Intelligent Design

[thatpfunk]

I know little about it. Anyone have any interesting sites or discussions they can lead me to?

I am most interested in the science community's response.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

I am most interested in the science community's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't accept it.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

I am most interested in the science community's response.



They don't accept it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I had figured that. I'm curious as to the arguments against it. I know a couple people who are in to it and I would like to find some points to refute.

My google search sucks.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I had figured that. I'm curious as to the arguments against it. I know a couple people who are in to it and I would like to find some points to refute.


[/ QUOTE ]

SO argue the affirmative first then.

[malorum]

http://science.box.sk

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I am most interested in the science community's response.

[/ QUOTE ]
The response of the scientific community is really just to point out that "Intelligent Design Theory" isn't really a theory, and it's not science. It makes no falsifiable predictions, so it can't be tested.

[drudman]

Here's the textbook analogy:

Pretend you are a traveller from a distant land. In your country, you have very very limited technology. As you cross the desert that separates your home with the rest of the world, you notice something gleaming in the sand ahead of you. It is a wristwatch, but of course you have no idea what a watch is. You notice, in amazement, that the watch has tiny moving parts. These parts, in fact seem to move with incredible regularity. You notice that as the small, fast moving part completes a circuit, one of the other parts shifts a small amount in the same direction every time. You remove the broken glass and lift the top of the disc. What you see shocks you... tens more small metal wheels with interlocking teeth, all clicking and whirring away with incredible regularity. You are familiar with nature, and you conclude that whatever you have found could not possibly have formed naturally. It had to have been made by some intelligent designer.

That's intelligent design. In practice, the "watch" from the analogy represents biological structures that ID supporters say are so complex and precise, they could not have possibly formed naturally. The most common structure pointed to is the human eye, but recently pseudoscientists have tried to actually scientifically support their claims by pointing to a particular flagellum structure on some bacteria that acts as a propellor for motor function.

It is very unscientific however, and kind of a joke amongst the most serious biochemists in the world. Lynn Margulis is one of these, and she does a lot of lectures debunking ID here at the University.

[BluffTHIS!]

ID is just pseudoscientific bunk put out by fundamentalist Christians who don't accept evolution, because their literalist-out-of-context interpretations of scripture can't accomodate it. Presumably part of the "intelligent design" was God putting dinosaur bones directly into sedimentary rock as well.

[David Sklansky]

"ID is just pseudoscientific bunk put out by fundamentalist Christians who don't accept evolution, because their literalist-out-of-context interpretations of scripture can't accomodate it. Presumably part of the "intelligent design" was God putting dinosaur bones directly into sedimentary rock as well."

BluffTHIS

So Not Ready, in your heart of hearts, don't you feel closer to bossjj than you do to BluffTHIS. Cmon admit it. ADMIT IT. I don't think its a sin. At least you know where bossjj stands and he believes his ideas are based on the bible's words. This other guy I don't know about. Who would you rather go fishing with. It's OK to say.

[BZ_Zorro]

http://www.talkorigins.org/index.html

This is basically the hub of scientists' responses to creationism. Every conceivable question you could have about evolution is answered. Check the FAQ and some of the articles, they're very interesting reading.

[BluffTHIS!]

FWIW David, I'd rather go fishing with you than either NotReady or BossJJ.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW David, I'd rather go fishing with you than either NotReady or BossJJ.

are you guys talking about poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ThreeMartini]

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Charles Darwin

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances....


[/ QUOTE ]
So this is 'Intelligent' design as opposed to bad design.

What is the mechanism by which sin introduces the common refractive errors (Myopia, astigmatism, hypermetropia, presbiopia etc.) /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Charles Darwin

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the full paragraph.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin goes on to describe a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

See: An Old, Out of Context Quotation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html)

[John Cole]

America's great dark poet, Pobert Frost, in one of his best poems, looks at the notion of intelligent design, drawing deep from within his psyche a terrifying vision:

Design

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.

Note Frost's use the sonnet form for his meditation on design and evil, and, in particular, how he uses the traditional associations of "white" with purity and innocence. Keep in mind that heal-alls are usually blue and spiders rarely white. Also, look up the etymology of the word "appall." You might also want to keep in mind what's called the "pathetic fallacy." Class dismissed.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the full paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]
PWN3D