For those out there who adhere to the theory of “Intelligent Design” greater evidence has been declared to support the theory. And guess what? This evidence comes from the very source that demeans the theory, science itself.
“A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms.”
Story is here.
But I warn you of one thing. Remember this is not proof, it is only added evidence. We still need to hear from the opposing side yet as to any argument against it.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Some interesting evidence Griper but given the administration's past actions (EPA etc..) with regards to scientific findings that don't meet GOP policies, I would hardly call research funded by the NSF non-partisan hence inherently biased.
As to the scientific merit, I will wait until I hear what the opposing side has to say.
Figures. You would start a discussion on a really good topic just as I'm leaving town. As you know, I started a comment thread on Intelligent Design as well. Oh well.
While mutation is random, selection is not necessarily:
http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/1/151. In fact, the
deterministic (predictable) nature
has been utilized:
http://www.cheme.caltech.edu/groups/fha/Enzyme/directed.html
quite successfully:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Using-evolution--UW-team-creates-a-template-for-many-new-therapeutic-agents-310-1/
Intelligent Design Theory, you are quite right, is not accepted by the biology community: lack of
positive evidence (ID is based on
poling holes in existing theory, not producing their own data) and
the relationship between the few, but vocal ID proponents and religion (eg specific ax to grind).
This does not preclude ID as a possibility, but currently the gap between physics and metaphysics is huge. Is it not fascinating that our human nature contains filters whereupon some fear evolutionary theory as atheistic, while others fear creationism as irrational?
Crian,
we already had a discussion on bias. besides since when is bias a determinant of truth? a person can be very biased and still tell the truth. we just need to remember that there is always at least two sides of an issue and listen to both sides as you once told me.
Lista,
the post will be here when you get back and probably many comment for ya. lolol enjoy your trip.
bb,
your first article declares "almost deterministic". almost doesn't make it.
your second and third article talks of human manipulation which is deterministic, i agree there. but the article i used they declare it as being a natural change not humanly minipulated. thus determined outside of human control.
and i agree that prior evidence for ID was of negative evidence. that is what is so significant of this study and conclusion. it declared positive evidence by observation.
"Is it not fascinating that our human nature contains filters whereupon some fear evolutionary theory as atheistic, while others fear creationism as irrational?"
not really, i addressed this issue in one of my earliest posts, when i wrote on the "Aquinas's five proofs" back in March of 2007 in his attempt to prove God logically. everything of this existance is of a finite nature including rationality or logic. and what is finite cannot comprehend that what is infinite. in other words logic alone cannot explain that which is infinite, thus the need of faith. but that which is infinite can comprehend the finite.
so, in reality, both sides are saying that the other side is being illogical. and in a sense both sides are correct. lol
bb,
one more thing. if we know that evolution can be determined as your articles state by human manipulation, then that would bring doubt on random selection also. for it would leave open the possibility that what we thought of as random selection as only a perception of reality not reality itself. for random selection was always considered as a certainty and one reason for the denial of ID.
Uh, "but that which is infinite can comprehend the finite." Do we know that? Or is that a faith thing too? :)
how can it not comprehend it? the finite is an element within the infinite.
I have a bit of a problem with the term 'random selection'. It is not defined in, nor a part of evolutionary theory: mutation is
considered as random, selection is
pragmatic and favors individual and species success. For example, at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
one of the arguments is titled
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." and sets forth that portion of the
theory. Of course with 'Kitzmiller v Dover', letters from Nobel laureates, charges of
Darwin's Black Box and Dembske's
Empty Box.. the old Scopes arguments continue. One of the more compelling I've run across is the idea that Intelligent Design & its adherants are stalled until they can produce a book about their concepts akin to the tome
that Darwin put together..
random selection, random chance, i can accept either. both deny determinism. neither concept takes anything away from my argument.
remember the idea of ID is a new idea and Darwin did not write his tome at the beginning but after years of individual research and without peer examination. by putting out the idea of ID in the beginning allows for peer examination and added research by others. which is the more scientific method?
also remember Darwin's theory was no more accepted as a probability in his time as ID is not accepted now. there was no way at the time to test his theory as there is now days. any acceptance of his theory was based on the acceptance of his word at the time.
My apologies on bringing up the bias argument again and there are two sides to every story. I believe from the business field that peer examination is more scientific?
i agree, Crian, and at the time there was no way for peer examination of Darwin's theory thus by today's standards it could not even be called a scientific theory.
Hi, Griper.
My faith requires no proof.
Not a very scientific response, sorry. It's just the truth. :)
no reason to apologize, gayle.
your faith requires no proof because faith replaces proof. if there was proof faith would not be needed.
there is an old saying "faith begins where logic ends."
another way to put it is "to know that God exists requires that theology begins where science stops"
I'm here and that is all that matters.
I'll know it all when the time comes and so will everyone. Some it will be too damn late for and they will be stuck.
Just like the stuck on stupid crowd now. It will be too late.
As it is in heaven it will be on earth. Um am I saying that right?
Pretty deep for some to grasp Griper.
As I recover from a broken neck, I simply have to add my two cents to this debate...
While it's true that I had an excellent neurosurgeon, it is equally truthful to say that I said many prayers, in my own way. And now, that I am expecteted to heal completely, my final truth that comes from this is two-fold gratitude. I am grateful to God. I am grateful to the physician who healed me. I believe that neither must be given exclusive credit; instead I have come to believe that they work their miracles in tandem. I have no "science" to back this up. Nor do I have any theology.
But I do have limbs that work which didn't two months ago, and full range of motion in my neck.
So what I do have is Faith. And it's more powerful than I ever expected because I simply can't believe that this is purely a random event, despite working in trauma medicine for years. I believe there is something greater at play here and I *am* grateful for that every day.
Be Well,
Angel Out
he grins, yes, dcat you got it right.
yes faith is a wonderful feeling as well as powerful, angel. never lose it.
Hummm; After reading the above comments, I'm actually wondering if some of this is going to be over my head. I can understand it if I take the time, yet how much time is what I'm currently asking myself. So far, I haven't read any of the links, only the comments.
My faith in Intelligent Design Theory is based on a couple of things. There may be evidence of "Natural Selection" within species, but not between species.
I've avoided the word "Random", the actual subject of this post, because I do not yet feel educated enough to tackle it.
The other thing that gives me faith in ID is the fact that so many of the arguments I have heard against it are full of false accusations and insults and I've found the insistence of some Evolution supporters that ID design offer "Proof" that God Exists to be quite arrogant based on the fact that Evolution has not actually "Proved" anything either. It's like a double standard to expect one side to provide "Proof", while the other side only has to provide evidence.
For either side to claim they have proof, whether than evidence, is arrogant and what I have observed is that it is the Evolutionists that make this claim far more often than the advocates of ID.
My faith in ID and my faith in God are actually two separate things, for there are Christians who have accepted the idea that God may have created the earth by using some form of Evolution. My faith in God does not exclude me from also accepting this idea, but I have rejected it because I do not feel that the scientific evidence is there to support it.
The way in which the Bible reads is "And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:21, KJV) and "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:25, KJV).
Scientifically speaking, no quote from the scriptures can be interpreted as scientific evidence, yet science has not disproved this verse, nor even supplied much evidence that it's not so.
I did finally take the time to read the article that this post was linked to and I found it to be a very good and informative argument.
Thanks for posting this, Griper, for aside from being informative, it also gave me the chance to express some frustration relating to the conversation that I recently had with some folks at a blog called "Bring it on", where I had several Atheists going at me at once. It was both interesting and frustrating.
lista,
he just smiles. if you argue with an athiest you can't rely on faith alone to convince them. they won't accept it as proof or reason to believe. you need to examine their arguments for flaws and exploit them. get them on the defensive position.
there are far more scientific arguments that can be used also against an atheist.
That's the whole point, Griper. There is no proof; not in ID, nor in Evolution. For them to expect "Proof" is both ridiculous and arrogant. All that either side has is evidence, not proof, and because of this, both are based on faith. Atheists have no less faith than we do. Their faith is just placed somewhere else and then they call it fact and deny that it's faith.
i didn't just say proof, lista, i said reason too.
and i'll agree with you that both must have faith. it is just a matter of what you have faith in.
faith is defined differently for an atheist than they see faith for God. and you can't convince them that what they have faith in is the same type of faith you have.
that is why they won't accept that argument.
A lot of times their bias is so strong that they will not receive any argument at all. Unfortunately, a lot of people see evidence where they want to see evidence and even call it fact, while ignoring evidence that they would whether not see.
of course. that is one of the failings of man. they hate to admit that they could be wrong. everyone has that flaw in them.
Yes, and some more than other's. It's so refreshing to come across someone who genuinely has an opened mind.
Post a Comment