The Evolution versus Intelligent Design Test!

Post Reply New Topic

I always thought that maybe there was an intelligent being behind the singularity that started the universe. Like a super - intelligent alien or something.

The big problem with the ID debate are the entrenched views taken up by both sides. This is to be expected of people peddling a particular religious dogma, but dissappointing for anyone who wants to have a real debate about the nature of evolution, the details of how it really happens.

Yes, of course evolution happend, and is happening now, but there are some very valid questions to be asked about how it happens.

Darwinism holds that random mutations and errors in copying genes can produce functional changes in genetic structure because bad mutations are selected out of the population. We have been told that by this method alone all the complexity of life has arisen. The evidence for this 'method' being able to produce new genes, rather than modify or select genes that already exist, is sketchy.

On the other hand there is a great deal of evidence accumulating for the transfer and recombination of genes wholesale from viruses, which is a much more powerful way for the genome to acquire new genetic material. The human genome contains a whole battery of genetic 'machinery' to accomplish this (yes, I know that this does not explain where the new genes come from in the first place).

I am not a christian, and I do not believe that ID is a scientific theory, merely a speculation. But it does have some value because some of the questions are not answered by neo-Darwinism.

The ireduceable complexity argument has some truth in it. No one has demonstrated how life can boot strap itself into existence from non-living chemical compounds, not even in a computer model.

To say that life is just a bunch of chemicals is true, but not interesting. The interesting bit is, where did the information come from? The nucleotides that make DNA are not particularly complex chemicals, and there is a greater difference between biochemical molecules, in terms of information, and the most primitive single celled organism, than between that most primitive cell and a human being.

If this sounds like I am giving comfort to the creationists, I can only say that I believe that science is our best way of understanding the physical and biological world, but I am interested in having a real debate, which means accepting some of the upalatable and awkward facts.

Well, still I view the issue as political because the evolution of entire species is something that is yet to be seen. Everyone accepts the fact that there is genetic variation and that micro-evolution exists. The idea that we evolved from fish is part of what people don't accept as well as the fact that we were an "accident". One thing that evolutionary theory does have to account for is origin of cells though, I don't think that anyone has actually made a working cell from non-living matter in early earth conditions. We have made the proteins and everything but we have never had a cell spontaneously generate. Intelligent Design fills this gap though by saying that there was a designer. Ultimately this debate hardly matters as we could teach our children that life came from the crap of a giant intergalactic turtle and they would do fine so long as we taught them good employable skills and good thinking skills.

i got 74% social darwinism

If the debate was about Science vs Religion, then its obvious what the result is.
Please, try to attack Newtons arguments.

Yet since it is about a theory that we still don't know about (ie cant prove), religious advocates have a slim chance of forcing public opinion.

Actually, evolution led to important understandings in medical science, especially concerning antibiotic resistant drugs. It also led to breakthroughs in almost every area of biological science. It's going way to far to say evolution is useless.

Micro-evolution is where the advances were, micro-evolution may be something from Darwin but it is not controversial at all and every group that knows something about science accepts it. No group that I know of opposes micro-evolution and if they do then they are stupid. The idea that creatures will change in response to their environment is a fact. However, many religious groups take offense to the idea that the origin of species is through continuous micro-evolution. The Intelligent Design movement does not try to disprove micro-evolution but instead claims that certain structures are too complex to have evolved through continuous micro-evolution because of the idea that if they aren't complete they will not work and be harmful to the creatures possessing these oddities. Whether or not this is true does not matter because we are not going to use evolution to create changes in genetic codes. We are more likely to use genetic engineering because it would be faster and easier to direct.

All the controversy over evolution is over what creation myth we want to teach our offspring. Both choices have their advantages and disadvantages and I would truly prefer to see that religious advocates accept the idea that God-guided evolution however considering that evolutionary origin of species is not very important in the scheme of things I would even allow the idea of Intelligent Design to be taught in biology classes as an opposing viewpoint if only to satisfy religious people and show them that science is not their enemy.

I agree with that, I just found the wording of you post to connote that all forms of evolution are useless and have made no valuable contributions to science.

Well, I am glad that my position on this matter is clearer. It is just that Evolution in discussions of Evolution vs other ideology tends to be the origin of species more than micro evolution. No person with any knowledge of biology disputes micro-evolution and even the argument of Intelligent Design recognizes it.

56%--intelligent design.

Yeah, it's pretty biased. Whoever designed the test needs to be open to the possibility that evolution might not be true, even if he thinks it the most probable explanation. After all, science is all about being open to the possibilities.

If all scientists were so biased as to never consider any theory other than the one currently in favor, then science could never advance.

In general, this makes me annoyed with Intelligent Design proponents and evolutionary science. Both sides have gotten to be such outspoken proponents of their own viewpoints that they have deliberately closed their minds to the opinions of anyone who does not agree with them.

Those online tests are rather silly, but it was more about the scientific method than evolution. (100% BTW )

ID does not make any predictions, or provide any testable or repeatable observations. It does not follow the scientific method, it's not a theory, and those who support it--or even those who don't disbelieve it--are contributing to the collective degradation of American society, especially our ability to compete with the rest of the world in science and technology.

ID is a pseudo-science, just like palm reading, ESP, or astrology. And it's not simply benign entertainment; people who believe in this stuff grow up to be judges, politicians (or presidents), and teachers, continuing the cycle of ignorance. It's downright dangerous to allow these kinds of superstitions to spread, and that's why you see the scientific side fighting so hard to keep ID and other pseudoscience junk away from school children and out of public policy.

Is the scientific side "entrenched"? You're damn right we are! We have to be, the religious sure aren’t going to be pulling their punches on this one, or any issue that could advance their narrow, backwards dogma on the public (especially impressionable children). I would be more than happy to debate an ID proponent if they wanted to talk scientifically about it. The problem is that they don't want to, because it doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard. ID is nothing more than thinly veiled christian creationism.

ID is contributing to degradation? WTF? Considering that we have supported creationism for much longer than evolution I tend to doubt that we are degrading currently because of a lack of support for evolution. I also don't think that ID has any affect on American ability to compete in science and technology. As I have stated earlier evolution is a rather useless theory as there is no practical use for the origin of species. Not believing a theory with no practical applications would probably have no effect on a student's scientific ability. Heck, I am sort of neutral on the whole issue yet I am one of the best science students in my city and I have done superbly in Biology along with other science subjects. Heck, I think a few of the friends I have who are taking some advanced science courses may even be out and out creationists and yet their failures don't seem to have any base in their beliefs on science.

It perpetuates a culture were science is neither respected, nor understood. If this doesn't have an effect on our ability to compete as a nation I don't know what possibly would.

ID teaches people that it's OK to not think critically about the hard questions, and that the religious answer is an acceptable and truthful alternative to the hard won understandings about the world that science has brought us.

I'm reminded of an article from the ANN website.

Well, forcing evolution down the throats of these creationists is not going to help. At least using the pseudo-scientifical option of ID we can get these religious people to think that they're being respected and keep them from trying to boycott science. Science can easily get respect through every other little thing it does, heck, science can get respect for the fact that there are many high-salary jobs in the science field, science can also get respect because it allows logical thinkers to use their talents, science can get respect because it seeks to understand the very stars and everything, science can get respect because of its importance. I think that so long as we don't disturb the perfect creation myth of the uber-religious then they will be happy and not seek to bother science.

ID teaches people nothing, it is the only thing where science and religion currently even compete for ideological dominance from what i can think of. Does the scientific view even matter if it does not lead to technology? Evolution leads to no technology so why is it important? Science is only important for its practical applications, it is necessary to create a smaller mobile phone or a more fuel-efficient car or a cure for cancer, not to determine whether monkeys are my #great^10000 ancestors or not because I don't even care if a monkey was my stinkin uncle so long as it has no current affect on things.

Also, what does it matter what scientists believe? Heck your article showed this.

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"5. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists."

If the NAS, a group that holds no real care for religion according to the evidence that has been given to me is willing to bend a little for religion then what is the problem? I would think that a group of scientists would know what is scientifically important. Besides, it never says in there if they surveyed engineers, a group that is very important in our desire to have strong scientific ability nor did it mention how religious engineers were either.