HAWK,

"Behe and Wells have successfully refuted the Miller, Collins, Doolittle & Robinson criticisms of his IC discussion of the blood clotting cascade."

Ok back it up then, I haven't read of any such evidence or claims of rebuttals by Behe, Wells or others on the clotting cascade.

"Facts" are certain bacteria have flagella systems; "

Indeed they do, while other bacteria lack all the parts of the flagella and yet they have complete fuctionality, something Behe and his assertion regarding IC says is impossible. According to Behe, such IC systems can't and shouldn't work when a single or multiple pieces are removed, thus his analogy with the mousetraps. Though what he ignored was that such parts can have alternative purposes and they do as seen with the type 3 secretory system. Again, Behe's igonrane defautls to an IC system. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9618447

"What's the big deal about Behe accepting common ancestry?"

Nothing really, virtually all in science already do, but the idea of a ID propent accepting common ancestry isn't the norm Behe is perhaps the only one. Part of the reason Behe accepts it is b/c the evidence for it is quite convincing and collectively overwhelming, but alas such evidence says nothing about how life originated, only that forms today share common ancestry with those in the past and present, aka common descent. You never are gonig to to even comment on those vids I gave you huh?

True enough science and its derived world view, naturalism/humanism, can't yet speak directly on life origins, but we can speak direclty on how we humans got here from other related animals which we share common ancestry with, this we can do and due to a model like evolution. Peace,

Agentorange;
Behe and Wells have successfully refuted the Miller, Collins, Doolittle & Robinson criticisms of his IC discussion of the blood clotting cascade. Behe also successffuly refuted the naturalist attacks to the IC discussion of the flagella motor system. But this is getting into tit-for-tat discussions between the experts. You and I can only reflect on what they have to say and decide who we believe has it correct. You have chosen the naturalist (humanist) religious worldview and I the Christian worldview.
"Facts" are certain bacteria have flagella systems; interpretations for the design and construction of these systems comes from naturalist presuppositions (assumptions) or an ID presupposition (assumption). The ID approach makes the most sense to me and many qualified scientists, mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, including Flew.

What's the big deal about Behe accepting common ancestry? I'm reading "The Edge of Evolution" now where he discusses common ancestry and the limitations of evolution and continues to build upon the theory of ID. He is an independent thinker who is questioning the validity of Darwinian evolution.
As I said, my main interest is the study of religious worldviews. One of the fundamental questions a worldview provides is "where did we come from (origins)? Humanism is founded on Scientific Naturalism:
"The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most world views accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or theological in character. They have their origins in ancient pre-urban, nomadic, and agricultural societies of the past, not in the modern industrial or postindustrial global information culture that is emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human beings to construct a coherent world view disentangled from metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences."
[as interpreted through the presuppositional lens of naturalism].

Through our discussion we have agreed that scientific naturalism fails to provide a sound story for our origins, therefore it fails to provide a coherent worldview. A major shortcoming for the humanists worldivew

At this point I do believe you and I have exhausted any futher items to discuss so I'll say thank you for your time and we'll probably have further discussions on other threads.

trb01,

"I have often heard that ID is not science, or does not use scientific methods. Posh."

The claim is ID as a hypothesis isn't scientific b/c it doesn't follow the scientific method, namely being falsifiable. I've asked on here and other places for people to explain how ID as a hypothesis is scientific, how its falsifiable and yet no takers.

Here is an example why ID as a hypothesis can't be used to explain certain facts and therefore isn't falsisifiable and not scientific.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

"Darwinian Evolution is all about trying to prove there is no God by claiming everything evolved from a puddle of goo, and in successive stages evolved from one species to another ... which is just plain stupid. "

The notion that life wasn't in its current form instantly poofed here and instead all various forms of life are related via distant common ancestry thus meaning we are part of the animal kingdom doesn't negate god, it just explains how life became so diverse. Why couldn't god use such an elegant self building process to bring about the variety of life as opposed to parlor tricks?


Thanks Seed, I'll have to check it out and get back to you. Cheers.

trb, You left out 'specified complexity'. This seems to be what your first post was referring to with bio-machines.

It is a very interesting debate, even more interesting is how creationist Hugh Ross dismisses ID in favor of his own creation model, which he considers more scientificly favorable while remaining faithful to Scripture.

Agent, the web sight is: http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

You can download the debate on mp3 to listen to it. There is also a book that I believe is from the same debate called: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate"

There is another one on you tube, I'm not sure if they are the same debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47Zd2AyeCg

The single most authoritive work on the subject is by N.T. Wright, titled 'The Resurrection of the Son of God.' I've yet to pick it up.


There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Ecclesiastes is written in the perspective of a world void of God.

According to Darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Charles Darwin, "the Origin of the Species"

What Darwin was describing, is "Irreducible Complexity" ... the cornerstone of the Intelligence Design proposition. Applying nano-technology to biological life to discover "irreducible complexity" is what ID is all about.

Darwinian Evolution is all about trying to prove there is no God by claiming everything evolved from a puddle of goo, and in successive stages evolved from one species to another ... which is just plain stupid. Trying to cover up the fallacy by explaining how people found themselves on the earth to begin with by saying "aliens seeded the earth" is another completely foolish idea that obviously has nothing to do with science.

ID, it seems to me, is the concept of taking the scientific fields known as nano-technology / molecular engineering ...

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_engineering
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/section2_84_15.html

... and turning the technology on biological structures to find molecular bio-machines that already exist, vice creating them artificially.

AFTER discovering molecular bio-machines pre-existent in nature, one could move on to metaphysical discussions of what that means, but that is not a necessary discussion for the purposes of the scientific method itself. However, by labeling this application of nano-technology as "Intelligent Design" - albeit an accurate description of the findings - the discoverers inadvertently imposed a metaphysical assumption onto the scientific method, and thereby fall victim of being drug into discussions about the spiritual vice staying on target with discussions about nano-mechanics.

The concept of Darwinian Macro-Evolution, or the changing of one species into another (a fish into a dolphin; a dinosaur into a bird) is preposterous and has NO scientific evidence for it.

The concept of Micro-Evolution that Darwin discovered on the Galapagos Islands (and improperly extrapolated to Macro-Evolution) is as established a fact as that you or I were born on a certain day and year. Birds really do grow longer/shorter beaks based on their environment/food supply. Animal breeders use the concept of micro-evolution all the time to keep pure-breeds pure and to use exceptionally performing animals as stock for breeding more of the same.

One of the things that I have noticed over the years, is the rightly criticized confusion between the inferences that one might draw from Intelligent Design, and what ID itself is ... I don't think Stein spent too much time on this, rather he spent time on the inference of where Atheistic Darwinism leads to (and good on him for doing that).

I have often heard that ID is not science, or does not use scientific methods. Posh.

From my perspective, ID is just simply a theory that at the molecular level, biological "machines" exist that could not have evolved - in order for it to function, it could not have been engineered in a more simple manner. Moreover, concepts such as how many "proteins" or "genetic instructions" are required as a minimum in order to construct one of these molecular bio-machines or to put together the most simple living form of life. ID is the search for those examples. NOT to prove there is a God, but rather to understand complex structures at the molecular level. The hypothesis that one may derive from this, is that they could not have evolved. That may lead to deriving yet another hypothesis of how did they come into being to begin with.

To have created this molecular bio-machine theory, one had to have used scientific equipment to discover them. The question is whether or not ID can come up with standard rules of what is a machine and what is not, how many machines make up any given system, what are the methods and procedures for looking into whether or not something is a machine in its simplest form or whether the same action can be performed with a more simple engineering.

seedplanter, no. But please refer me to it, I will read and reflect on their conversation.

Agent, have you heard the debate between Flew and Habermas on the resurrection?


All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

Ecclesiastes 1:8

“naturalist assumptions.”

What assumptions? Genetic mutations occur in the labs and in the wild. Such a large head to head fusion would act as a post sign for what occurred in the past and stands out in the chromosome today. We have 2x23 pairs of chromosomes, while extant apes have 2x24 pairs, so the thinking goes, IF evolution and common ancestry is true, we should be able to find evidence for it somewhere in our genome, if evolution is true we must be able to account for this apparent missing chromosome. And low and behold we find the evidence for where the chromosome went; it fused and became our 2nd chromosome.

Let’s hear how ICR, AIG and other such ‘creation science’ centers explain such facts and evidence regarding ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion.

“The science still appears to be in its infancy and there is a lot to yet learn to see if it is fully accepted or rejected.”

What part of this science is in its infancy?

“To tell you the truth, I don't have a keen interest in these details and will rely on the ID and creationist experts for their take on these issues’

Translation: I don’t care to know how science works, what is says in the details, or the actual facts in the matter, I will in the end just take what I’ve heard elsewhere on faith and not bother to inspect anything, challenge myself or my way of thinking. And while we’re at it, perhaps you should know Michael Behe, the leading proponent of IC, agrees and accepts such evidence regarding evolution and common ancestry. Wrap your head around that one.

HAWK/Parrot,

The irony here is profound!

“In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute’

So you’re quoting something verbatim (no surprise there) and you quote the Discovery Institute, of which only Behe bothered to show up to court to defend the notion of Intelligent Design. Well, you have to ask yourself why Stephen Meyers, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin and others from the DI didn’t even bother to even attempt to support their pet idea in Dover?

In retort all they can offer is a subtle ‘Dover had it wrong’ Web log on their personal site? My, how incredulous. That is like promoting a certain idea and then the idea going before a judge to be validated and then the proponents all don’t show up and cry and whine and in response post a blog b/c they didn’t get their way. Well, if they wanted to get their way, maybe they should have showed up to support their pet idea!

HAWK49,

Theist - one who believes in god, of the many types of depitctions of god.

Deist - one type of a description of a god whch a theist can follow. Both of these are not mutually exclusive and Flew says openly he's a deist, which is quite different than saying he's a beliver in an active agent god who's bending unverisal laws at his will in a whim for particular groups of people.

I understand Flews fondness of isntances of IC, but just b/c Flew finds them convincing or appealing doesn't make them true. What makes then true is the facts and evidence, which unfortunatly for Behe, Flew and those who follow IC as evidence have failed to read up on all the evolutionary processes invovled which show how such systems aren't IC at all. Again, refer to the past links I gave on the vids in which Miller discusses the blood clotting cascade and the flagella both showing how they're not IC.

Hawk: Well if the Disco' 'tute would have bothered to show up for the trial and actually defend their "scientific theory" then maybe you would have a case, but like most dishonest people, they've chosen to fight this battle in the media rather than have their day in court.

Agentorange;
I looked at the shows you recommended. They look compelling, but Answers In Genesis and ICR both have taken exception to the naturalist assumptions. The science still appears to be in its infancy and there is a lot to yet learn to see if it is fully accepted or rejected. To tell you the truth, I don't have a keen interest in these details and will rely on the ID and creationist experts for their take on these issues. I look at the larger picture and the battle between the religious worldviews.

Agentorange;
The Dover case is not a valid example
The court case is real, the decision was based on misrepresentation by an ACLU evolutionist.
In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 27, 2005

Harrisburg, PA -- The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opened in federal court yesterday with the ACLU calling its first expert witness in an effort to tell the court how it should define science. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy that requires students to listen to a three-paragraph statement about the theory of intelligent design.

The ACLU’s first expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the scientific theory of intelligent design is untestable and therefore unscientific. Later he contradicted himself by proceeding to discuss how he has made various arguments in scientific forums testing design theory.

“Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design was simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.

“Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the Court rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific theories—matters which should be left to scientific experts and not be decided by courts,” added Luskin.

Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision
Traipsing into Evolution is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Agentorange;
Deist, Theist? it is important to carefully define words between holders of differing worldviews.
From World magazine:
...Mr. Flew still does not accept any revealed religion, including Christianity. He has simply become a "theist," or, as he says, a "deist," believing that God created the world but no longer has a personal relationship with it....Key to his conviction that there must be an intelligent mind behind the universe is the nature of DNA. As Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth, explains it, "At the heart of life, at the center of each cell in every living thing, is a language, a code, or what we would call information. There is no known natural process capable of producing information. A message or information is diagnostic of an intelligent source." ...
Mr. Flew asked for titles of books on Intelligent Design. He wrote Mr. Habermas that he was finding William Dembski's mathematics in The Design Inference over his head but that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is an "incredible book." That title argues that the minimal cellular and biochemical requirements for life display an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be random but must have been designed. In January 2004, Mr. Flew told Mr. Habermas that he had definitely become a theist."

Ecclesiastes is the only book in the Bible specially written for atheists.

Do not try, but Do.
-Yoda

What if it is all true after all?

meditate on this I will.

Agent, I am not denying the evidence for common decent. I will even admit that after reading The Evolution Controversy I was a bit taken back by the evidence brought forth by Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler who both profess Christ, if I recollect and who both subscribe to evolution.

Once again how long will you search before the search is over Agent?
What if it is all true after all?
As spiritual fulfillment continues to allude you, and your life is being spent denying the one who died for you how do you think you will feel when you come face to face with love personified?

What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

Ecclesiastes1:3