Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

John, you have to get your facts straight before you use them to defend a position. Everytime you base a position on things which are wrong your position is built on sand and is unsupported (and looks like it might be wrong) as you state it. The more you do this the more likely it appears that you position looks wrong because it actually is. There is no hint of such logic. Only that it feels better to you. Please show how there is any logical support for your position. "completely change" -- the DNA of even rather distantly related species has a large number of similarities and long stretches which are identical. (see some references below) There is no complete change required at all.The changes that are there are easily explained by mutations.We aren't after "proof" in some kind of mathematical sense. We are trying to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion based on what we do know. It makes far better "logical sense" that the changes we do see taking place account for the life we see than any other available explanation. Mutations are far, far from the only evidence. If you think you prefer another explanation that is obviously based on the fact that you have no idea what the evidence really is. Founding an opinion on utter ignorance isn't something that inspires respect for said opinion.You have carelessly used the word species. The larger, more influential creationist organization have given up on species some years (and decades) ago. They recognize that species can and DO arise. They have even been forced to accept genera and then they get fuzzy on just what they do mean.Your logical sense is no longer supported by most if not all creationists. That is because it is not logical and has been shown to be wrong by actual evidence.Our DNA and chimps are hugely identical. If you saw two cars with as many identical parts you'd wonder about paying a lot more for one than the other.Here is a discussion of us and the mouse:
Human Genome News Vol.11, No. 3-4, July 2001andfrom: Humans and Mice Together at Last

quote:

---

The first head-to-head comparison of draft human and mouse genome sequences can be summarized in one word”fourteen. Fourteen genes on mouse chromosome 16 are not found in humans. All the others”more than 700 mouse genes”have counterparts in the human genome, most of which are grouped together and in the same order as in the mouse genome.

---

I'm asking you to tell me how. Human intelligence has never created anything close to the interoperating complexity found in nature. On the other hand, the processes of natural selection and random mutation are being adapted by our engineers to design circuits so radically different from anything we've ever made ourselves that we can't even understand how they work.Evolutionary processes are far more creative than any human mind, or combination of minds. Evolutionary processes are far more capable of creating complexity than any human action. So how does it make any sense at all to conclude that all the complexity we see in the natural world is the product of intelligence?I'm asking you to explain how ID is the "most logical choice" when everything we see in the natural world is far too complex to have been designed. I don't understand what you mean by "design themselves." Is it your understanding that the theory of evolution posits that creatures consiously redesign themselves, and then genetically engineer themselves into new species? You assume design where no design occurs; circular reasoning.

Listen to what you are saying:"Our DNA and chimps are hugely identical. If you saw two cars with as many identical parts you'd wonder about paying a lot more for one than the other."Yes, the DNA of chimps is about 98.5% the same as mans, but saying the 1.5% difference has somehow been bridged by evolutionary processes is a long long leap. The odds of this difference being bridged by evolutionary processes alone is astronomically high. It is far more logical to consider that chimps and man had the same Designer than to totally eliminate the Designer from the equation."Human intelligence has never created anything close to the interoperating complexity found in nature."Every major increase in man's civilization progress has come about through man's creativeness. When one looks at the wonders of past and present civilizations, one marvels at the creativeness of man's intelligence and gifting that brought these into existance. But the "interoperating complexity found in nature" is so complex that it could not possibly have been designed by a Designer???I rest my case. took out useless subtopic - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-07-2006 08:37 AMThis message has been edited by John 10:10, 02-07-2006 04:40 PM

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

quote:

---

The odds of this difference being bridged by evolutionart processes alone is astronomically high.

---

Based on what calculations? took out useless subtopic - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-07-2006 08:36 AM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Somehow I don't think it will be that easy (see above). Welcome to the Christian camp John 10:10. And remember, if they hate you they hated him first took out useless subtopic - The QueenThis message has been edited by iano, 07-Feb-2006 01:56 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-07-2006 08:36 AM

Those are the remarks of someone else, Ned I think, not me. You haven't even tried to make a case. You've simply repeated my remarks in a condesending tone of voice. Are you under the misapprehension that that constitutes an argument?Nothing that intelligent design has been able to do even remotely approaches the creativity of evolutionary processes. So, again, why does it make sense to you to implicate intelligence, and not evolutionary processes, as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? took out useless subtopic - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-07-2006 08:35 AM

I personally resent that very much Iano. Many of us on this board who know that "scientific ID" is a bunch of political hogwash also know Christ is Lord and believe he is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

You mixed replies to two posts in one of your own. It might be a good idea to link back to posts in that case or use two replies. You can link by useing what I do below to point to your post 45. Use the peek at the lower right of the post to see what is entered to do it.You said "then completely change their DNA into different species". Where we are now is that we have finished with your post Message 45 and there was not meaningful assertions in it.Let's move on:
When one is making statements about "odds" or using terms like "astronomically high" one is refering to things which are represented by numbers. Before you can make such statements you have to supply input assumption and the calculations used to arrive at your final values.Once again you are making statements based on knowing nothing at all about the subject. What is true is that the odds involved here can not be calculated at all. Thus your claim is based only on personal incredulity. That isn't a very firm foundation. It is utterly useless as a reason for a claim when that incredulity is based on knowing nothing about the subject.You should also be more careful about saying that the complexity of nature means, when compared to human design, that there must be a designer.What you don't know is that the complexity of nature is of a strikingly different nature than human designed objects. In fact, the best of humand design exhibits traits that are opposed to the apparent design in nature. An understanding of human design shows that nature exhibits traits totally contrary to the idea of "design" (in the sense we apply it to the only intelligent design we know about).This is a rather more complex area than can be discussed without derailing a thread about science classrooms. You might want to take this to Message 1 to discuss it. That thread hasn't really gotten off the ground.I would, however, suggest that you aren't ready for that yet. You need to build up your understanding of the sciences involved before you continue to restate things you've been told by others while having no understanding of them yourself.

There is where you are making a mistake. You are assuming that 'design' must mean a designer. However, you can get the same results as having a designer when you have a self replication with variation, and a filter in place. When it comes to biological evolution, there is the filter of 'natural selection'.This principle can be demonstrated with computer models that take simple rules for 'reproduction', add variation, and then 'select' for
those that meet a 'survival charactertic' rule. From those simple 'rules', you can get complex shapes that are more 'fit' to accomplish whatever goal you are striving for. IN the case of evoltion, the 'goal' is to reproduce the next generation.

There is no need to resent the remark Jazzns. Read the post again and you find nothing for/against ID or supposing that a Christian must believe in ID. I just don't think cases of any description are made that easy here.The welcome and verse quoted was a general note intended to encourage a newcomer to the minority camp - whatever their science/science fiction persuasion

John 10:10 Where did the intelligent designer come from? What designed the designer?

Intended or not it certainly read that way. The most certainly is not a "Christian Camp" on this board. There are Christians on both sides of the debate some who fervently disagree with each other. And if one "hates" the other it is most certainly does not mean that they hated Him first.

I was speaking to John 10:10 as a Christian of whatever scientific persuasion. You would agree that a person is a Christian first and everything else second I imagine. In so far as that is true then there is a Christian campSorry if it caused offence. None intended

Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said,"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible".This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best secular alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.Allan Sandage, Phd astronomer and co-discoverer of the Quasar, writes,"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existance, why there is something instead of nothing."At least Allan Sandage recognizes God is the reason for the miracle of ordered existance. Most evolutionists think as does Thomas Nagel, Professof of Philosophy @ NYU,"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."Believing that such incredible design and order comes only from the evolutionary process itself is myopic."Not one example of self-organization or self-generation can be found in the entire realm of nature. In fact, nature shows us just the opposite. Without causation nothing happens and without organization by an intelligent being, systems tend toward lower and lower levels of complexity" (Hugh Ross).All that has been observed in the so-called evolutionary process is what happens when creatures who have been designed with the ability to procreate procreate. If evolutionists want to call this evolutionary proof, they are welcome to say whatever they want. But saying this will never change this belief from theory to fact.It's as simple and as difficult as that.

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

quote:

---

Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

---

Why do creationists/IDists repeatedly fail to provide this evidence, and instead rely on out-of-context quotes from a few scientists as if it makes up for the lack of evidence for their position?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt