is a theory that has withstood rigorous critisms and challenges.

      Intelligent Design is not theory. ID is faith. It is something that cannot be observed, it cannot make predition. It is something that you just have to believe because people say it's so. It is no more scientific than saying Einsteins general relativity is wrong and an apple falls to the ground because god makes it so. ID is not science and it is that reason alone why ID should not be taught in a science class. It is very possible that ID is correct, but that doesn't make it science.
    • Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2"Your right. I try to stick to common sense not psychobabble no one else can understand."

      It appears that you are attempting to excuse your ignorance by declaring any information that you do not posess as "psychobabble". That is neither a rational nor a logical rebuttal.


      "You are mistaken on this. You assume that these insertions are nonfunctional just because they do not express any RNA or protein."

      Please describe the function of DNA inserted into the genome by a retrovirus that does not in any way alter the resulting expressed phenotype of the organism. I will also note that you have provided no alternative explanation for the observation of shared ERV insertions across primate species.


      " This happens a lot with much of the evidence used to support Evolution. Same as was done with many of the so called vestigial organs."

      Please explain what you mean by this. There is a common misconception that 'vestigal' refers to an organ or structure that has no present function. This is not the case.


      "haha. Ok “gill pouches”. Want to explain that one."

      What do you wish to have explained?
  • daverules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Good God, it's two hours long!
    • diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29Yeah, but they go by pretty fast. Even though I'm an ID proponent, I like Dr. Miller. I find his disposition to be pleasant and likable, unlike many of the people who usually do these kinds of lectures. He's very intelligent, and is also very religious.

      The two hours is worth it, even if you disagree with what he says. He makes some strong points, and some weak ones, but if you're going to watch this, you'll probably want to balance it with another video that gives the other side. Let me make a recommendation:
      http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2006040103&TYPE=V

      It's a debate between Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Peter Ward. It gives a good overview of what ID is, and what ID is not.
    • ToxicBomber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@diggnate

      I have to say that is rather refreshing to see a proponent of ID who doesn't have their head up their ass or is trying to beat me to death during a debate with the bible. You seem to actually have a concept of the real scientific process, basically: "I may be wrong and I may be right, but here is some information that I believe can back up my claim that I may be right."

      Thank you very much restoring some of my faith in humanity.

      up-vote!
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Yeah...not all ID proponents are idiots. Hasty generalizations aren't very logical anyway.
    • diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thanks @Toxic, I really appreciate that!
      diggnate
  • dsnyd, on 10/12/2007, -57/+9Neither ID or Evo are Science as neither has ever been observed and cannot be replicated...period. Neither one should be in text books or schools...period. It doesn't matter which side is right, if either even is, but they both have no place in schools.
    • SmudgeTheFirst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Evolution CAN be observed, at least on the smaller scale. Animal populations are constantly adapting to change -- the individuals in the population who are better suited to survival end up surviving and reproducing, due to genetic variations that happen to be in their favor. Evolution traces that to the long-term, trying to find the ancestry of these populations. Sure, you can argue, rabbits will always be rabbits and dogs will always be dogs, but the line gets fuzzy when you look at the hundreds of thousands of years these populations can be changing and shifting and splitting off into multiple variances. Evolution doesn't say we can put a monkey in a vat of water and watch it grow gills -- that's absurd -- but it DOES say that a population of monkeys will constantly adapt due to the fact that the individual monkeys less suited to survival, in whatever conditions occur (either rapid changes or gradual), will have a lesser probability of reproducing and passing on their less-desirable traits.
    • maxman137, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Evolution has, in fact been observed. That's how the theory was created in the first place, as well as the occasional modern alteration of an organism to its environment. I would advise having paid attention in science class before making such accusations.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24"Neither ID or Evo are Science as neither has ever been observed and cannot be replicated...period."

      Evolution has been observed. Moreover, direct observation of an event is not required for the postulated event to carry scientific credibility.

      Your ignorance of the scientific method does not demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not science.
    • Plotinus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@dsnyd Evolution is science - suggest you look up definition of science (proper definition not one liner.

      @diggnate - from your comments I'm somewhat suprised as you appear to break the stereotype of ID proponenets as close minded bigots. Personally I see no conflict between intelligent design and evolution - i.e. some being intelligently designed the universe and the rules by which the universe operates (including evolution). Only denying evolution is irrational. Of course that who or what that designing being is is itself a matter of faith.
    • diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Plotinus
      Well, you'd be surprised at how many of us are out there. Creationists (ie people who decide that they should interpret the Bible by what it says in our English translations) fit the closed-minded stereotype much better. Those interested in the scientific possibility of design are less interested in making a religious point than we are about knowing the truth as best we can determine it.
    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You want a proof of evolution?
      If you have to take antibiotics, just observe how they stop working in a few months and then think again.
  • FancyMan, on 10/12/2007, -43/+5sience is ghey
    • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -23/+1ROFLaughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing...laughing..
    • empeethree, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3spelling is fun!
    • gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Let me guess, religious home schooled? Proof when the only book you will read is the bible that the word gay isn't found in it I guess.
    • hollowmedia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I get your drift.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1well then no more science for you!
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wish people that thought like this fellow were more apt to take their views to the marketplace. No medicine, automobiles, electricity, computer (digg) etc for them. Those have all be developed through the use of the scienctific process, which they decry. Therefore no science for them. And in time, perhaps in a short time, due to natural selection (disease, hunger and no job) the human race would evolve away from their type. It almost angers me that people that call the science that I use every day also use the products that I develop with that science.

  • victimofkratina, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8i liked the prayer in the beginning...what was that guy doing that for. he said "amen" and everyone was silent lol.
    • artofwar420, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3That means they don't agree to what he said. "Amen" means "may it be so" or "so be it"
    • Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Skip forward to 1:37 to skip the prayer.
  • poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28MUST RESIST reading the comments for fear of entering a homicidal rage...

    (creationists are just so. *****. stupid.)
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5Ironically, most people who take the educational high ground and purport themselves to be oh-so-much-more intelligent than creationists are really pompous assholes, using their beliefs to show others how much better they are.

      And that's exactly what's happening here. "Creationists are stupid, I'm smarter and better than them because I can accept that evolution happened."

      The irony is, this is the exact same thing creationists have done forever. Poetic justice or just human arrogance?
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I'm really not surprised by your over generalization of creationists. Its kind of like saying Islams are terrorists...when its only a minor population that are the terrorists...
    • rushiku, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Um, no, pretty much anyone who can, with a straight face, argue that they truly believe that life, the universe and everything was willed into existence, from nothing, by a mystical being (cue ooo-weee-ooo sfx) can be dismissed as either: stupid, or grossly misinformed.
    • jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I'm really not surprised by your over generalization of creationists. Its kind of like saying Islams are terrorists...when its only a minor population that are the terrorists..."

      Fortunately enough, your statement is incorrect. A correct version of your statement would be: "It's kind of like saying Islamic Terrorists kill people or induce terror".

      Terrorists are subsets of many cultures/races. Creationism isn't a subset of a whole in this regard, but one part of a divided mindset. You cannot over-generalize creationists if the majority of them behave in such a similar manner that the generalization "Creationists" can even be used.

      Also, by the definition of 'stupid':
      1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
      - Creationists are obviously slow to learn or understand the FACT of evolution. The real *theory* is the "Beginning Cause", i.e.: What happened "in the beginning". Evolution is not only a verifiable *fact*, but it's effects are visible in pretty much every living being, regardless of how you believe these beings *started*.

      2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
      - See #1, Most if not all creationists poorly decide to ignore facts in favor of fiction.

      3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
      4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
      5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

      Read a dictionary. It can be very enlightening.

      (I'll not be surprised by the negative diggs, simply because most digg users are incredibly opinionated and believe that no matter what *they* are right. How's *that* for a generalization? :) )
  • ThreeGs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Any Digg post using the words "expose" and "shoehorned" in the same paragraph is automatically suspect in my book.
  • masterkenobi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Oh well, I guess we are all a bunch of Godless sodomites! ;)
  • democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -48/+1Creationism IS science.

    And, no, creation and evolution cannot both be true.

    http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/creationevolutionboth.html

    http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/creationemails.html
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1misreplied, sorry
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28"Creationism IS science."

      Please explain how creationism satisfies the scientific method. Be specific.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19some student's blog is your proof? If your google query only returns this to support your argument, you may want to rethink how rational ID is.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18How is it science? Where's the evidence? The Bible? How do you know you can trust all of that? Because it's God's word? How do you know it's God's word? Because the bible says so!

      Flawless logic!
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@democracysucks
      You are a sad little troll
    • GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I'm a scientist. I don't know any scientists who study the theory of creationism. Please tell me how you would test this theory? I'm curious. You see, all theories are testable and by testing them they may be proven false. This falsification is the hallmark of the scientific method. If you cannot come up with a test that seeks to prove creationism wrong then it is not a theory and as such isn't science either.
      Of course if you can come up with a test then we can call it science. But... If you execute the test and creationism is found to be lacking. Well then, by using science you have refuted creationism.
      It's simple really. This is a the most powerful way to explore the natural world.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5"How is it science? Where's the evidence? The Bible? How do you know you can trust all of that? Because it's God's word? How do you know it's God's word? Because the bible says so!

      Flawless logic!"
      -and-
      "Please explain how creationism satisfies the scientific method. Be specific."

      That's an incorrect logic path. You're assuming people of faith (I'll use Christian, because you seem to be implying it) are mindless sheep that incapable of intelligent debate.

      As for the rest, how is creationism science?

      Because, if you believe God created the world, the universe, all the matter inside of it, the concept/dimension of time to string it all together, than you would have to believe that he created more than just, say, trees. He created the cells, the atoms, the process in which it reproduces and alters itself, the evolution of his own creation. That's point of creation -- evolution. A creation that changes and grows in itself.

      As for the scientific method. I assume you're asking creationism to be proved via the scientific method. Which it cannot. The concept of God is made to be unproveable. If we could prove God exists than everyone would believe because they knew for certain eternal bliss was possible. Without the element of doubt, human's would have no free will. They would simply have a choice between bliss and damnation. So, logically, creationism can never be proven.

      But, asking creationism to be proved via the scientific method shows me that you are incapable of even fathoming something outside of space and time. Are we as humans so confined by our brains and our surroundings that the possibility of something existing beyond time or beyond the concept of space or matter eludes us? It is possible. And you can whine bitch and moan but you will never, ever be able to prove it.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2"This is a the most powerful way to explore the natural world."

      And the worst way to explore anything that's beyond our comprehension, such as existance outside of space and time.

      But hey, it's great for telling me why mushrooms appear in my front lawn.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12betterh, nice copouts.

      "LULZ GOD'S OUTSIDE OF OUR UNDERSTANDING THEREFORE IT'S TRUE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT".

      Impeccable.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2*****, double post.

      digg down.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@betterth

      All you did was prove that it is in fact NOT science.
    • Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"The concept of God is made to be unproveable."

      So...you admit that god is made up?
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"You see, all theories are testable and by testing them they may be proven false."

      "As for the scientific method. I assume you're asking creationism to be proved via the scientific method. Which it cannot."

      hmm, if I am reading right, he is saying devise a test that could maybe prove it wrong, not right.
      And if Im also reading right, you are a moron
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"How do you know it's God's word? Because the bible says so!"

      People like you like to misrepresent their logic. Stating something that clearly isn't true. They think the Bible is the word of God because of its history and background of its writings. Its supposedly written by over 40 authors in a 1500 yr period with no contradictions other than alleged scribe errors.

      so their logic isn't "The Bible is true becaue the Bible says its true." Its "The Bible is true because it hasn't been proven to be false. And since that is the case, we can believe what it says as divine words."
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The Bible is true because it hasn't been proven to be false."
      That's an argument from ignorance. Shut the ***** up, it's just as illogical.
      It's a fallacy in the form of:
      There is no evidence against p.
      Therefore, p.
  • Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Digg must be going for some kind of record here with total number of religious flame wars in one day.
  • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Everybody knows that the universe was in fact created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/

    Check out this site and feel His noodly appendages
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6OK, no more FSM. it's old. it's played, it's not very amusing anymore.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Now you know how the rest of us feel about Intelligent Design...
    • automagically, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You're just jealous, when I die, I get a beer volcano and stripper factory.
    • dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3lol.. overplayed?? it was mentioned during the question period at 92 minutes in.
  • h2gofast, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6In a nutshell, the fossil record does not adequately support the "Origin of the Species". It supports adaptations within the species, longer beaks in birds, different types of fish, different characteristics becoming more prominent. It does not adequately describe, how completely new species arise. This is not to say that God waved a magic wand and poof there it is, but it does raise questions, that a one-sided debate, or official doctrine (church or science), cannot explain.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"In a nutshell, the fossil record does not adequately support the "Origin of the Species"."

      You are incorrect.


      " It supports adaptations within the species, longer beaks in birds, different types of fish, different characteristics becoming more prominent. It does not adequately describe, how completely new species arise. "

      No one claims that the fossil record describes the means by which new species arise, only that it shows that new species arise over time. The conclusion that speciation is the result of descent with modification is the result of observation of living organisms.
    • AlmostEvil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Suggest you read up on chronospecies and this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html might help too.

      EDIT:
      I'll just add the wiki link too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae
    • MrData, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@Dimensio
      "No one claims that the fossil record describes the means by which new species arise, only that it shows that new species arise over time. The conclusion that speciation is the result of descent with modification is the result of observation of living organisms."

      That sounds a lot like an unfounded causal relationship. Just because new species arise over time does not mean that they came from the previous species. Not saying that the FSM put them there, but what proof is there that they came from the previous species?
    • TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Many small changes result in new species. The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution. We have observed speciation.
    • MrData, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4@DrunkMonkey

      That's called "circular reasoning". Small variations in species does not prove new species arise from previous ones. Fossil record is not proof either.

      Again, I'm not trying to take sides, but the side that claims to be more scientific should have a good grasp of logical reasoning.
    • TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What exactly is circular? I said that small changes can add up to form different species. If you look at two closely related species, the differences (especially on the genetic level) are just numerous, small changes. Unless you can come up with some mechanism that stops these small changes from making a descendant animal so different from it's ancestors that it is a different species, you are an idiot.

      The speciation that we have obsered does prove that new species arise from previous ones.

      If you really don't think the fossil record is proof, you are once again an idiot.
    • MrData, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@drunkmonkey

      You can dispute my claim that you're using circular reasoning, but calling me an idiot is definitely an ad hominem.

      I'm not going to argue any further on this, because it's obvious that an observational point of view is not tolerated.
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7In a nutshell, your "theory" has no scientific support.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"That sounds a lot like an unfounded causal relationship."

      Then you have not actually studied the subject. You may not agree with the conclusions, but they are not "unfounded".


      "Just because new species arise over time does not mean that they came from the previous species"

      It is not simply the obvious fact that all speices were not extant at all times that has led to a conclusion of common descent. The similarities in physical characteristics over time was the original basis for hypothesizing common descent.


      "Not saying that the FSM put them there, but what proof is there that they came from the previous species?"

      Science deals in evidence, not proof.
    • TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"You can dispute my claim that you're using circular reasoning, but calling me an idiot is definitely an ad hominem. I'm not going to argue any further on this, because it's obvious that an observational point of view is not tolerated."

      Notice that I preceded both of those statments with "if" or "unless". Apparently you do not think that the fossil record is evidence and you do not have any way of explaining a mechanism that would prevent evolution from occuring because of accumulated changes. You seem to like to blurt things out like "Circular reasoning!" and "Ad Hominem!" without even pausing to think about whether you are correct in using those terms or if it is even necessary to apply them. Ad hominems would only be a problem if I had nothing else to offer.

      An observational viewpoint is not tolerated when it is incorrect. Would you tolerate someone who said "I don't want to take sides, so I think that the people who say 2+2=4 and the people who say 2+2=6 should compromise and say 2+2=5"?
    • TrnsltLife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@TheDrunkMonkey
      "Many small changes result in new species. The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution. We have observed speciation."

      This is something I have a question about: Species and Speciation. We *have* observed speciation, especially in bacteria, but other things too. But what makes this so pointless to me is that *we* are the ones who decide what constitutes a "species" and what constitutes merely variation within a "species". You can read about how we decide issues of speciation in a biology book, but it is all very ill-defined and ambiguous.

      "Species" doesn't even always mean that breeding two animals would produce sterile offspring. Species is a very subjective, non-scientific term, even though it is the basis of our whole biological classification system.

      In my opinion, that fact clouds the discussion between people that base their life in philosophical naturalism, and those who base their life in theism.
  • VoodooBillyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Creationism is *****!

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-967128149563430244
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed with that particular episode of the program. I believe that a great deal of the willful ignorance and outright decepton of the "Intelligent Design" movement was overlooked.
  • gill1109, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3well i think that you are all a figment of my imagination and i am the only being that exists. life is so strange i don't see any better explanation. when i came into being, one second ago, the whole universe was created instantaneously in its present "full-grown" state, together with my "memory" of "my earlier life"

    this seems to me to be a pretty simple theory and it fully explains everything so i am surprised they don't teach it in schools
    • TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If your theory were true, it would be taught in schools because your imagination would have to agree with your theory, wouldn't it?
  • cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not gonna dig this until I watch the entire two hours, but so far, it's pretty compelling.

    I used this guys textbooks in college.

  • Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4The whole literal "24 hour" creative day thing is completely flawed. The bible sometimes uses day to denote a period of time. Think of the phrase, "Back in MY day..."
    And currently, we are in the "7th" day. Which has lasted for thousands of years already.

    Now if the days were fixed in length then Jesus, the Angels, Satan and everyone else in the spirit realm would know when the "7th" day would end and Armageddon would begin. But the bible says that "No one knows except the Father".

    So there you have it, Creationism is un-biblical as well as unscientific.
    • MrData, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@haohmaru
      Why does creationism depend on only 6 literal days being the span of time? Does Armageddon HAVE to start at the end of the '7th' day?

      Are you actually thinking before you type?
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Uh....i think you've clung onto only one view of Creationism....way to kill it though.....

      Now lets get back to what most Creationists really believe.
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@SqueakyWheel
    "Easy to rip something apart in a speech. Much harder during a good discussion."

    Define a good discussion? I have never had a good discussion with a christian one this subject because they say "The Bible says it is so, therefore it must be so".

    You can hand them a stack of research. You can show them the skulls. You can show them how eyes could have evolved. It doesn't matter.

    In order to have a discussion, you need two open minds. These wacko fundamentalist don't have open minds, don't listen to evidence, and provide no evidence of their own other than "It is in the Bible!"

    They are forever looking for a "missing link" and no matter how complete the fossil record, they will never accept it as complete enough.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7They believe in a God of the Gaps.

      Every time you present evidence that would satisfy them, they move the goal posts.
    • nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You will find plenty of "closed minds" on both sides of this issue. This is one place where people make up their minds, and almost no amount of evidence to the contrary makes someone change it.

      The problem is, we know what is here now, but there is no way to know with 100% certainty how it all began. Like a murder case with no witnesses, we just have evidence that leads us to logical conclusions.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"I have never had a good discussion with a christian one this subject because they say "The Bible says it is so, therefore it must be so"."

      You could be misrepresenting the reason most Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I'm sorry you've had such horrible discussions with such ignorant folks in your experiences. Not all Christians are that ignorant. I've met a few that were really really logical.

      They believe that the Bible is true simply because of the historical evidence it brings. As well as the fact it was written by about 40 authors in a 1500 yr time frame with no contradictions.

      To say that all scientists agree on Evolution is simply, as the blunt Penn and Teller called it, *****. There always has to be debate.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But see, there ARE contradictions. Dozens of them.
      Start here.
      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
  • Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@MrData
    According to what the bible says, yes.

    Whether someone believes the bible or not isn't the point, but that if creationists claim to use the scriptures as there foundation, then they should read beyond Genesis chapter 1.
    • MrData, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@haohmaru

      Which part of the bible says that? I have actually read it, and y'know, nothing that you claimed is in there.

      I think I know which parts you're trying to twist into it. Re-read them. What Genesis calls a "day", I would call an "era". Think about it.
    • Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@MrData
      Sorry, let me correct myself, the 7th day lasts for (n + 1000) n being however long UNTIL Armageddon and then the 1000 year reign of Jesus.
      This would be based on Matt 12:8 where Jesus is called "Lord of the Sabbath". The 7th day won't come to end until God's purpose for mankind is complete are they are all brought back to perfection. So it's a still a fixed length. That could be determined by those that know how long the previous 6 days were.
  • JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I saw a program on some Christian channel about evolution. It was pretty good entertainment. I learned that Hitler used Darwin's findings on evolution to kill millions of people thus showing once and for all that evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools. Their other arguments were similarly rock solid.

    One of the commentators on this show was Ann Coulter. She provided some good one-liners. She stated that in her recent book, she didn't know the "science" behind that ID battle so she asked "scientists" at the Discovery Institute to elucidate them for her. Now she's an expert.
    • h2gofast, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I suspect she got more background info on Darwin's theories than most posters. Love or hate the wench, you have to do your homework to keep up with her discussions. We could start by understanding the definition of species and one example of a fish/alligator http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae
      is still shaky. We have one example in a century of digging, think about that for minute. Says more about the popular definition of species than what the actual definition really is, even though that too is subject to debate.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
      btw, the moth thing on the trees in London, that was a fake as Dan Rather's Bush National Guard Memo.
      The Bible didn't get creation completely right either, but that doesn't mean that Darwin was right.
      Orthodoxy is a dangerous thing, no matter who is peddling it. I doubt many Digg posters are old enough to remember Time magazine and all the scientist who were predicting an ice age, a few decades ago.
    • rblinne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Note what Wikipedia says about Francis Collins. Dr. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical, and a theistic evolutionist.

      A documentary titled "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" by the Coral Ridge Ministries released in August 2006 originally advertised that it featured Collins and claims to "show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history." However, in email exchanged with science blogger PZ Myers, Collins was "unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his knowledge." When asked by the Anti-Defamation League why he agreed to appear in such a production, Collins stated that he was "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory." Collins' name has since been removed from the Coral Ridge Ministries' promotional site however the interview segment was left in place, with Collins saying that "Man is a special creature. We are not just part of some random evolutionary process with no purpose." He also commented on the large amount of data in the genetic code of humans and on the percentage of scientists who believe in God.

      One thing that wasn't mentioned by the Wikipedia article is this press release from Coral Ridge:

      The ADL and Dr. Collins are both wrong. A producer told Dr. Collins in person before the interview began that he was being interviewed for a program that would address the adverse social consequences of Darwin. In addition, he was asked specifically, during the interview, about the Darwin-Hitler connection and responded on tape that he did not agree with that view. Dr. Collins also signed a Talent Release, which gives Coral Ridge Ministries the right to use his interview “without limitation in all perpetuity.”
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"btw, the moth thing on the trees in London, that was a fake as Dan Rather's Bush National Guard Memo."

      You are either misinformed or you are lying.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
  • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13People are still talking about this? How is intelligent design even worth acknowledging? It's the stupidest idea to come out of religious zealots in decades. Just let it die.
  • JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I saw a program on some Christian channel about evolution. It was pretty good entertainment. I learned that Hitler used Darwin's findings on evolution to kill millions of people thus showing once and for all that evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools. Their other arguments were similarly rock solid.

    One of the commentators on this show was Ann Coulter. She provided some good one-liners. She stated that in her recent book, she didn't know the "science" behind that ID battle so she asked "scientists" at the Discovery Institute to elucidate them for her. Now she's an expert.

    (I'm having the hardest time entering this captcha)
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1*****. Hit the wrong reply button/
  • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0Can someone please tell me how you can say "evolution is science, but intelligent design is not", when neither observed the beginning? Evolutionists observe things that exist today, and so do people who believe ID is true. Why is one "science" an the other isn't?
    • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Sorry, I didn't mean "beginning", I meant "distant past".
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Because one actually involves science, while the other is a bunch of untestable, unquantifiable nonsense thrown together by lunatics who have never picked up a science book in their lives.
    • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0...But you just said it's science...because it is. That doesn't help much. Why are you digging me down for asking a question that is neither biased nor stupid?
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, that's not what I said at all.
      Read the definition of science - http://www.answers.com/topic/science
      Evolution fits that definition by following certain necessary criteria, nothing about creationism fits it in the slightest.
    • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Would you mind linking these with evolution? What do evolutionists observe, identify, etc.?
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7""The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Would you mind linking these with evolution? What do evolutionists observe, identify, etc.?"

      The relevant observations and identificuations regarding the theory of evolution are existing biological diversity, morphological similarity within the diversity, the specific layout of the fossil record, that organisms replicate imperfectly, that physical traits can confer upon an organism a reproductive advantage relative to environment and -- most recently -- patterns of similarity in noncoding regions of DNA across species.

      The theory of evolution describes the means by which bioligcial diversity came to exist as a result of descent with modification and environmental reproductive pressures selecting for specific physical traits relative to various environments. It explains the layout of the fossil record and the patterns found across species across species.

      The "investigation" process involves collecting fossils, examining DNA and observing populations of biological organisms.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wow. Our education system is certainly failing us.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@gert2:

      observation: Biologists observe species changing to fit their environment, whether it be finches in Hawaii or bacteria in a petrie dish

      identification: Identifying the methods of evolution such as natural selection and genetic mutation.

      description: Describing how evolution occurs, what the results are, and tracing back the path of evolution, i.e. how this evolved from that and how this and that over there have a common ancestor here.

      experimental investigation: Causing traits to develop in organisms, such as resistance to antibiotics in bacteria, or physical traits in fruit flies.

      theoretical explanation: Putting it all together in the Theory of Evolution.

      And, just for a kicker, the word theory as used by scientists is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". The definition used by fundies, IDers and other dumbasses such as yourself is "guess or conjecture".

      The reason that Christians and other fundies don't like The Theory of Evolution is not because the Theory says there is no God. It is because the The Theory shows how the Bible is wrong and if the Bible is wrong then the God they worship might be wrong as well.

      It is not what the Theory says, but rather what it means if the Theory is right.
    • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I'm glad someone actually gave me an intelligent response.

      How have finches in Hawaii changed to fit their environment?

      (Bacteria in a petrie dish don't matter...I'm talking about macro-evolution.)
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@gert2:

      There is a type of finch in the Hawaiian islands that fed on a particular plant. The bill of this type of finch was a particular and size shape that was perfect for feeding this plant. The flowers of this plant were very popular. So is the land these plants grow on. The plants have slowly died out. The birds started feeding on different plants. The bills of the finches became smaller and changed shape to better fit the new food source. There is even a book about it. Eventually, the new finches will be a completely different species and the old species will gone.

      You can also check out the study of birch moths in London. The wings of the moths look like birch bark, which is where the moths tend to live. As the industrial revolution occured, soot turned the normally white birch trees grey. The birch moths were still white and whiter the moths the easier the pickings for the birds. Overtime, the moths evolved to match the grey color of the birches. Then, came the clean air movement. Less air polution, less soot, birches started to whiten again. And, so did the birch moths, for the same reason. The darker moths stood out more on the lighter birch trees.

      Natural selection in action.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@gert2:

      "(Bacteria in a petrie dish don't matter...I'm talking about macro-evolution.)"

      There is no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". Those terms were invented by creationists as an attempt to get around the evidence of evolution at the microscopic level because it is easy to show it at that level. Many generations of bacteria live and day in a single day. The larger the subject, the longer it takes to show change.

      There is only a single Theory of Evolution. It applies on all levels.

      The only difference between what happens in a petrie dish and what happens on an island is that the time scale is different. The same driving forces and mechanisms are at work.
    • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I can't find anything about the finches...have a link?
      And the moths, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp. Read that.

      Was anything else observed, or just those?

      On the micro/macro, micro actually happens...you can observe it. On a large scale, you have multicellular organisms. When a cell mutates, you call it "cancer", and the body rejects it, which stops the organism from evolving.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@gert2

      I would have to dig up the article on the finches, something I do not have time to do right now.

      I have read that link before. Remember, Natural Selection is a mechanism of Evolution. By stating that natural selection was the reason the moths changed color, that articles states that the moths were evolving. Had the conditions continued, the moths would have evolved into a new species of moth.You can't drive your car without the engine

      Most creationists like to try to separate the result from the cause. Natural Selection is the primary driving force behind Evolution. Trying to separate Natural Selection from Evolution is like trying to separate the running of your car's engine from driving your car. You aren't not going to get too far in your car without the engine running and you won't get much Evolution without Natural Selection.

      I really wish I knew the URL for a website I found had images of different hominid skulls lined up, from protohominid to ***** sapien. The skulls were placed in order by age. One can see clearly how the skulls changed over time from the first to the last. It is very compelling.
    • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_genetics
      It's just changing forms, not evolving. It went back. Do you mean to say it "devolved"? Why can't I have natural selection without evolution? I can run an engine without a car.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"It's just changing forms, not evolving. It went back. Do you mean to say it "devolved"? "

      Evolution is a change in alelle frequency over time. It has neither goal nor direction. "Devolved" is a word without meaning.
  • cjazz108, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
    It amazes me that the only thread that is consistent in those who argue for creation is the unwillingness to put their own beliefs, or their interpretation of the bible aside for testable results. Its like as soon as you use the word "the bible says" it has to be true and no argument can supersede that statement.
    I don't necessarily think that those who argue for evolution are always better, but I think the reason those who argue for evolution need to speak up, is that just because someone "claims" there is no connection, has no bearing on the truth of a connection. If person A with a testable claim says his test = true, and person B tests that claim, then there is a connection. Person C cannot just say, I don't believe your claim because of "xyz", ignoring the testable "theory" and the second (third fourth, 100th) person who have tested that theory.

    Put it this way. If you have known someone who has died from a bacteria (like Jim Henson of the Muppets) then you have experienced and tested the theory of evolution. Those bacteria were not originally "created" with the ability to defend against Penicillin, so they must have adapted.

    Not only this but scientists are finding that some bacteria can swap DNA in the same generation. So yes the theory of evolution itself looks like it is evolving, but again with testable theories, and results.

    I hope to god we can never test creationism. Wouldn't proving gods influence, and existence, make religion almost wholly unnecessary? There's a reason it can't be proven, we need to build our own awareness that there's more than what we see in this world don't we?
    • nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If God could be proven to exist, faith-based religion would be pointless. Those who do believe in the bible must also believe that they will not be able to quantifiably prove the existance of God. If that were possible, people wouldn't have a choice of whether to believe it.
  • JackthePirate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+62002 called. It wants it's internet meme back.
  • Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Horray for emergent object oriented intelligent design!
  • BluParadox, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Anyone else notice that he seems very fond of circular reasoning. Much of his arguement is essentially "Intellegent Design is not science because it isnt science." I'm not saying he is wrong, just that if you look closely at his arguement it isnt very persuasive.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That is because ID is not science.

      In order for something to be science, it has to be testable. ID is not testable.
      In order for something to be science, it has to have observable evidence. ID does not rely on observable evidence.
    • nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Bacterial mutation/evolution as well as small changes within a species have been observed/tested.

      Evolution of one species to another has neither been observed nor tested.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Evolution of one species to another has neither been observed nor tested."

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
    • TrnsltLife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@DaveV
      "In order for something to be science, it has to be testable. ID is not testable.
      In order for something to be science, it has to have observable evidence. ID does not rely on observable evidence."

      Well, really, ID already happens. Look up Montsanto or any other firm that does genetic engineering. At some point, I'm sure some human group will be designing organisms from the amino acids up. Also, regarding similarities in genetic structure across organism types, I can bet my ass that if Montsanto or anybody else develops a genetic code for that they use to modify one plant or animal in a particular way, they are going to copy-paste it into another organism if they want to use it there - they are not going to come up with an entirely new way to do that.

      So, as far as testability, we have some initial proof, and easy-to-verify/disprove experiments that:
      1. Intelligent Designers can design parts of DNA-based organisms, or entire organisms
      2. When they design multiple organisms, they re-use large sections of DNA code (because there is no reason to reinvent the wheel [or helix])
      3.? Not proved yet, but a good area for study: When Intelligent Designers design organisms, they can be designed to adapt to a variety of environments (beak shape/size change for example)
      4.? Not proved yet, but even given point 3, there is a limit to the extent that a particular designed organism can adapt to its environment, based on the the complexity of its initial DNA. (I.e. Hypothesis: a bird designed only to be a bird has insufficient DNA coding to ever assume the form of a mushroom, or of a kangaroo, given its original coding. However, a sufficiently intelligent designer might be able to design an organism that could give birth to kangaroo-like, mushroom-like, or bird-like offspring, based on changes in its environment).

      What would this prove, if we could prove 1-4? Although we cannot have proof of a divinity creating all life at some point in the past, it is a testable scenario that intelligent designers can design life forms. Therefore, an intelligent designer that designed all life on earth is scientifically plausible, if not scientifically provable. It is also scientifically plausible that said life could have been designed to adapt to its environment, in order to assure that it lasted as long as possible once unleashed.
  • dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Biologists should first study physics. Then they would not be so smug about what is fact and what is not. For example, students are taught about refraction and reflection in science classes by angle of incidence, refractive index, etc. This would be the classical physics explanation. An interesting book is "QED" , copyright 1985 by Richard Feynman. He poses such questions as " When light partially reflects from a pane of glass, how does the photon know whether to transmit through the glass or reflect back?"
    His theory of Quantum Electrodynamics uses probability to predict all of the ways that a photon can travel. This is a more complicated way of looking at the problem, but one that I find much more satisfying and the mathematics of it is extremely precise. Does this make it more true or more false than the classical explanation? I don't think Feynman would get upset by the question, or deny that maybe someone in the future will find a better explanation. He speaks of scientists trying to develop a grand unified theory of the universe and refers to it as a "Delightful game." And that attitude I believe is why he was such a wonderful and creative scientist.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Your point is not valid.

      Classical physics and QED are both sciences, operating on different scales. Classical physics describes the something in one way at a certain scale. QED describes the same thing in much more detail at a much smaller scale.

      Evolution is science. ID is not science. You can find my explanation of why ID is not science elsewhere.

      You may as well suggest that one compare the Theory that the Earth is an oblate spheroid with the idea that the Earth is flat.
    • dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Classical physics and QED are both sciences, operating on different scales. Classical physics describes the something in one way at a certain scale. QED describes the same thing in much more detail at a much smaller scale."

      The difference between the 2 has nothing to do with scale
  • odiHnaD, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2It's kind of interesting how there are only two schools of thought in this argument, that is either ID or Evo, and there's never the hybrid of two that I find much more likely, that is:

    Yes species will evolve and adapt to their environments after long periods of time in order to survive and thrive, makes sense; however to say that we (humans) had origins of primordial goo IMO is a little nutty, why can't they both work together? why does everyone have to be split with one or the other? They can work together, like so many things in life, many times there's a happy medium that can be found.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Yes species will evolve and adapt to their environments after long periods of time in order to survive and thrive, makes sense; however to say that we (humans) had origins of primordial goo IMO is a little nutty, why can't they both work together"

      Intelligent Design is not science. It is cotjecture, founded -- and, in fact, justified -- upon ignorance.
    • skaface69, on 10/12/200