First Weblog

To myself,

the process known as evolution and natural

selection does not contradict the concept of a

God...Just as physics reveal the laws of the

universe, evolution/natural selection is

how the universe is played out.

Did God set fourth the universe?

Perhaps, but I also think our ideas

of God is greatly immature; people often

refer to it, as Him..or She..but why

would God have a gender? What if God is

actually a collective of beings acting as one?

To me, we shouldn't teach ID in schools because

it has religious overtones -- it violates the

law of seperating state and religion -- people

may have different religious convictions which

do not include a God.

I think Einstein said it well when asked why he was trying to find a unifying theory for his theory of relativity and quantum physics. He replied that "if we would discover a unifying theory then we could understand the mind of God."

Boy, no one's jumping on this hot pad — so I'll start.

To me, science is about the empirical process of proving and disproving theories about our universe through logic, mathematics, execution/application, and/or observation.

Intelligent Design is a theory that doesn't seek to be proven or disproven, but simply to exist as a non-rational alternative. Those types of theories are more accurately termed as beliefs, pronouncements, or dictums. Whatever it is, it is fundamentally not a science, nor related to science.

Now that doesn't mean ID's not valid, nor worth discussion or teaching — it just means that it's incorrectly taught as an alternative to a scientific theory. So by the literal definition, ID is not a theory in any sense of that word.

There are lots of things that defy empirical proof in our world, but yet, has philosophical merit. Love, hatred, fate, beauty, curiosity, and yes, design. Oh yeah, let's not forget faith and religion. Are those things all pivotal to our daily lives and enrich our existence? Of course, yes. But are they alternatives to science and theories? Of course, no.

If men didn't descend from apes, then how come sometimes we're just as stupid when it comes to reasoning?

The origin of the word "design" is the Latin designare, meaning to designate. Designate then has a couple of interesting definitions to think about: (1) to give a name or title to; to characterize, and (2) to select and set aside for a duty or purpose. I suppose one could say that God designated mankind by giving him a name and a purpose.

Also interesting to consider is that the first definition of design in my aging American Heritage is "to conceive or fashion in the mind; invent." Seems a suitable pastime for a God, no? perhaps the divide stems from the fact that the IDers are considering the word design by its root meaning, while we think about it in the more contemporary graphic and industrial sense.

I would also consider the more cynical answer: that the word design is being employed to create the sheen of officialdom that ID needs to thrust itself into science classes. Kind of like when literary critics of the 60s started jabbering about the topology of a work—if you make something sound scientific, it's generally taken more seriously. They couldn't very well have called it "Intelligent Creation" or "Intelligent Invention," could they?

I think the proponents of evolution must take a look at the history of it, and certain basic scientific truths.

It was until very recently that scientists supported the view of evolution. Oddly enough at the publishing of Darwin's Species, nearly all scientists disregarded it, while preachers supported it. The theory of macro-evolution (micro-evolution, aka adaptation is well supported) has practically zero support based on evidence, only theoretical musings. In Species, Darwin expected to find millions upon millions of transitional fossils, only a handful of dubious credibility have been found. Information theory, and evolution are at odds with one another. Evolution claims that through a decrease in the diversity of the gene pool (caused by natural selection), a higher-order creature is created. Information science claims exactly the opposite: higher-order systems are only created when information is input, not removed from the system.

Micro-evolution (aka Darwin's finches, DDT surviving mosquitos) are not the battle ground. The battle ground is whether an ameoba took billions of years to turn into a human being.

>It was until very recently that scientists supported the view of evolution.

And also, until very recently, man lived in caves, hunted with rocks, and believed that the earth was flat. The history and sequence of evolution's adoption is irrelevant.

I contend that what matters here is that a belief is being redressed as a scientific theory, when in fact, it is clearly not. THAT is the battleground.

As close as it may seem,

evolution remains a theory too right?

Even though it would appear that we have

collected some evidence for evolution, nobody

can prove it; with that said, ID has even less

proof..Therefore, isn't the battle about which

theory is more scientific?

If it were such a clear-cut difference, I think

there would be less controversy...

Respectfully,

I have to be honest and say that the discussion of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution is a discussion that should probably take place somewhere else. Because the word "Design" is in the name of the proposed theory doesn't automatically enlist us as experts.

As much as I respect and admire Debbie Millman and Tan Le as design professionals, I must admit that their opinions on the existence of God, or their definitions of scientific theory mean very little to me - as I'm sure that my opinions on such things mean little to them or anyone else.

Maybe we could rename it "Intelligent Construction" and let the crane operators hash this one out?

The fact that ID is even being considered a text book-worthy alternative to evolution is saddening. How can ID possibly give any sort of concrete "scientific" answer when it's a faith-based belief system? Isn't the definition of faith believing in something even though you can't explain it? Where's the science in that?

And where do we draw the line on magical, artsy-fartsy entities building a little scale model out of galactical tinker toys? Sure, God's okay because of a Christian-dominant America, but what about other religions/Intelligent Designers? Why can't Buddha/Jehovah/Artemis/Shiva or The Flying Spagehtti Monster get a piece of the action?

I've read that one sign of an advancing society is the decreased reliance on religion to explain things. Seems to me that the whole damn thing's a giant step backwards.

As close as it may seem, evolution remains a theory too right?

Evolution is a scientific theory, that has been put through the rigors of the scientific method, a process that has rules and structure and the neccessity of repeatable physical proof. Though there may be holes, evolutionary theory has been through the process and has been able to repeatably produce results.

ID in no way has. So when you say the word theory, understand the difference.

Please.

>I must admit that their opinions on the existence of God

Danny — I respect w/ what you're saying, and agree that what I think about God is irrelevant. That's why I'm trying not to approach this as a religion vs. science/church and state issue, but rather as an issue of semantics, or the study of language. I believe that's how Debbie approached this issue — as a discussion of the use of the word "design" within this interesting but polarizing context.

For example, I'm amazed that some people here are still unable to grasp the difference in meaning between "belief" and "theory". Your association of "belief" to "God" is your own interpretative addition.

Amen ... or uh ... I concur with Danny.

One thing that I like to keep in mind is that 100 years ago humans were positive that ailments were caused by 'humors' in the body - and that by bleeding one of them out, you could reset the balance.

And these people did have facts to back up their claims (shallow, however they may be) and would have results that supported their claims.

Now, we obviously know this to be wrong.

My point is that Science is continually moving forward and a very large part of it is proving previously 'proven facts' wrong or at least incomplete.

Each step, jump or leap we make in science moves us past previously held beliefs and we continually will have to reevaluate science, our world and ourselves.

I'm not saying we're suddenly going to find out animals are actually hairy rootless plants and rocks are living organisms - but our science is more of a moving target than we like to think.

As a designer, I can appreciate our world - functionally perfect with and without us with room for infinite variation and an ability for humans to create their own (imperfect) variations on nature.

That being said, I don't think this is really a useful discussion.

Danny said:

>I must admit that their opinions on the existence of God...

Tan said:

I believe that's how Debbie approached this issue — as a discussion of the use of the word "design" within this interesting but polarizing context.

Danny--while I can appreciate that you are uninterested in my opinion on the existence of God (and I am rather sure that I did not actually offer any opinion on my belief or non-belief in the existence of God), I did indeed, as Tan suggested, approach this issue from my own bewilderment regarding the use of the word "design" in relation to theories of the origin of the universe. Hope this clarifies my posting this on Speak Up rather than here or here.

The use of the word "theory" in layman's terms versus scientific terms is also part of the confusion here. In layman's terms, we say theory to mean something that seems probable but hasn't been conclusively demonstrated; but in the scientific realm, theory applies to many issues that are nonetheless believed to have a conclusive amount of evidence behind them. As such, it is a "theory" that the hole in the ozone layer over Australia was caused by greenhouse gases; but I dare you to find a scientist who will disagree with you. Ditto with evolution.

Scientists and others hold a "belief" in evolution that they have reasoned out with mathmatics and other "current" research.

Christians and others hold a "belief" or "faith" in Intellegent design because they have been given a historical document saying as much.

Both views are theories that absolutely CANNOT be proven beyond reasonable doubt. You must take a leap of "faith" to hold a belief in evolution as there is no clear cut beginning or logical explanation to the beginning of the process. You also have to disregard the current existence of the weaker species that others have evolved from. From Darwins theory, the weaker species died out or evolved into a stonger species. If Humans evolved from apes, why are they still here (that's only the beginning of the species list).

You must also take a leap of "faith" to believe in God because we are incapable of thinking on the same level as an Intellegent designer.

To me, both theories are systems of religions that depend upon belief and faith in a supposed theory.

> Because the word "Design" is in the name of the proposed theory doesn't automatically enlist us as experts.

Danny, I initially had the same response. But at it's best, the design process has a degree of correspondence with the scientific method. Both require their practitioners to observe and describe phenomena, then to formulate either a response or an hypothesis.

If you poke around the internet, you can come up with a few amusing design critiques of the human body: missed opportunities like eyes that can't focus at middle age or the male proclivity toward hernias. We're all happy to blather on about the value of such insignificant subjects like the VH1 logo and, by the comments, many folks seemed to derive unheard of pleasure when Marian critiqued the alphabet. So why not consider the design process that gave us the male nipple?

If someone wants to prescribe my appendix as a result of such a process, then fair game.

> If men didn't descend from apes, then how come sometimes we're just as stupid when it comes to reasoning?

Tan, on behalf apes everywhere: there's no reason to be insulting.

;)

It's unfortunate that none of this I.D. stuff is actually helping us designers. Nobody's said to me "Y'know, thinking about intelligent design has made me realize how pervasive and important designers are in potentially improving so much of human experience."

It's a shame, really.

Also, it's not science, it's metaphysics: guessing at stuff we can't, by definition, observe directly in any way.

Without taking a side on the discussion of evolution v creation… I have always wondered why the two theories can't be combined into a single über theory.

Creation through intelligent design (no-caps intended) = Evolution

If there was a great deity that plucked the molecules out of nothingness and created … well … everything… why then could it not be true that this deity designed this system to evolve over time. To start small and grow into a ever expanding entity of its own. (afterall, when we as "designers" set out to create something, we have to consider how time and outside factors will grow/evolve our creation.)

This is a fundamental principle in design that must be considered, intelligent or not.

Take for example the Christian story of the Garden of Eden. God put Adam in the garden. God then created Eve, while in the garden. God created man (and woman) with free will. God also designed the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Knowledge. Take all of these elements into consideration, and God designed the Garden of Eden with intent that a possible outcome would be the one we know in the story… Eve… apple… banishment.

If we are to believe the Bible as a somewhat accurate retelling of these stories (which is a whole other discussion I don't care to take on… ), then God, as the great designer had to consider the evolution of that system, including its eventual breakdown.

As close as it may seem,

evolution remains a theory too right?

You bet evolution is a theory. So is gravity. So is planetary orbit. So what?

Often, that is the first thing out of the mouth of a proponent of ID - that evolution is a theory. It doesn't really mean anything; it is simply an attempt to discredit it in the eyes of the majority of us who do not know what 'theory' means in science.

A better question is what a good theory for how all of these species came to exist looks like. Certainly, we can all agree that the theory that I created the created the universe is a pretty lousy one. It's silly, it's full of inconsistencies, and it has no evidence. We know we don't want that one taught in our schools.

Intelligent design is no different. What is the evidence for ID? A heavenly message proclaiming our creation? A godly Born-On Date? Nope. Just the bible.. I mean ancient science book.

But seriously, the idea that "intelligent" design is anything less than creationism-redux is laughable. ID might be more comforting than the idea that we are just another species of animal, but it sure as hell isn't science.

Yes, one of the problems in having

these sort of discussions is that everybody

isn't on the same page in terms of defining

key vocab...

Again, why is it that this debate about

ID and evolution is even ongoing?

Because:

We have proof of evolution, but not enough

to make it a 100% fact. As long as it is anything

less than 100%, it opens the door for others

to challenge it as the alpha theory.

Most of us probably associate ID'ers as

religious zealots, however the most interesting

part of this debate comes from scientists who

claim that through analysis, the notion of a

divine creator is realistic...

Anyhow, the reason "design" is selected as

opposed to "invention" or "construction" lies

in the fact that it conveys more than just mere

creation -- there is a quality of elegance, even

artistic indulgence; isn't this how we would like

to think of God?

You bet evolution is a theory. So is gravity. So is planetary orbit. So what?

Yes but those theories have indisputatble evidence. To me the evolutionary theory is just as silly to me as Christians belief in Intellegent Design. SO WHAT!!

"Without taking a side on the discussion of evolution v creation… I have always wondered why the two theories can't be combined into a single über theory."

Because this 'debate' has nothing about being right or scientific veracity or philosophical harmony or exploration. It's a shell game. This is what bothers me so much about this movement. The ID debate has nothing to do with scientific rigor. It is an attempt to take back the public schools and reintroducing catechism into the curriculum. Everything else is just a way of muddying the waters and distracting from the underlying motives.

Just for clarity's sake, Darwin's theory of evolution does in no way, shape, or form hold that peeople evolved from apes. It does suggest that both people AND apes evolved from the same species, often referred to as the missing link. The classic sketch of an ape turning into a man was intended to subvert the idea of evolution and rouse people's disgust at being associated with a "lesser" species. It is not in the least accurate.

And if a "leap of faith" is required to belive in evolution, then a similiar "leap" is required to believe in the science that makes your car work, or your computer turn on, or Voyager II fly past Neptune. More like a little bitty hop.

It's just like me not to recognize a good semantics discussion disguised in religious/scientific clothing.

Oh why not ....

You bet evolution is a theory. So is gravity. So is planetary orbit. So what?

Gravity is a scientific law, not a theory.

Gravity is a scientific law, not a theory.

Therein lies some of the problem; the words "law" and "theory" are often used interchangably within science, particularly within the physical sciences. Newton's law of gravity is not, in and of itself, complete, and is therefore often referred to as a theory. Einstein's general relativity is considered a theory of gravity. The use of the words theory or law in scientific terms does not necessarily confer a greater or lesser degre of conviction.

>the most interesting part of this debate comes from scientists who claim that through analysis, the notion of a divine creator is realistic...

Sorry, Frankie, but there are no such scientists. I watched a program on this issue not too long ago, and the National Academy of Science has challenged this myth that there are credible scientists from the community that support ID as a scientific theory. All of these so-called lists from creationists, when challenged, become "confidential" or just non-existent.

The fact is, there's not a single, credible scientist that supports the validity of ID as a scientific theory worthy of consideration as an alternative to evolution.

The scientists that Debbie referred to in her intro have made no such claims. They are questioning the reasoning behind logical holes in evolution — which is in line with the scientific method.

There's a huge difference between that and your assumptive statement above.

>that people evolved from apes

I was generalizing, but actually, you're incorrect. If we're discussing specifics here, aside from the missing link, we are closest in sub-genus to the orangutans, which is an arboreal anthropoid ape (Pongo pygmaeus) of Borneo and Sumatra.

Man and apes are both of the hominid family.

Now if I had said gorilla instead of ape, then I would've been wrong.

And yes Mark — my apologies to all apes.

I suspect that Danny was right but:

at it's best, the design process has a degree of correspondence with the scientific method

The client I’ve had that seemed to understand the design process best was a bunch of biologists. Scientists, like good designers, can honestly consider an argument they don’t believe in, consider its possibilities, and reconsider their beliefs if the evidence calls for it. Too many seeming-proponents of science join the opponents of science in excess certainty.

It is clear that many intelligent design proponents are crypto creationists but that does not mean all are. Antireligious bits of ad hominem arguments or confusing various arguments are no more logical than mystical explanations of life.

The main arguments from crypto creationists are the (either ignorant or disingenuous) “just a theory” argument (where the scientific and common definitions of the word are confused) and the “object is evidence of the designer” argument. The latter is the “common sense” argument that one would never look at something as complex as, say, an alarm clock and assume it occurred naturally. This argument is used to extend “designer” to “God” despite the fact that the argument has clear implications against monotheism. One would never say “Someone must have designed this shopping mall, all of the things for sale in it, and all of the cars in the parking lot and I’ll find her in the management office.” Clearly this is a better argument for poly-deism.

More serious (and sometimes non-religious) ID proponents make a more sophisticated version of the “object is evidence” argument. They claim that the complexity of life is so highly unlikely to have come about by accident that we have to assume some supernatural force was involved. Ignoring the ontological problems of the inherent complexity of the complexity maker, a complexity that makes the origins of the Originator questionable, one can hold this view without assuming for a moment that the Children of Abraham are anything but delusional in their beliefs. Some sort of deism (mono or poly) seems to be one reasonable conclusion of this line of argument so asking “Do you think you know who the intelligent designer is?” is a good way to parse whether the argument is rationalization or rationality.

The real fault in this argument is the problem with ex post facto odds making. Something this complex could not have happened by accident because, it would seem, the odds are so long. Let’s assume for a moment that Einstein’s oft-quoted aphorism was doubly wrong and that not only does God play dice with the universe but it isn’t even God kneeling over the metaphorical bones. The chances of coming up seven is good with two six-sided dice but we’re talking thirty billion-sided dice here. These odds suck.

My brother in law is a noted mathematician/electrical engineer. He laughs at the rest of us for playing the lottery and he’s probably right that we’ll never win. It would not, however, make sense for him to claim that a lottery winner is psychotic since the odds against her were so great that it could not have happened. The odds are against my winning the lottery with a given set of numbers are long but so many people play with so many sets of numbers that the odds are good that someone will win. So throw those thirty billion-sided dice enough times and you will, indeed, come up seven.

It probably doesn’t make sense to scoff at the “unscientific” minds of those who argue complexity as evidence of something otherwise undetected, however. Carl Sagan and many others used the flip side of this sort of off-the-cuff odds making to argue for extraterrestrial life. There are so many places in the universe, he said, that life could not be limited to our planet. Whether he was right or not about life elsewhere, his argument was based on some sort of “common sense” notion of the odds. Since he didn’t know how many dice and how many sides, his notion of odds was no more accurate than those who claim the complexity of life is evidence of a non-metaphorical invisible hand.

But my brother in law will have to eat his words when I win the lottery.

My poly-deism hurts, Gunnar. Ya got any Advils?

Scientists who are attempting to equalize the presentation of Evolution and Intelligent Design.

http://www.discovery.org

They are a secular organization.

When I eat pasta at my favorite italian restaurant, I look into the bowl and ask: How could such a wondrous object have sprung merely from the human mind? Surely there must be a higher power at work! And indeed, there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I, for one, wholeheartedly support ID being taught. But only as long as it gives equal time to Allah, Jah, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Drew, DI is the biggest flim-flam, fake science organization out there. It's nothing more than a self-interest organization whose top mission is to proclaim itself as being a non-secular supporter of Intelligent Design. Its press room consists of nothing but articles of its so-called individual "fellows" touring the country, defending DI, and proclaiming their non-secularity. It's a laughable facade.

Let me ask you this: if DI's mission is to "discover and promote ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty." — then why is every press clipping about DI's stance in defense of Intelligent Design? Where are its science editorial clippings from JAMA, or the New England Journal of Medicine, etc.? What about events and PR on other aspects of the organization other than Intelligent Design? You know, the science stuff that they're such experts about.

There is a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." In the US, these statements are circulated by three primary antievolution organizations, among others: the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis.

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded.

It just smells bad. To me, DI feels like one of those Aryan Nation groups calling themselves The American Society of Preservation or some bullshit pseudonym and listing off "legit" businessmen no one's ever heard of as distinguished "fellows".

Give me a fucking break.

It's important to note that there are also a number of websites out there trying to expose these types of organizations and their propaganda tactics. So check your facts.

Try again.

Why are creationists and Intelligent Design supporters so damn deceptive? Why must they mask and hide themselves under a pretense of science and complex bureaucracy?

Why can't ID supporters be honest and proclaim their stongheld beliefs as the truths they hold so dear and defend it with intelligence, integrity and ethics?

Why do they have to resort to bullshit like the Discovery Institute facade?

Shit like that kills a little bit of our society and collective humanism.

Often, I don't even read this type of blog-spam and just move on... but, I really like this site and the discussions. But, this is not a good forum for ID or the semantics of ID or whatever bs reason you want to concoct. Hop off the bandwagon, besides you are very late to the game.

Fair enough.

You asked for it, and that was the first thing that came to mind.

The science of statistical probability militates against the very premise of evolution.

The statistical probability that just one connector bar in one strand of DNA came about by random chance is a number so large it's nearly uncomprehensable. Yet evolutionist want you believe everything came about by mere chance. Sorry but believing that takes just as much faith as a creationist.

Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. But some evolutionist will say "Evolution doesn't rely on chance."

On the contrary chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins, or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving ‘desirable’ (adaptive) features and eliminating ‘undesirable’ (nonadaptive) ones.

But the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If evolution by goo-to-you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one.

Evolutionists timeline demands that rock forms over millions of years. I challenge any of you to do a simple read up on 'Teepee Fountain' in Wyoming. A guy back in the early 1900's drove an iron spike into the ground of a mineral spring and it created what looks like a huge mushroom shaped rock about 24ft tall. Doesn't take millions of years to form things under the right conditions contrary to what evolutionists state. This rock formation took less then a 100 years not millions of years.

Here are some living fossil examples:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

I am in the details, you bunch of monkeys! What foolishness. Now, get back to work and stop pretending you know somthing on the subject!

Alright, alright… Just a quick word… Questioning whether this discussion "belongs" on Speak Up or not is a valid one. And to answer what the house rule is, it is that we are people first, designers second; and with the insane amount (over 1,150 entries) of design-related posts in the archives I feel more than comfortable with any of our authors exploring tangential topics every now and then. Today it might be Intelligent Design, tomorrow it might be Oprah.

So, you can choose to read or not to read and you can choose to agree or not agree and you are always more than welcome to voice your opinions as long as you keep an open mind and acknowledge that design is more than, well, design and that life, the world, people of all kinds — for better or for worse — shape and form the context within which design is practiced.

Von Glitschka, I have one simple question: How old do you think the earth is?

The earth was created on Sunday the 21. of October, 4004 B.C. at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.

(Yes, it's a quote :)

For those interested:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0441003257/ref=sib_dp_pop_ex/103-7614429-9168645?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00H#reader-page

I do reccomend the read :)

On the surface, theres something inherently "belief- orientated" in much of the design/work we do. Do you unconciously design crosses or stars into your work?

I'm not incredibly religious but people see what they wanna see. I had an art director from an evangelical magazine call a few months back evoking something religious in a piece that I saw as conceptually generic. The next day as art director from New Zealand saw the same image as perfect for a Brewery (true story).

I'm touching up the image as we speak for NCLR, the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Gotta love it/ everyone.

deb, i thought your first (or second?) question to Sagmeister in your interview was quite great/ ballsy/ good ("do you believe in God") His answer was equally unflinching - which was/ is refreshing.

How many creationist would be willing to subject themselves to chemotherapy, in the event that they had cancer? Quite a few, I suspect, and they would never question the doctors ability to precisely control the dosage down to the millirem. Of course, that ability comes from an incredibly complex understanding of radiation and half-lifes and the rate of decay etc etc, and yet that same science used to date fragments of bone or shards of pottery from thousands of years ago suddenly becames wild conjecture and outlandish theory. What the creationists refuse to acknowledge is how so much of the modern world, and the technology we take for granted, would not even EXIST, if science's understanding of the most basic processes of the earth and its elements was off by SEVERAL BILLION YEARS. Its all interlinked.

"We come spinning out of nothingness, scattering stars like dust" -Rumi

I offer this quote, as my fondness for Rumi may show, but also to add another viewpoint to this discussion. Consider how Poetry [design of constructing relationships between words, metaphors, story, and cadence] can parallel theories/laws distilled through the rigors of the scientific method.

Poetry and science serve different audiences [heart/mind, spiritual/intellectual] within ourselves, but yet all spring from the same creative fountain called the human experience.

I haven't read anything on Idesign, besides the news clips, but I think it doesn't hurt to consider these creative notions. Perhaps the idea of Idesign exists between the pillars of Poetry and Science? In that middle lies an almost infinite expression of how we attempt to define the mysteries of our existence.

Poetry shouldn't be taught in science classes either. And that is what this debate is about; not whether ID/creationism ought to be part of a national discussion, but whether or not it should be taught in a science course. We don't instruct history teachers to give lessons on nuclear physics; we shouldn't expect our science teachers to provide religious instruction.

Intelligent Design?

Who designed the pug? Who decided that tails and floppy ears on Dobermans are superfluous ornamentation? Is our species really worthy of knowing who the Ultimate Designer is — if there is one? We can’t even stop mucking around with what he/she/it created anyway. And we worry about what Paul Rand would think of the UPS logo!

Ah... 42!

Poetry shouldn't be taught in science classes either.

I have to agree with Mandy on this one. At the university level, classes centered in religion are generally offered as elective credits, (with the exception of some private, religious colleges). At the elementary-thru-highschool level of education, this scientific theory should not come into discussion, at least not in the public education forum.

Parents, if you want your kids to learn a chosen religion:

a_ take them to church/temple/etc

b_ send them to a private school that is based in your chosen faith.

Religious people/politicians:

a_ stop trying to force your religion onto those around that believe otherwise, especially in the name of science, freedom, and democracy.

b_ instead try to spread the influence of the basic elemental principles of most religions: don't kill people; lead a good and honorable life; try to live in harmony with yourself and the people and environment around you.

But I can’t help but wonder why and how the word DESIGN got thrown into this argument?

(From Debbie's original post)

I blame that great, Canadian God of Design, Bruce Mau.

Re: polytheism (Gunnar), did anyoneread the "Shouts and Murmers" from a recent-ish (about a month ago) issue of the New Yorker, where the Christian God is designing the world and all the other Gods are helping him out, offering suggestions and (sometimes catty) critiques?

Frickin' hilarious.

I'm really tempted to take Mark up on the critique of the human body, seeing as people seem to like it so much (Mark, are you calling me a pop star?). And certainly I have my complaints.

While I'm quite fond of the male nipple, I have never understood why on earth we don't have exoskeletons, or something that would make us a little less vulnerable to being squished. Compound eyes would be good, and the ability to see the full spectrum of colours (now there's something a designer could use), as well as see in the dark. A few tentacles would be incredibly helpful for holding phones while typing, picking up the pica ruler from the other desk and holding/demonstrating several comps at one time. Also please, a prehensile tail—who wouldn't want one of those? Finally, why we're not covered in photovoltaic cells and get our energy from the sun instead of eating and shitting all the time is totally beyond me—this world would be a totally different place if we were.

If Bruce Mau designed the planet, I think he really screwed up with the human body.

p.s.

I'm with Tan.

>critique of the human body

I, for one, wished that we could regrow limbs like reptiles. Did you ever wonder just how much of your finger could grow back and why?

>not whether ID/creationism ought to be part of a national discussion, but whether or not it should be taught in a science course.

EXACTLY.

Furthermore, I'm not opposed to discussing or teaching creationism in a different context than religion, but just NOT as a science alternative to evolution. Just don't mask it and serve it up as something that it's not.

In college, one of my favorite class was an Antiquities English class where we studied parts of the Old Testament as a piece of literature — just like if it was a work of Shakespeare, Hugo, or Dickens. It was fascinating to examine the Bible in a totally different context, without the baggage of religion. But we all knew exactly what it was, and how we were choosing to examine it.

marian bantjes’s comment is:

Re: polytheism (Gunnar), did anyoneread the "Shouts and Murmers" from a recent-ish (about a month ago) issue of the New Yorker, where the Christian God is designing the world and all the other Gods are helping him out, offering suggestions and (sometimes catty) critiques?

Here's a snippet, and a link:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

by PAUL RUDNICK

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/shouts/050926sh_shouts

Day No. 1:

And the Lord God said, "Let there be light," and lo, there was light.

But then the Lord God said, "Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy,

sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I

design will look younger?"

"I'm loving that," said Buddha. "It's new."

"You should design a restaurant," added Allah.

Read the rest at: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/shouts/050926sh_shouts

I also think this whole walking around on 2 legs thing is pretty stupid. As Laurie Anderson said, "We're always falling, and catching ourselves from falling." What kind of perambulation is that?

I've resisted jumping into this one so-far (I got pretty het-up last time we discussed this topic) - but I couldn't resist.

It seems to me that by trying to force Science into religion, it brings the whole edifice crashing down like a house of cards.

If god is an all-powerful supernatural being who can do anything; who answers our prayers, and demands our love, then trying to understand him scientifically is pretty pointless. If God controls physical laws then what's to stop him changing them all the time.

However, if God is constrained by the laws of physics, as we are, then he doesn't seem so all-powerful any more. And who set these physical laws in place before God came along?

Some Christians say that science is just plain wrong. Fair enough, if you want to believe this, go ahead (I disagree strongly, and I'll keep arguing until I'm blue in the face).

However, some Christians try to squeeze a little bit of science into religion. Some say that Evolution does indeed occur, and God just sits back and watches things happen.

The trouble with this opinion is that as science progresses, God get pushed further and further into the gaps in our knowledge - with the result that God becomes unnecessary for a description of the physical world.

And if God is just a powerless overseer, just as unable to change the physical world as we are - then what's the point worshiping him.

Of course, I'm being Devil's Advocate here, and I'm sure many people will disagree with me. I just feel that you can't try to turn supernatural explanations into natural ones.

A designer does not work by supernatural means. We do not need to worship a designer.

"The statistical probability that just one connector bar in one strand of DNA came about by random chance is a number so large it's nearly uncomprehensable."

How many odd random things could happen during an eternity?

The statistical probability is all of them, every single possible random thing.

Evolution is the designer. Evolution is where flawed information is removed.

Evolution is why scandinavians are fair skinned and Africans are dark skinned.

Evolution is what leads us closer to perfection and therefore closer to God.

What is God?

God is not comprehensible in humans terms.

God is not a he or she.

What is God?

The question isn't 6000 years or a billion years.

Eternity exist undeniably. Infinity exist undeniably.

What is God?

???????????

This is my first time at Speak Up. Not quite what I expected.

I am a Christian (and a graphic designer).

I believe that God created the universe. I do not believe a random combination of chemicals happened to come together, explode, and create the universe as we know it. I believe that the creation of the universe, the existence of life, and the perfect balance of everything in the natural world must have some kind of intelligence behind it to work the way it does. Everything in our cosmos works quite perfectly (that is, until we humans come along and screw it up). In my mind, pure "chance" cannot fit into this equation.

I am not closed minded. I am not judgmental of other people's thoughts or opinions or lifestyles or whatever. I do not fight to have religion taught in schools, nor do I understand the complete resentment by some to reading the Pledge of Allegiance or to a teacher who wears a cross.

There are people who believe that the Big Bang was an accident, and since then everything that has happened has been a process of evolution. There are people who believe that everything that is, is because God created it that way. Two very polarized views. To have a group come in and essentially say there is some kind of intelligent force behind at work in evolution (or whatever other natural phenomenon); I don't think is a terrible thing.

In Genesis, it says God created everything. Looked at His creation, realized something was missing, and then created man. Does this mean God made monkeys, and had them turn into humans? I do not know. I wasn't there, and I'm not God. Did got create a system in which animals would be able to grow and change according to their environments? I don't know. And how much does it matter? Are we in a society so polarized that independent thought (whether it be evolutionist, creationist, or intelligent design) must be attacked utterly by the opposition? I thought we were free to believe and think and speak what we want. Must we always attack or be attacked when doing so? Can we not cover all 3 viewpoints in a classroom? I mean schools are cutting art and music and other independent thinking type classes from their curriculum, you'd hope that would open up a few more hours of class time here and there.

I can look at a well designed poster and appreciate it. Some may argue that it was created using Adobe products, others that it was using Macromedia products. (I guess the ID people would then argue about the Adobe/Macromedia merger. Hahaha). We should all just be able to look at the artwork and say, "Well, however it was done [read: designed], it was done well."

To Ross: It would be great if we could cover the viewpoint in school, as long as it was labeled as a religion class and not science. ID is all dressed-up and labelled (in such the trendy way) to make it more acceptable to the mainstream. In reality, it is nothing more than religious theory masquerading as science. And that is where we need to draw the line.

I personally can't say whether G-d designed or Woody Allen designed the world I live in, and honestly, the 'who' doesn't much matter to me. What matters is how I treat that world, how I function within it and what things I do to ensure the future of it.

Honestly, I feel, despite their credentials, that ID has as much credibility as science as the Jews for Jesus have for being Jewish.

Hey Rob:

I definitely think science should stay in science class, and religion should stay in a religion class. With a topic like creation however, where there are such big and varying viewpoints, I don't think it would be inappropriate to mention all 3 viewpoints, not to promote one over the other, but to educate people that there are groups of think differently about such things. To teach only one point-of-view as absolute truth (when there is indeed science to the contrary) I think is a bit narrow-minded. Present ALL the evidence, and let the "viewer" decide. But I guess for ALL the evidence, a different kind of class would be more appropriate.

Pretty sure Woody Allen didn't create the world - if he did, we'd all being marrying our step daughters. =)

"As a parent and a person of faith, I want to share my religious beliefs with my own children," said Dover resident Bryan Rehm, one of the parents involved in the lawsuit and a high school physics teacher. "But as a teacher, it would be a great disservice and fallacy to teach students that a perfectly valid faith constitutes scientific knowledge."

—from a press release from the ACLU, who is challenging the Dover, PA school board on behalf of several teachers and parents

Hi, I'm just a random guy that happened to see this post. I would just like to add a few things to this rather lively conversation:

I am a christian. I used to support the intelligent design movement, but i think i'm changing my mind. This has been a topic most recurring on my mind since i read it in time magazine article. I agree with whoever says the Intelligent Design is a belief. I also agree with those who think that Evolution requires faith to stand by it. Belief is a great thing because it's personal, and so is christianity. My christianity is different from every individual that goes to my church. The problem we face is when the individual belief is passed onto another.

For example. When i was in highschool, i believed the world was created by God and whatnot. They taught me about evolution and i had my thoughts about it. Now that i think about it even more, teaching evolution in schools is based on the opinion of some comitte who figured it was something that needed to be taught. They came to their collective decision (unanimous or not) and rendered a decision. It was their belief that it was something that should be taught. They passed their belief/decision on to teachers who had to do the curriculum, which then ended up being presented to me. Now i can care less about whether they teach ID or evolution.

I can also care less if people who believe different than myself want to mock my beliefs. Why? because its my belief. Not theirs. their opinions matter little to me. On the flip side, because i have me beliefs, does it mean that i automatically understand everything there is to know about this world? no. I know full well in my beliefs that i can be wrong. do i care? no.

What if i believe in the wrong god? what if there is no god? makes little difference to me. I would still live life how i do. I'm sorry if i frustrate people, but i'm just not into debates. debates are based on opinions, not facts. Sure we can bring in facts to back up our claims, but somebody else mentioned that scientific facts are reevaluated and altered based on new evidence. So really, there is no certainty in debates, so it all opinions, beliefs, interpretations, viewpoints, perspectives, subjective understanding. Sounds a lot more like artistic method than we may think.

To add another level to the conversation, everything stated here as comments by everyone is a belief. We may disguise it by facts and proofs and evidence, and quotes, but you still believe in its truth, while others may not. So therefore its a belief. To say there is objective truth in opinion or perspecitve is to say that "i'm feeling hot". The temperature of the room is objective, the effect on the individual is subjective. We all believe in something, so call it what it is.

I present you with a perspective (my own).. you make the choice whether to agree or not, believe in it or not. Scientific truth would exist, should we be the creators of said truth.

I am deeply sorry for the long rant. Forgive me if i upset anyone.

Belief —

1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in anotherr.

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Faith —

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing.

4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Religion —

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

....

Theory —

1. 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.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.

Science —

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

4. Methodological activity, discipline, or study.

5. An activity that appears to require study and method.

6. Knowledge gained through experience.

One is science, the other is mythology. Both are interesting in their own ways.

Wow. I'm late to this one. How did I miss this on a slow Friday? ;o)

when in fact, it is clearly not. THAT is the battleground.

Well, whether or not it's a science is the battleground on the science side. On the rapture right, they shift the battleground in attempt to make a debate where one doesn't even exist. Alas, it works.

The current right is, at the very least, very adept and taking language and using it to their own benefit. The issue of 'theory' vs. 'scientific theory' is yet another example of that.

And Von's post is pretty good at it too. Tossing out a handful of correlations that don't go anywhere but, as a whole, have a thread of 'hey, that kind of makes sense' on the surface.

But ID doesn't question itself, as if it did, it'd crumble as a science. Science is constantly questioning itself, that is the scientific process.

Debating ID is fun, but never will be conclusive, just as debating the Star Wars paperbacks would be. Science at least heads us in a particular direction.

In the end, both can coexist just fine, along with all the other mythical belief systems as to how we got here, but only one belongs in science class.

So really, there is no certainty in debates, so it all opinions

My biggest beef with the ID 'movement' is that it's sole purpose to exist is to persuade people that questioning anything is futile. It breeds ignorance.

From a purely design/marketing standpoint, I think the ID movement is fascinating. They've done an incredible job at selling snake oil. They KNOW their target audience.

I'd like someone to provide conclusive proof that I didn't create the universe.

I find it amusing to discover how many freethinking designers want the government to squelch dissent in order to protect the Darwinism hegemony. Next I guess I'll be reading everyone's defense of Bill Gates and Helvetica.

No one is sqaushing anyone's dissent. Anyone who wants to promote ID or any other kind of creationism is free (and encouraged) to do so. Just don't walk into the schools and tell kids it's science. That's not dissent—it's lying.

Darrel said:

"My biggest beef with the ID 'movement' is that it's sole purpose to exist is to persuade people that questioning anything is futile."

Absolutely. I'm more and more persuaded that questioning Darwinism is futile. Back in line!

Darrel wrote:

My biggest beef with the ID 'movement' is that it's sole purpose to exist is to persuade people that questioning anything is futile. It breeds ignorance.

I always thought the purpose was to present alternative lines of thought. But I could be wrong, i wasn't there when they (ID) decided it was a worthwile cause to pursue.

Webmaster wrote:

Science —

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

4. Methodological activity, discipline, or study.

5. An activity that appears to require study and method.

6. Knowledge gained through experience.

Mandy wrote:

Just don't walk into the schools and tell kids it's science.

Calling evolution a science based on this definition is also flawed. Evolution tries to describe origin, (ie Darwin's The Origin of Man) among other things.

Since origin would mean a starting point, "in the beginning..", it would be impossible to "observe, identify, describe, experimentally investigate" said origin since we weren't there. We can only speculate based on the results of said origin. Far too ambitious as far as i can tell.

That said, the bible's description (In the beginning) is one that must be trusted in entirely in faith, and nowhere am i saying that is a science.

Based on my earlier statement, adherance to evolution is a faith as much as trusting a doctor during an operation is faith. There isn't any certainty in these scientific proofs because we're humans, and as humans, we're flawed. We make mistakes. We get as close as we can to finding the truth, but we never completely discover it for more reasons than one. So we sit there and say "well, 99% there.. call it perfect" and adopt it as truth.

Its all kind of comical to me. Because if the events of the bible in Genesis are false, then the author put Freud to shame in understanding the human condition. The desire that ultimately led to the fall was when the serpant said "God knows that the moment you eat from that tree, you'll see what's really going on. You'll be just like God, knowing everything, ranging all the way from good to evil." (MSG).

We as humans still want to be like (a) god and "know everything", and why not? We're supposedly made in his image.

I present a new definition to Science: Ideas of Humans, subjected to a limited range of experimentation, limited only by which experiments we can think of to subject said ideas to. The grammatically incorrect definition by Devon's Dictionary.

sorry, crap.. i meant to say Darwin's "Origin of species" not man.. my bad.

a humble observation:

After all the talking, Science and Faith remain Theory and Belief, not Fact and Superstition.

The scientists I have talked to during my years doing science illustrations always say Science is about observing the observable. Faith is a leap into believing the unobservable. Both are unshakable, and probably not converging for the very reason that, despite their similar start (Who, what and where are we in the universe) they go in opposite directions for answers.

Design is delight in both Pattern and Choas.

An antidote for the discussion can be found at:

http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html

Debbie Millmans's thesis question:

"I can’t help but wonder why and how the word DESIGN got thrown into this argument?"

The debate has drifted. But why DESIGN is in the argument is the essential question. It's because design is strategic. A good strategy is the basis for selling anything and that is why design is a hot marketing agent now. Pitching the creation hypothesis as "Intelligent Design" is purely a strategic tactic.

As a strategy though, ID has an essential flaw. It's too easily discredited because there is no scientific basis. While evolution theory has a sound scientific basis, there is no demonstratable proof of the ID hypothesis outside of the Bible. And Genesis is exceptionally unscientific.

To Pesky and all the Google mailers, I am a faithful follower of God. My faith is based on continual questions and answers though, not blind faith. What do you guys have faith in? How does God fit into the scientic equation? If we are to accept that the Intelligent Designer is eternal, then doesn't the same logic mean there is an equal probability that the universe has always existed as it is now too?

I asked the ultimate question before. What is God? What is the Intelligent Designer?

I'm still questioning all of this. I asked how does God fit into the scientific equation. Maybe that question should have been how does science fit into the God equation? Should the old testament be a litmus test for what we teach as science?

Okay, lets put creation to one side, so that we can discuss design.

The two terms imply different things. Creation is the act of generating something new, wheras design is creating something with a specific result/goal/achievement in mind.

It may seem obvious then, that by definition all design must be intelligent: in order to 'have a specific result in mind', there must be a mind.

However, Darwin showed that, through a simple process of 'descent with modification', nature can produce something that looks like design, and has similar results to design; but involves no mind at all.

This is a remarkable observation, from which we may draw a number of different conclusions:

1. Darwin, and the vast majority of biologists since him, are wrong

2. It's wrong to say there's no mind involved. Since design must be inteligent by definition, there must be a mind - science just hasn't discovered it/refuses to discover it/is looking in the wrong place etc.

3. We can call the reslults of biological processes 'design'. It's wrong to say that design must, by definition, be intelligent. Design is just the process by which things are produced in response to circumstances. Design does not imply a mind.

4. We should only use the term 'design' when we talk about the things produced by humans. To talk about 'design' in any other context is meaningless. We should use another term for biological processes.

5. 'Design' does not exist. Human 'design' is also just the result of physical processes, and the idea of a 'mind' is just as meaningless.

6. Since human 'design' and biological 'design' lead to similar sorts of results, they are really part of the same thing. The human mind and the 'mind' of biology are both part of a larger whole. Some call this 'nature', others call it God.

Most of the time, my own view is number 4, although when I'm in more philosophcal moods I find myself drifting over to number 5 and number 6.

After all the talking, Science and Faith remain Theory and Belief, not Fact and Superstition.

SCIENTIFIC theory--which does not equal 'theory'.

they go in opposite directions for answers.

Excellent way to put it.

Pitching the creation hypothesis as "Intelligent Design" is purely a strategic tactic.

Yep. The ID 'debate' is more about politics than anything.

Should the old testament be a litmus test for what we teach as science?

Hmm...I think it'd be a lot more fun to use Harry Potter for the litmus test.

Original Title for Darwin's Book

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Theory and Belief

a theory can be proven or disproven

a belief is an intangible, unprovable hypothesis. it is neither right nor wrong, because it has no real application.

// on a complete tangent_ ever notice how a people with religious beliefs are much more prevalent to make war… that is to say, a people that are spiritually enlightened and practice a theology of how they should live their lives in order to reach harmony and better standard for the entire community… are faster to go to war (to kill and destroy the community of man). and why... in the name of their beliefs.

what was the name of that war between the biologists and the physicists again? //

getting back to the original topic as to why Design is used in titling this belief…

it is all a matter of branding. by advertising this hypothesis as a theory of "Design," it sells itself to its intended audience: people that want to believe in a higher power, but lack the faith and spirituality necessary to support their own belief system.

it is like the annoying kid in the school yard daring your to "prove it! PROVE IT!" Faith, religion, and spirituality do not exist in the world of proof. this is BY DEFINITION what it means to have faith or to believe.

I have always been amazed and in awe of how elements that make up our lives and the lives around us (nature) figured out how to operate as they do. The human body, for example, is the most amazing thing. The more biochemistry I take and learn- the more I am amazed. Plants amaze me, how were they formed, how in the world do cells… do elements… know what to do what they do? I understand genetics… but what came before genetics? What created everything? I just think it was a miracle in the end.

I have always believed that design was an intricate element of nature and of evolution. However, as a biologist (microscopist- I look at things and how they function up close and personal all the time), designer and an individual with faith, I have come to the conclusion that we cannot question nature and how it has come to be. We must realize that life as it is today has come to this point in a way we will never be able to unquestionably define. I know it is in our human nature to question everything. It is in our nature to understand everything too; but when do we finally admit to ourselves that we will just never know everything in our lifetime here on earth? As far as I am concerned, all we have to rely on these relatively short years we have on this earth are our individual beliefs, because we will never know exactly how things became the way they have become today.

Pitting God and Design (Intelligent Design) against Nature and Design will be an endless argument because both “sides” will always claim to have unambiguous proof to support their theory. I honestly believe design is involved no matter what- that cannot be argued because the proof is right in front of us as we go about our lives every single day. The way our body functions, the way plants function to keep life as we know it physically alive, the way every single organism functions from the single celled bacteria to the complex body… is a design.

Genetics are a definite… Evolution becomes more and more solid of a theory every day because more things are found and more connections are made. Scientists work with factual elements everyday whether they be biological, chemical, or physical- most likely they are a combination of all three. Scientists slowly understand more and more how things are able to function today. But even they cannot answer what element has guided nature along the way. Couldn’t it be guided by chance… chance is a form of design isn’t it? Couldn’t it be a possibility that it was guided by some higher form that guided natural selection? How come that can’t be an option? How come there can’t be a balance in opinions and thoughts? But then again… what created that form? For those who call it God, may I dare question, what form, force or being created God? Many can accept that God has always been there, even though we do not know this for sure… so why can’t we accept and believe anything else?

It all boggles my mind and makes it spin thinking about it- so isn’t it better sometimes to just sit back and be thankful that life is as it is? That the way our world is designed is an amazing thing? Why don’t we just sit back and be thankful that a combination of factors have brought nature to where it is today… and we may never know how… but we can certainly learn to appreciate it and in turn begin to care for it.

Intelligent design, huh? Okay, so let's go ahead and claim that our world was manifested through complex processes, and include that for discussion in the classroom. So was God in charge of this all? How much have we perpetuated His/Her design? What about all the times we've f%^#ed it up?! We're turing this into a tautology, and rather than miring in the deep bog of religion and philosophy, ask yourself, Does this have to be a religious debate? Whether it's something, somebody, or some force that "designed" this place, let's just focus on the fact that it's complex, rich, intertwined, and meaningful. Bringing religion into the equation is a classic case of making this into an "us" versus "them" debate between believers and non-believers (or specifically theologians versus scientists). In the end, all of this confirms what we already know, not enough about design is taught in middle schools. So would somebody please create a beautiful information graphic that visualizes what took place from Genesis to the present day! Or at the very least, start with the apes. I don't care, but make it beautifully designed so students will fall in love with it, and we'll have more designers in the near future.

sgj sed:

"on a complete tangent_ ever notice how a people with religious beliefs are much more prevalent to make war… that is to say, a people that are spiritually enlightened and practice a theology of how they should live their lives in order to reach harmony and better standard for the entire community… are faster to go to war (to kill and destroy the community of man). and why... in the name of their beliefs."

True, such as the enlightened Darwinists and atheists who started so many of the wars of the 20th century.

Since there are a number of tangential comments woven in this thread...

Mr. Frankie L ponders in the first comment:

"What if God is actually a collective of beings acting as one?"

Genesis 1:26 states:

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

While I try and avoid debates, and as i have tried (while stating my opinions) to remain general and not claim my opinion is truth, i do love discussing abstract ideas and concepts. A friend and I spent an entire night trying to discuss the topic of The Nature of God according to the Bible. The abstract comments and questions, and ideas we came across blew our fragile minds to pieces.

This conversation, ever circling, is much like the one i had with my friend, with the exception of several different standpoints as opposed to just one other. I love hearing perspecitves. Danielle stated a position that i have to agree with, although she put it way better than i ever could.

I feel that evolution has some great ideas. I believe in adaptation and micro-evolution, thats for sure. But trying to describe origin, i feel, is something that will never come with a fact sheet. I think it will always be left to the realms of faith, regardless of where that faith lies: scientifically or spiritually.

I can't help but feel like i'm in an art gallery, and that we are criticising artwork on a wall based on the character of the artist. The artwork is nice, regardless of who we think the artist is.

Relating to the human body, i read a book that analyzes the beauty of the human body in as many ways as it can. Written by Christian Author Phillip Yancey and Dr. Paul Brand, the book is titled: "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made." There is a disclaimer though, for people who may be offended by (christian) religious beliefs: The book is written to be an analogy on the "Body of Christ" ie the church, and is biased in that sense. However, the information and analasys of the physical body, as well as the many defects it could have is a beautiful description of something i take for granted every day. Either way, its an interesting read and i recommend it.

Pitting God and Design (Intelligent Design) against Nature and Design will be an endless argument because both “sides” will always claim to have unambiguous proof to support their theory.

Uh, no. Scientists don't pit science against religion. Some religous folks, and some politicians try to pit religion against science.

True, such as the enlightened Darwinists and atheists who started so many of the wars of the 20th century.

What is a 'darwinist'? Do they have pot lucks and bingo nights?

Anyhoo, the point you were trying to rebut was that many wars have been fought in the name of religious doctrine. Few (any?) have been fought in the name of science (though perhaps there's been a few fought in the name of junk science). Not that there hasn't been plenty of wars fought in the name of greed, power, and the like as well.

Darrel’s comment is:

True, such as the enlightened Darwinists and atheists who started so many of the wars of the 20th century.

People who say this are usually referring at least in part to Hitler, which is actually inaccurate. He may not have been a practicing Christian, but he was quite the occultist and spiritualist.

This pretty much puts ID in the proper context.

Darrel sed:

"Anyhoo, the point you were trying to rebut was that many wars have been fought in the name of religious doctrine. Few (any?) have been fought in the name of science (though perhaps there's been a few fought in the name of junk science)."

And my point is that it's unfair to somehow link a debate on intelligent design and creationism to people killing each other in the name of religion. "Ooh, they disagree with me, Christians agree with them, so that reminds me of other people with completely different belief systems who are warmongers."

It's a muttonheaded, false correlation.

And my point is that it's unfair to somehow link a debate on intelligent design and creationism to people killing each other in the name of religion.

It's unfair that IDers even call it a debate in the first place.

It's a muttonheaded, false correlation.

Yes, that's exactly what the ID 'debate' is.

This pretty much puts ID in the proper context.

It does. Nice link.

Darrel sed, while quoting me:

"'It's a muttonheaded, false correlation.' Yes, that's exactly what the ID 'debate' is."

Or to translate: "I know you are, but what am I?"

That's bloody hilarious, Kenneth. Thanks for the link.

...It's skinny, then thick, then skinny again....

...And the ID mechanism is not a literal mechanism, but only refers to a mechanism in the sense of the word. But not really...

I bloody love it.

Or to translate: "I know you are, but what am I?"

What?

muttonheaded idea

i like that.

muttonhead

NOUN: Informal A stupid person; a fool.

ETYMOLOGY: From the proverbial stupidity of sheep.

an ironically fitting descriptor for this subject matter, don't you think.

my point was not to try to link the discussion of ID to war, killing, etc. Instead i was using a completely seperate example (denoted by the disclaimer // on a complete tangent_ ) as a means of illustrating how principle ideas such as peace, harmony, and even design are often bastardized and ripped apart in the name of someone's beliefs. The sad part is this is done, not to strengthen the resolve of an individual's faith, but to push the ideals of one group onto another.

thanks for the link Kenneth.

fantastic!

I fail to see why ID is regarded as pseudoscience or non-scientific for that matter. As evolutionary theory cites evidence for the design seen in nature coming about through a random and trial and error process, ID also, through objective and scientific means, explores the theory that the design was engineered by a mechanism that we are unaware of. From a scientific viewpoint both of these theories must be explored if the facts about our origins are to be understood.

Opponents of ID claim that ID is nothing but religion in a new package but this is not the case. ID does not make any claims as to who or what the designer is, only theorizes that there is one. While the exact nature of the designer may be beyond the grasp of science at this point, the tangible effects of a theorized creation are definitely subject to scientific inquiry. As long as ID stays withing this parameter it remains scientific and should be taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools. If it were to address the issue of exactly who or what the "designer" is without scientific evidence it has crossed the line into the realm of religion.

As someone stated above, macro-evolutionary theory is still just a theory and lacks an enormous amount of the transitionary forms that such a theory would call for. Yet, most of us have adopted it as truth without considering any alternative and we are quick to laugh at the "naive" creationist for their blind faith.

For years evolutionary theory has fought the narrow-minded and dogmatic views of creationists yet, it seems when ID comes along, being another valid and logical avenue science has yet to explore, the evolutionists have become as narrow-minded and dogmatic as the ones they fought against a century before.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate

Rat’s comment is:

I fail to see why ID is regarded as pseudoscience or non-scientific for that matter. As evolutionary theory cites evidence for the design seen in nature coming about through a random and trial and error process, ID also, through objective and scientific means, explores the theory that the design was engineered by a mechanism that we are unaware of. From a scientific viewpoint both of these theories must be explored if the facts about our origins are to be understood.

Opponents of ID claim that ID is nothing but religion in a new package but this is not the case. ID does not make any claims as to who or what the designer is, only theorizes that there is one. While the exact nature of the designer may be beyond the grasp of science at this point, the tangible effects of a theorized creation are definitely subject to scientific inquiry. As long as ID stays withing this parameter it remains scientific and should be taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools. If it were to address the issue of exactly who or what the "designer" is without scientific evidence it has crossed the line into the realm of religion.

ID fails as a science because it presents no peer-reviewable, solid scientific research. Evolutionary science has, and does. Until ID "Scientists" are willing to step up to the plate and engage the scientific world in the accepted manner — through peer-reviewed research — ID belongs in the philosophy class.

You make an intersting point, Theo. Although I find the same dilemna true of evolutionary theory. A proponent of ID would say that the design seen in nature is the cause of a designer. A proponent of evolution would attribute this to natural selection, in a sense, another version of a designer.

When an evolutionist is asked how natural selection produced things as complex as an eye, a bat's sonar or other things in nature that exhibit a high degree of design there answer is always the same. They reason that over millions of years time and through a trial an error process these things came about. Yet, the exact mechanism and details of how natural selection works are never explained by scientists. Because of this reason I fail to see how natural selection is any less ambiguous and "mystical" than the theory of a supernatural designer.

Take the human eye for example. To design such a thing someone somewhere must have understood rods and cones as well as the properties of light even, I'm assuming, on the subatomic level to get the organ to funtion the way it does. Natural selection produced this? It sounds like there is an organizing influence that we are unaware of. That is why I find ID to be valid.

This just hit Yahoo News about an hour ago.

"Vatican: Faithful should listen to science"

My mouth is still agape.

Dover voters oust intelligent design supporters

That's a good article, but the linked one about the Kansas Board is even better.

Some excerpts.

“These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists....In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

Semi-related to the original topic of semantics: I find it ironic that ID supporters are using words such as "dogma" and "fundamentalists" when talking about anti-ID/pro-science supporters. They even go further by "redefining" the word "science" itself, because it's apparently too limiting in their eyes.

Do they really think people are that stupid? Apparently so, and apparently, yes, they are. At least they are in Kansas.

How laughably tragic for Kansas.

Tan’s comment is:

Do they really think people are that stupid? Apparently so, and apparently, yes, they are. At least they are in Kansas.

But not, apparently, in Dover, PA:

A Decisive Election in a Town Roiled Over Intelligent Design

DOVER, Pa., Nov. 9 - In the end, voters here said they were tired of being portrayed as a northern version of Dayton, Tenn., a Bible Belt hamlet where 80 years ago a biology teacher named John Scopes was tried for illegally teaching evolution.

On Tuesday, the residents of Dover ousted all eight school board members running for re-election who had put their town in a global spotlight and their school district on trial for being the first in the nation to introduce intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science class. In swept the full Dover Cares slate of eight candidates, which had coalesced to oppose the change in the science curriculum.

Full Article

There is nothing "intelligent" about the "Intelligent Design" movement. In fact, it borders on the moronic. Those who wish to promulgate it are virtually clueless about its original source, namely the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. Here they are reading and interpreting, literally, an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic text and and declaring it a scientific proof of God's existence.

To focus solely on the literal, limited physical description of creation in Genesis is to miss the entire point of the story. Physical creation in Genesis is nothing more than a footnote to the bigger story of Man's creation and evolution as a spiritual creature.

Adam was NOT the first human being to exist on Earth 6,000 years ago. He was, hoewever, the first human being to recognize that God created him and wanted to establish a direct relationship with him. Genesis is devoted to explaining the spiritual birth and evolution of mankind. To summarize, the Bible begins with man's oneness with God, then his separation from God, and then his eventual return to the original state of spiritual purity that he enjoyed shortly after his creation.

Like which part of this story did the Intelligent Design "theorists" NOT understand?

Like all of it.

The key point in the Creation story as told in Genesis is the role that the Earth played in the birth of plants, animals, and humans. It is the Earth that gave rise to all living things. God did not directly create all life but commanded the Earth to do so.

The Earth is also important to the story of evolution: in Darwin's world, the Earth also gave rise to all living things.

Genesis does not say HOW God created everything because it is simply not relevant nor important to the story.

Likewise, Darwin never talked about HOW natural selection and mutation came to exist. Both are essential processes to the formation of life regardless of how they came to be.

Genesis and Evolution: two stories that focus on different subjects: the former on spiritual development, the latter, on physical development.

End of story.

I would have to disagree with you, Ron. Despite the fact that most proponents of ID are Christians or religious in one way or another, the basic premise of ID has absolutely NOTHING to with religion or more specifically, Christianity. You are confusing it with Christian creationism which is an entirely different thing. (You might also consider that those Christians who hold to the 6000 year old earth idea represent a small minority.)

The original source for ID is not the first two chapters of Genesis, but rather the observation that certain features in nature imply a designer. This is founded on common sense and logic and has nothing to do with the Bible. Who or what that designer is is totally open ground for debate. While religious people could use this as a foundation for their beliefs, ID in itself is not tied to a particular religion or religion at all. I think it would be more "moronic" to dismiss a scientific movement in it's infancy before we've actually given it a chance.

rat’s comment is:

I would have to disagree with you, Ron. Despite the fact that most proponents of ID are Christians or religious in one way or another, the basic premise of ID has absolutely NOTHING to with religion or more specifically, Christianity.

That's disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst, Rat. ID was always intended as the sheeps clothing for the wolf of the creationist movement. If you doubt, ask yourself why: 1) the creationists and ID'ers always seem to be fighting the same battles, and 2) why the ID'ers are loathe to ever condemn or criticize the Creationist movement, despite the massive gulf (theoretically at least) between their beliefs. Any sincere ID'er worth his salt should be pointing and laughing at the creationist who believes that the earth was created in 6 days only thousands of years ago and that dinosaurs and homo sapiens walked the earth at the same time. They should be acknowledging such biblical literalism as patently ludicrous. But get them on TV, and they'll sooner set their own pants on fire than publicly question literal creationism.

While I agree that Christian creationists have used ID as a foundation for their own beliefs and that most IDists are obviously Christian, the premise of ID, in itself and in essence, is a legitimate scientific question that does not adhere to a particular belief system. If a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. wants to use ID as a defense for their own literal creation beliefs then the blame is on THEM for intertwining religion with science and they are guilty of having ulterior motives. The scientific idea that the design seen in nature is the result of a greater mind, who or what that might be, is a legitimate question that ID asks.

You also should consider, as I stated above, that the young-earth biblical creationists do NOT speak for the majority and ID should not be discredited due to their antics. Should evolution be discredited for every questionable philosophical movement that has used it as a basis? Let's see....social darwinism, satanism, fascism possibly. Evolution and ID both ask legitimate scientific questions. What religious or philosophical groups do with those questions are a different story.

Once and for all, ID is not a scientific question. It is a stated belief — because life is so complex, it must be the result of a higher power. That's not a question, but a statement. The statement is also a conjecture, which is a judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence. And since this judgement involves a "higher power," it is a conjecture of faith, which makes it a religious dogma.

A dogma is just about the furthest point away from a scientific question.

Science seeks to explain the mechanics of the universe through natural science, mathematics, and observation. It seeks proof. It doesn't depend on faith, conjecture, or dogma.

Now, your argument that ID is unfairly being associated with Christian Creationism is weak, but valid. The similarities between both beliefs are staggering, but I suppose one could believe in one and be blind to the other.

But I would argue back that it doesn't matter. Regardless of whether or not ID is indeed a Christian manifesto, it is clearly religious in ideology and undeniably not a scientific principle worth teaching in any science classroom.

The Flaw in the Mousetrap

Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.

By Kenneth R. Miller

Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since "natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working," there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical "evidence" for intelligent design.

Parts of a supposedly irreducibly complex machine may have different, but still useful, functions.

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.

Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.

He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.

The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.

Working researchers see evolution in subcellular systems.

And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.

Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific.

If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

When is design not intelligent? Sadly most of the general populace sees design as the Big Bang: we throw a bunch of colors, shapes, type and textures into a software program, mix them around for a few weeks and out comes flawless design concepts. This “random” Big Bang creative soup is followed by a Survival of the Fittest concept selection process that produces a design species that will last. When was the last time someone asked you, “What do designers do?”

Believing God is a myth does not make him one.

Can anyone prove God doesn't exist? Are religion and science not both a search for truth?

There are christian scientists who do not compromise science, yet find no substantial contradictory evidence against their beliefs though they seek it.

There are non christian scientists who are seeking for meaning and purpose in life outside of science. There is evidence which suggests there is much outside the realm of our current knowledge. Spirituality is not quantifiable.

Are all who call themselves christians spiritually alive? Do all american christian beliefs align 100% with God's? Will we ever evolve to be unselfish?

If God is who he says he is, the person of Jesus is of paramount importance since he became a man, the image of the invisible God. He's the real issue. The shout from 2,000 years ago continue today, "we will not have this man to rule over us."

How objective is this? Do we know who we are in relation to this man? Who is he? He says he wants to know us.

He says he's building/designing a spiritual kingdom of people who worship in spirit and in truth. Can secular humanism- the dominant faith of today offer antything better?

Brands, sex in the city, 50 cent, mirages of fulfillment. We are a mist that vanishes so quickly. How can I follow my heart when I know how deceitful it is? Only this one man claimed perfection and the case for Christ is strong.

Here ,here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310209307/sr=8-1/qid=1143003160/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8361870-4660959?%5Fencoding=UTF8

How one sees the origins of human culture is also a description of how one wishes to see the future of humanity.

- William Irwin Thompson, Gaia: A Way of Knowing

There are christian scientists who do not compromise science

But are there Christian Scientists who do not compromise science?