Q#3 Why I think ID is not a scientific theory

[tdrehfal]

On 3: Stating that the origin of life is completely superflous to the TOE is rediculous. What you really appear to be saying is 'The origin of life

is superfluous to Evolutionary Biology, not evolution. YOU completely missed MY point. Walk down the street and ask people

about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten., if not ten out of ten. So there's no relationship

between evolution and origins? You're being rediculous.

Okay...I seriously don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. You seem to think that the Theory of Evolution is some grand, overreaching theory of "Life the Universe and Everything." It is not. It applies to biological systems after the emergence of life on Earth. I seriously hope I don't have to keep repeating this.

Walk down the street and ask people about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten.

If that is how you approach science, then you are the one being ridiculous. Scientific theories are not defined or penned by random people off the street.

I suggest instead that you walk into a museum or university and ask scientists in the field. If you ask about how the Human race originated, then yes, you will get the evolutionary explanation from proto-monkeys and so forth. Howevever, if you ask about the origin of life itself, you will likely either get the "RNA world" explanation (which I largely subscribe to), the "Metabolism First" explanation, or some combination thereof. You will never hear Evolution stated as the reason for the origin of life itself.

You might as well try to argue that Atomic Theory is invalid because it does not explain Gravity. I really don't know how much clearer I can make that.

At least points 1 and 2 seem to have gotten through to you

Since I do believe limited evolution does happen, yes, 1 and 2 would get me. However, the rest of this post totally ignored what I stated.

You simply 'pushed' the argument aside. Evolution IS the 'grand, big theory of life and everything' as it relates to pre-college textbooks.

I dont know how to make this any clearer to you: In the minds of most atheist/agnost individuals, evolution is that 'grand theory' you're

talking about. The scientific community should be holding some kind of press conference to convey to the public that evolution isn't

about the way we got here. Why haven't they done this? By letting it continue then, they're being irresponsible. Besides all this,

even if you're talking about stuff AFTER life emerged, you're STILL talking about origins! Not the origin of the first organism, but

the origin of the first 'complex' organism, which eventually turns into modern man. No matter how you look at it, evolution has

a lot to do with origins.

[SaturnV]

Ah, consensus. I can go to sleep happy now Good thing, 'cause it's 1:30 AM here

Since I do believe limited evolution does happen, yes, 1 and 2 would get me.

However, the rest of this post totally ignored what I stated.

You simply 'pushed' the argument aside.

I was making the point that the current lack of a scientific consensus on the origin of Life does not invalidate the Theory of Evolution. I was not pushing your argument aside, I was telling you why it does not apply to the ToE/ID debate.

Evolution IS the 'grand, big theory of life and everything' as it relates to pre-college textbooks.

I dont know how to make this any clearer to you: In the minds of most atheist/agnost individuals, evolution is that 'grand theory' you're

talking about.

Ah, that is lamentable. It however, is not a failure of the Theory itself, but a failure in understanding the Theory. Theories about the origin of life are often taught at the same time as Evolution, so I can see how this would occur, however.

The scientific community should be holding some kind of press conference to convey to the public that evolution isn't

about the way we got here. Why haven't they done this? By letting it continue then, they're being irresponsible.

There are plenty of books and articles out there on the matter, so it's not like the information isn't out there. However, when it comes to education and the debate about teaching ID in schools, I could not agree with you more. I think that teaching is responsibility of the education system, but if the debate comes up, clearing up misconceptions regarding Evolution should be a high priority.

Besides all this, even if you're talking about stuff AFTER life emerged, you're STILL talking about origins! Not the origin of the first organism, but

the origin of the first 'complex' organism, which eventually turns into modern man. No matter how you look at it, evolution has

a lot to do with origins.

Once again, agreed. What happened after the first organism is what Evolution and Evolutionary Biology is all about

[followerofjesus]

The designer sent his son w/ the truth. We can debate any questions from the message he sent through his son as being false which you can choose to believe or reject.

The creator is so much more advanced than man or science. He will make fools of the wise.

[cjrose]

The designer sent his son w/ the truth. We can debate any questions from the message he sent through his son as being false which you can choose to believe or reject.

The creator is so much more advanced than man or science. He will make fools of the wise.

[GeneV]

The designer sent his son w/ the truth. We can debate any questions from the message he sent through his son as being false which you can choose to believe or reject.

The creator is so much more advanced than man or science. He will make fools of the wise.

[SaturnV]

SaturnV

Okay...I seriously don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. You seem to think that the Theory of Evolution is some grand, overreaching theory of "Life the Universe and Everything." It is not. It applies to biological systems after the emergence of life on Earth. I seriously hope I don't have to keep repeating this.

SV is blurring the line between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (naturalistic philosophy). Darwinism’s two most basic assumptions are that life just happens from unsupervised and impersonal processes (the living came from non-living) and mutations (miraculously) create new species – and both assumptions belong to philosophical myth and have nothing to do with science.

SaturnV

First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Zip. Nada. If it is conclusively shown that the first DNA (or even the first cell) was placed on Earth by aliens, Divine powers, an asteroid, or what have you, that does not affect Evolutionary Biology. The Theory of Evolution states that over time, via the process of Natural Selection, organisms develop traits to enable them to better survive in their environment. Note that abiogenisis is not mentioned in that definition. The origin of Life is not adressed by Evolution, rather the the Theory deals with everything that has happened since then.

False statement. Darwinism (General Theory of Evolution) has everything to do with the “origin of life” (abiogenesis). Why would SV want to “blur the line” – why run away from the abiogenesis issue? Because he/she realizes this issue is the “Achilles’ heel” of Darwinism. Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institute points out this most basic weakness of Darwinism,

"Today, as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?"

False Statement. I've already said there is no scientific consensus on how life began in the first place. In other words, we don't really know (scientists say that all the time, by the way). This is not the "achilles heel" of the Theory of Evolution as you claim it to be.

Oh, and I'm a guy.

From a purely theistic perspective it is important to realize that Darwinism precludes the need for God. There are some on this board who consider themselves to be “Theistic Evolutionists” but they misunderstand the nature of the naturalistic philosophy which underlies Darwinism – a philosophy that excludes intelligent design and supernatural direction. To underscore this I would refer to the following statement made by the American National Association of Biology Teachers. Their “official statement” is typical of Darwinism:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments"

Is abiogenesis mentioned anywhere in that definition? Because I don't see it. Note also that definition refers to the diversity of life, not its origin.

SV commits the “logical fallacy” of mixing biological evolution (science) with the non-scientific dogma of Darwinism. For those interesting in more information – please review the following website:

http://creationwiki.org/Evolution

Tip for you-if you're debating someone with a science background, try citing scientifically credible, unbiased sources. Not, for example, CreationWiki.

“The word Evolution basically means "gradual change". In the broadest sense the word is all-pervasive; stars, galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve through time.

Yes, the word is tossed around a lot in the vernacular sense. What is the point of that?

Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion. Two major uses of the word evolution include:

• Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

• The General theory of evolution: the speculation that all life originated naturalistically without any act of creation (abiogenesis); that all life on the planet is related because it originated in a single cell or population of cells (common ancestry); and that all the biological complexity, adaptivity, and artistry on the planet is solely the result of random changes and natural selection over millions and billions of years.

What is this "General Theory of Evolution" of which you speak?

The distinction between these two uses of the word "Evolution" is important, because creationism acknowledges that biological evolution is a true and scientific reality,

Well, at least we've made some progress from the time when creationists wouldn't acknowledge evolution at all.

but argues that the theory of evolution is a speculative farce, overwhelmingly discredited by the scientific evidence.

They're one and the same. There are also currently no scientific grounds for discarding the Theory of Evolution. It has been revised over the years (for example, from phyletic gradualism, to punctuated equilibrium, to punctuated gradualism), but there has been no scientific evidence to suggest the entire theory as a whole is wrong.

Evolutionism comes in many forms: atheistic, pantheistic, and theistic evolutionist. Atheistic evolutionists believe that evolution occurs solely through natural means. Theistic evolutionists believe that God guides the process of evolution. Panthestic evolutionists believe that evolution is part of how the spirit of the cosmos develops over time.

Doesn't that contradict your assertion that the Theory of Evolution precludes belief in God? Or are you just not able to reconcile your beliefs with the facts?

EDIT: I had to stop using Quote tags here as the post got too long for them to work.

"Some evolutionists have been known to commit a logical fallacy by conflating biological evolution and the general theory of evolution. The argument goes like this: "There is a great deal of evidence for biological evolution. Therefore the general theory of evolution is true." This argument is fallacious, because while biological evolution makes no claim as to the origin of life and allows for the possibility that it was originally created, the general theory of evolution claims that life originated by chance through abiogenesis, a speculation for which there is neither evidence nor comprehensive explanation.” ~ creationwiki"

Could you, once again, show me a credible source that differentiates between the Theory of Evolution and your "General Theory of Evolution" (which I have yet to see referenced anywhere). Even a passage from The Origin of Species, or an article in peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that backs up the claim that the Theory of Evolution requires abiogeneisis would work.

I try not to use Wikipedia as a source if I can avoid it, but they do have an excellent article on Evolution.

Something that you might find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#History_of_life

Excerpt:

"The origin of life from self-catalytic chemical reactions is not a part of biological evolution, but rather of pre-evolutionary abiogenesis. However, disputes over what defines life make the point at which such increasingly complex sets of reactions became true organisms unclear. Not much is yet known about the earliest developments in life. There is no scientific consensus regarding the relationship of the three domains of organisms (Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota) or regarding the precise reactions involved in abiogenesis. Attempts to shed light on the origin of life generally focus on the behavior of macromolecules—particularly RNA—and the behavior of complex systems."

And also the definition of the Theory (Wikipedia again):

"In biology, evolution is the process in which some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation. This is usually measured in terms of the variant genes, known as alleles, that encode the competing traits. As differences in and between populations accumulate over time, speciation, the development of new species from existing ones, can occur. All known organisms, including extinct species, are related by common descent through numerous speciation events starting from a single ancestor."

Note that the origin of that ancestor is not mentioned anywhere.

The fact remains, abiogenisis notwithstanding, that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is a theory in name only.

-Edited to fix formatting problems

-Edited again-accidentally deleted a paragraph

Edited January 21, 2007 by SaturnV

[Joshua-777]

lol, what I find funny, is that we believe God as a whole, everything, his word from the begining to the end, and it's all one, Now theorys of science are broken into segments, When you adress a different segment other than the one talked about, even though the two theorys connect for the world view, someone gets upset. Lets see, the big bang, abogenesis, evolution, How could you say that these theorys have nothing to do with eachother, because they all line up, evolutionist view, The big bang created the universe, Abogenesis started, and life evolved from it, well they all seem to fit, in an evolutionist view point, now lets look at the creation view, God created the universe, and created all life, and created man, well, it all fits with God, no need to separate it into individual theorys, because it's all one, God is the creator. Now, lets look at evidence,

what we observe, we are complex orginisms, who are separate from animals by morals, and faith, we have somthing different, Life comes from pre-existing life, has anyone witnessed someone give birth to a donkey? or any other species than human? has anyone witnessed any species evolving into another species? No we havn't, what observable evidence is that, all is the way God said it is, Our brains are complex enough, we still cannot figure them out, DNA is like a blueprint, of design, and DNA doesnt evolve or change, Now, you cannot tweek what God has made, What is, is what God said is.

[followerofjesus]

Do people think all the creatures & life on earth appeared out of thin air?

[cjrose]

Do people think all the creatures & life on earth appeared out of thin air?

Remarkable isn't it? Yes, some people actually do. Bada Boom!!!

[Joshua-777]

Wow. Horizon is still claiming that abiogenesis is part of Darwinian evolution? Looks like nothing's changed.

Keep it up Saturn.

Do people think all the creatures & life on earth appeared out of thin air?

...Only creationists.

Well not even thin air, lol actualy the dust of the ground, better than the atmosphere and lightning making life. There is a God, who formed us, every cell, and every hair on our head.