Aab....

[CPF]

.....I have chosen to take WistahPats advice and move this discussion to the general board, I hope you don't mind. I hope you and your family are well. Wistah, I will have a response to you A.S.A.P.

Hey AAB, sorry it took me so long to get back to you but as I said in a previous post; my life just got to busy and my priorities had to take precedence. Thank you for your patience.

Ok, so you are an admitted creationist,

I didn’t think it was ever in question that I was a “creationist”, you know as well as others here what my worldview is, of course I believe the God of the Bible to be the “designer”. That in no way takes anything away from the ToID. As I’ve said before we all have Bias’ and they may be relevant in some ways, but they do not make the specific theories we happen to support wrong; that depends on the evidence.

entrancing yourself in a young theory that would appear to support your creationist interpretation of how life began.

I don’t know that I am “entranced” by it as much as I feel it is extremely relevant to the current debate. The fact that it is a “young theory” in no way detracts from that relevance. I will be delving into this a bit more with my response to Wistahpat, which you are of course, more than welcome to weigh in on.

We are getting somewhere, CPF. Your worldview is providing you a view of biology that conflicts with evolution, which appears to me to be why you attack the principles of evolution, without really understanding those principles at all.

Well, as we both know evolution is a rather broad term and the “principles” that guide it seem to me to be just as broad and “selectively” defined. Take for instance when I talk about micro and macro evolution. Now I thought that this was a rather general use of terms that everyone sort of agreed on, but you have told me in the past that you define these terms in a different manner entirely. So maybe the definition of the principles we are talking about may not even be in agreement let alone how they work. I will admit that being a zoologist, you certainly have far more training than I on the mechanisms of evolution but you told me yourself after you had your “epiphany” that you felt that you were deceived by many of the “dogmas” that exist within the scientific community regarding evolution and it is not as if I haven’t done any research on the matter. Do you feel that your worldview colors your view of biology in any way?

I'm open to ID as providing some understanding of the gaps of my knowledge, because if I can't disprove it, I can't prove it, it must remain a possibility. My own research fails to prove or disprove ID...but I am keeping it as a possibility. This is what we call "God of the Gaps".

Yes I’m very familiar with the “God of the gaps” analogy, I just think we disagree on how many “gaps” exist, and that’s ok. I really do admire the apparent honesty of your recent change of heart regarding I.D and I have enjoyed reading your blog. How close are you to publishing something more in relation to your “homeostatic symbiosis” theory?

But at some point if it can't show me a reasonably testable argument, then it fails the science smell test. And Dembski's mathematical models, while quite impressive, do not make it sound science. Modeling, as a construct of human design, is no substitute for studying the actual process in nature.
But what ecologists and zoologists do is study nature. What geneticists do is study nature. What molecular biologists do is study nature.

Dembski does not. He is a mathematician, not a molecular biologist or a geneticist. Therefore, his complex specified information is a concocted term that currently has no place in biology. So by using that term as you do, you are ignoring all the science that we have assembled since Watson and Crick "discovered" DNA, and saying it is something totally different.

Dembski’s research is in no way meant to stand on it’s own, in fact he will be the first to tell you that he created his theory in response to Michael Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, in order to supply some type of a working model to test it. Haven’t you done the same thing at your blog? You presented a hypothesis and then used many different sources to lend support to it, some not having anything to do with “the study of nature”. Using the term Complex specified Information, in no way ignores the science that has been assembled to date, it simply offers us a new way of looking at it. Crick himself has often said that he has to constantly remind himself that the things he sees in the microscope have not bee designed:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. What Mad Pursuit (1988) pp.138-139

What should we trust then?

That strategy will never work. You need to look at the assemblage of existing science, and find comfort for your own worldview in it, as Asa Gray and other Christians have done before you.

I look at the assemblage of existing science and see that there are viable alternatives to the governing theories of biological evolution, not all of them mind you, but certainly some. On this we may disagree but please don’t tell me that my position is futile and that I should simply knuckle under and accept whatever the scientific community chooses to tell me. Did it ever occur to you the time in which Asa Gray lived? Back then it was thought that the cell was nothing more than a lump of albuminous combination of carbon, yet now we know that it is an amazingly complex system of many even smaller machines, much like a factory. I think Asa Gray would find immense comfort for his worldview in that.

Renaming the terms, as in complex specified information, fits a model but nothing in nature supports that as of yet, so we have to stay with the terminology used by the field. You wouldn't want MDs to get their education from faith healers would you?

Ok what field terminology explains the existence of complex information within living systems? I don’t think the whole “faith healers” comment was necessary AAB, the folks that have pioneered the I.D movement can hardly be equated in such a fashion. I understand that these types of comments are made by many proponents of evolution in order to “downplay” the significance of the theory and keep the debate framed as “science vs. the Bible” but do we really have to resort to such “straw men”?

This is similar to how you have attempted to deceive your readers in the past about how evolution attempts to explain the origin of life on earth, when it clearly and specifically does not.

How have I attempted to deceive anybody? Aren’t the results of Stanley Miller’s experiment documented to this day in many text books distributed throughout our public school system? Why; if they are not trying to explain the origin of life on earth? Is it not posited by the same textbooks that life spontaneously generated itself in ancient oceans? Now this may not be an integral part of the ToE but it is certainly inferred and is worthy of discussion. I do not understand why you have chosen the ad hominem attack of accusing me of being some sort of deceiver, we have had enough interaction to this point that I would have thought you would be able to better gage my character and that we at least had some modicum of respect for one and other, even if we do disagree. Take care.

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by CPF

I didn’t think it was ever in question that I was a “creationist”, you know as well as others here what my worldview is, of course I believe the God of the Bible to be the “designer”. That in no way takes anything away from the ToID. As I’ve said before we all have Bias’ and they may be relevant in some ways, but they do not make the specific theories we happen to support wrong; that depends on the evidence.

I agree CPF...the current argument should become dependant on the evidence. I'm glad we agree on this but must warn you that you may be putting yourself at a disadvantage when making the argument that ID belongs alongside, or in place of evolution, in science curricula on the basis of evidence.

Originally Posted by CPF

I don’t know that I am “entranced” by it as much as I feel it is extremely relevant to the current debate. The fact that it is a “young theory” in no way detracts from that relevance. I will be delving into this a bit more with my response to Wistahpat, which you are of course, more than welcome to weigh in on.

It is an interesting philisophical question that I will chime in on. Seems to be taking on that chaos theory slant, which is pretty much out of my element.

Originally Posted by CPF

Well, as we both know evolution is a rather broad term and the “principles” that guide it seem to me to be just as broad and “selectively” defined. Take for instance when I talk about micro and macro evolution. Now I thought that this was a rather general use of terms that everyone sort of agreed on, but you have told me in the past that you define these terms in a different manner entirely. So maybe the definition of the principles we are talking about may not even be in agreement let alone how they work.

Evolution in the context we are using is not a broad term at all. In fact, one of the things I attempted to do at the very beginning of our exercise was to lay out the definitions. It helps us understand each other as we are obviously speaking two separate languages.

The contemporary definition of Biological Evolution is simply "descent with modification". I'm not sure why you consider that a broad term. Its really straightforward. We carry traits of our parents, and their parents, and so on...but we are not identical to them. Thats all we are talking about.

It really doesn't help to alter that definition. It works quite well. In fact, I'm not sure many people would disagree with the notion of descent with modification. Do you disagree with that definition?

Rather, it is the mechanisms driving descent with modification that are central to arguments today.

Originally Posted by CPF

I will admit that being a zoologist, you certainly have far more training than I on the mechanisms of evolution but you told me yourself after you had your “epiphany” that you felt that you were deceived by many of the “dogmas” that exist within the scientific community regarding evolution and it is not as if I haven’t done any research on the matter. Do you feel that your worldview colors your view of biology in any way?

I'm not sure I admitted as much. I have taken the position that what I cannot explain, may just as well be left to ID, but that is a philisophical opinion of mine rather than a scientific opinion. I will try to be clearer in the future when I speak in terms of my philisophical views and when I am speaking strictly on the scientific. My apologies.

Originally Posted by CPF

Yes I’m very familiar with the “God of the gaps” analogy, I just think we disagree on how many “gaps” exist, and that’s ok. I really do admire the apparent honesty of your recent change of heart regarding I.D and I have enjoyed reading your blog. How close are you to publishing something more in relation to your “homeostatic symbiosis” theory?

The god of the gaps is clearly operating. As of now, I cannot entirely explain the evolution of symbioses, and from a philisophical point of view find that ID suits the gaps in my understanding fine, pending a better understanding of the mechanisms.

Do you think possibly that the missing evidence for the transition from parasite to mutualist may be found? Or, were these designed independantly? In other words, were some organisms pre-ordained to be disease (for example Salmonella) and others pre-ordained to be helpful (E coli and other gut bacteria)?

Philisophically speaking, without a current level of complete understanding of how these relationships evolved (against a background of homeostasis), it is relegated to the god of the gaps and therefore could be ID. Scientifically speaking, I need to find plausible alternative explanations and I seek them in the blog.

Originally Posted by CPF

Dembski’s research is in no way meant to stand on it’s own, in fact he will be the first to tell you that he created his theory in response to Michael Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, in order to supply some type of a working model to test it. Haven’t you done the same thing at your blog? You presented a hypothesis and then used many different sources to lend support to it, some not having anything to do with “the study of nature”. Using the term Complex specified Information, in no way ignores the science that has been assembled to date, it simply offers us a new way of looking at it. Crick himself has often said that he has to constantly remind himself that the things he sees in the microscope have not bee designed:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. What Mad Pursuit (1988) pp.138-139

What should we trust then?

I'm not sure why you would use that quote for your argument. My interpretation of that statement by Crick is simply that he is stating that current structure-functions cannot be traced back to past structure- functions. I agree. There are exaptations and such. Nowhere in there does he state that evolution didn't occur. He refers to it as the predominant process from the very start to the very end.

And contrary to your assessment, I must apologize for my blog entry as it was inadequately supported freethink, and hardly supported by relevant data at all, at least at this time. (It too will evolve)

Originally Posted by CPF

I look at the assemblage of existing science and see that there are viable alternatives to the governing theories of biological evolution, not all of them mind you, but certainly some. On this we may disagree but please don’t tell me that my position is futile and that I should simply knuckle under and accept whatever the scientific community chooses to tell me. Did it ever occur to you the time in which Asa Gray lived? Back then it was thought that the cell was nothing more than a lump of albuminous combination of carbon, yet now we know that it is an amazingly complex system of many even smaller machines, much like a factory. I think Asa Gray would find immense comfort for his worldview in that.

This paragraph is illustrative of the mental block that ID proponents seem to have. I will repeat: there are no alternative theories of biological evolution. There are alternative theories as to the mechanisms of evolution over the course of time, but nowhere are scientists arguing against "descent with modification". Its too firmly supported by direct evidence to suggest otherwise, scientifically speaking.

There are some that contend the progress has been gradual, others say rapid, and others say it was punctuated equilibrium...but modern biology doesn't argue that evolution does not occur.


As far as the comments that you found offensive, I apologize. It wasn't meant to be that way.

My concern is that the real "straw man" here may in fact be the insertion of Intelligent Design into a science curriculum. I have no problem with it from a philisophical point of view. My judgement as a conforming scientist would have to disregard it when describing the true processes observed in nature, as it has clearly invoked supernatural forces. To this, I cannot subscribe as a scientist.

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

... I need to find plausible alternative explanations and I seek them in the blog....

What Blog?

[All_Around_Brown]

Symbiotic Homeostasis: A Case for Intelligent Design?

[All_Around_Brown]

There's new content on http://symbiol.blogspot.com/

[CPF]

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

There's new content on http://symbiol.blogspot.com/

Interesting stuff from an evolutionist that claims evolution doesn't try to explain life's origins I will have a response ready for you soon, and I wouldn't mind discussing the "young earth" a bit either. Take care.

[CPF]

WOW! We have already gotten into 2 post response territory....that was quick Sorry about the length but.....you know me.

I agree CPF...the current argument should become dependant on the evidence. I'm glad we agree on this but must warn you that you may be putting yourself at a disadvantage when making the argument that ID belongs alongside, or in place of evolution, in science curricula on the basis of evidence.

I never said I.D should replace the ToE, but I do feel that it should be offered as an alternative viewpoint. Thank you for your warning, but I am perfectly ok with being wrong from time to time, if you can show me that the evidence for I.D is insufficient then I would be forced to agree that it does not belong in public schools. Lets look at it together and see if we can’t come to some conclusions.



Originally Posted by CPF
I don’t know that I am “entranced” by it as much as I feel it is extremely relevant to the current debate. The fact that it is a “young theory” in no way detracts from that relevance. I will be delving into this a bit more with my response to Wistahpat, which you are of course, more than welcome to weigh in on.

It is an interesting philisophical question that I will chime in on. Seems to be taking on that chaos theory slant, which is pretty much out of my element.

I think it’s a bit more than simply a “philosophical” question. Lets look at DNA alone. We now know that DNA actually stores information (detailed instructions for assembling proteins) in the form of a four character digital code. Given what we know of information from what Mr. Dembski as well as many other information theorist’ have offered, it would appear that it is always the result of an interjection of intelligence. So if the observable facts tell us that information is the direct result of an intelligent source then what conclusions can we come to as far as the origin of DNA is concerned? Perhaps I have oversimplified this argument and I do look forward to any light you may be able to shed on this.

Originally Posted by CPF
Well, as we both know evolution is a rather broad term and the “principles” that guide it seem to me to be just as broad and “selectively” defined. Take for instance when I talk about micro and macro evolution. Now I thought that this was a rather general use of terms that everyone sort of agreed on, but you have told me in the past that you define these terms in a different manner entirely. So maybe the definition of the principles we are talking about may not even be in agreement let alone how they work.

Evolution in the context we are using is not a broad term at all. In fact, one of the things I attempted to do at the very beginning of our exercise was to lay out the definitions. It helps us understand each other as we are obviously speaking two separate languages.

The contemporary definition of Biological Evolution is simply "descent with modification". I'm not sure why you consider that a broad term. Its really straightforward. We carry traits of our parents, and their parents, and so on...but we are not identical to them. Thats all we are talking about.

It really doesn't help to alter that definition. It works quite well. In fact, I'm not sure many people would disagree with the notion of descent with modification. Do you disagree with that definition?

Rather, it is the mechanisms driving descent with modification that are central to arguments today.

I have absolutely no problem with descent with modification, it is when you want to use that same mechanism to explain how complex organisms were built from the ground up or how say, one class or order can “evolve” into another…. that is where I and many others who support the ToID disagree strongly.


Originally Posted by CPF
I will admit that being a zoologist, you certainly have far more training than I on the mechanisms of evolution but you told me yourself after you had your “epiphany” that you felt that you were deceived by many of the “dogmas” that exist within the scientific community regarding evolution and it is not as if I haven’t done any research on the matter. Do you feel that your worldview colors your view of biology in any way?

I'm not sure I admitted as much. I have taken the position that what I cannot explain, may just as well be left to ID, but that is a philisophical opinion of mine rather than a scientific opinion. I will try to be clearer in the future when I speak in terms of my philisophical views and when I am speaking strictly on the scientific. My apologies.

Here is what you said verbatim:

First and foremost, what I think you must realize is that above all else, it is a matter of principle for us scientists to be objective. That of course means being receptive to differing opinions on matters that are not settled. And as you and I are both aware, the process of evolution by natural selection is not settled. Many of my peers, as well as myself, have been convinced by the dogma which exists in the education of biology, regarding the theoretical emergence of life forms by random mutation and, as a corollary, chance. This to me was the basis of my opinion, largely because of my education. However, you have opened my eyes to a few things in the course of six months or so that we've been throwing this stuff back and forth. I've recently read an article on equilibrium which completely changed my way of thinking on the matter, and I owe you a bit of gratitude for it.

To tell you the truth I was quite encouraged by this apparent change of heart you had right before Christmas, but it seems as if this might have been short-lived. It’s ok if you have changed your mind but I don’t understand why you would want to deny that you ever actually felt this way.






Originally Posted by CPF
Yes I’m very familiar with the “God of the gaps” analogy, I just think we disagree on how many “gaps” exist, and that’s ok. I really do admire the apparent honesty of your recent change of heart regarding I.D and I have enjoyed reading your blog. How close are you to publishing something more in relation to your “homeostatic symbiosis” theory?

The god of the gaps is clearly operating. As of now, I cannot entirely explain the evolution of symbioses, and from a philisophical point of view find that ID suits the gaps in my understanding fine, pending a better understanding of the mechanisms.

Let me ask you this question then; what does a naturalistic atheist do with the possibility of I.D being plausible? How do you fit the ToID into that kind of worldview?

Do you think possibly that the missing evidence for the transition from parasite to mutualist may be found? Or, were these designed independantly? In other words, were some organisms pre-ordained to be disease (for example Salmonella) and others pre-ordained to be helpful (E coli and other gut bacteria)?

That’s an interesting question and I have to admit one I have not given much thought to. Diseases such as Salmonella have their purpose just as E coli has it’s own, so I suppose it is possible that they were independently designed and thus “pre-ordained to function the way they do. Now that does not mean that we should not continue to look for transitional forms as it would be disingenuous to just make assumptions. There are however many a symbiotic relationship found in nature that seem to absolutely defy a naturalist explanation.

Philosophically speaking, without a current level of complete understanding of how these relationships evolved (against a background of homeostasis), it is relegated to the god of the gaps and therefore could be ID. Scientifically speaking, I need to find plausible alternative explanations and I seek them in the blog.

I know it is currently anathema within scientific circles to even consider the supernatural, but doesn’t that somewhat hamstring you right out of the gate? I mean you could be looking for naturalistic alternatives while all the while the super naturalistic answer could be staring you right in the face.

More to follow:

[CPF]

And now..... the rest of the story

Originally Posted by CPF
Dembski’s research is in no way meant to stand on it’s own, in fact he will be the first to tell you that he created his theory in response to Michael Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, in order to supply some type of a working model to test it. Haven’t you done the same thing at your blog? You presented a hypothesis and then used many different sources to lend support to it, some not having anything to do with “the study of nature”. Using the term Complex specified Information, in no way ignores the science that has been assembled to date, it simply offers us a new way of looking at it. Crick himself has often said that he has to constantly remind himself that the things he sees in the microscope have not bee designed:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. What Mad Pursuit (1988) pp.138-139

What should we trust then?

I'm not sure why you would use that quote for your argument. My interpretation of that statement by Crick is simply that he is stating that current structure-functions cannot be traced back to past structure- functions. I agree. There are exaptations and such. Nowhere in there does he state that evolution didn't occur. He refers to it as the predominant process from the very start to the very end.

Oh I never said that Crick does not wholeheartedly believe that the ToE is true, I just find it incredibly interesting that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Why is that? It would seem it is because what they are constantly looking at has all of the hallmarks you would expect to find in designed systems. Yet they cannot come to the obvious conclusion of design because that would be unthinkable. I just think science should be about finding the most plausible answers, not eliminating the ones you find uncomfortable before you even begin. Also he does say, and I quote “Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much.” Why am I wrong to question this line of reasoning?

And contrary to your assessment, I must apologize for my blog entry as it was inadequately supported freethink, and hardly supported by relevant data at all, at least at this time. (It too will evolve)

Really, I thought it was rather well thought out and the sources you sighted lent great support to you hypothesis. I think what has happened is that you have “cooled off” a little so to speak, perhaps had a few discussions with your peers and have “come to your senses” a bit……which by the way, is a real pity.



Originally Posted by CPF
I look at the assemblage of existing science and see that there are viable alternatives to the governing theories of biological evolution, not all of them mind you, but certainly some. On this we may disagree but please don’t tell me that my position is futile and that I should simply knuckle under and accept whatever the scientific community chooses to tell me. Did it ever occur to you the time in which Asa Gray lived? Back then it was thought that the cell was nothing more than a lump of albuminous combination of carbon, yet now we know that it is an amazingly complex system of many even smaller machines, much like a factory. I think Asa Gray would find immense comfort for his worldview in that.

This paragraph is illustrative of the mental block that ID proponents seem to have. I will repeat: there are no alternative theories of biological evolution. There are alternative theories as to the mechanisms of evolution over the course of time, but nowhere are scientists arguing against "descent with modification". Its too firmly supported by direct evidence to suggest otherwise, scientifically speaking.

Would you please stop acting as if nobody of consequence disagrees with the ToE it is becoming rather insulting. To posit that there are no alternative theories to Darwinian evolution is ludicrous. The fact that you look upon them as philosophical in nature and therefore little more than religion is nothing more than personal opinion. As I said before neither I nor any other supporter of the ToID worth his/her salt disagrees with descent with modification within individual class or order, it is only when you want explain wholesale changes from one to another using the same method that we have a problem. Descent with modification simply is not an adequate model to explain say fin to leg or arm to wing adjustments.

There are some that contend the progress has been gradual, others say rapid, and others say it was punctuated equilibrium...but modern biology doesn't argue that evolution does not occur.

Nobody in their right mind argues that evolution does not occur, that is a straw man. I believe micro-evolution occurs by manipulation and or loss of information, but I do not believe macro evolution occurs, where there is an influx of entirely new information in order to build completely new systems from the ground up or radically change physical forms from one to another.

As far as the comments that you found offensive, I apologize. It wasn't meant to be that way.

Accepted, thank you.

My concern is that the real "straw man" here may in fact be the insertion of Intelligent Design into a science curriculum. I have no problem with it from a philosophical point of view. My judgement as a conforming scientist would have to disregard it when describing the true processes observed in nature, as it has clearly invoked supernatural forces. To this, I cannot subscribe as a scientist.

Again, isn’t that eliminating a possible answer before you even begin? I will agree that there really are no plausible alternatives for I.D outside the supernatural. I have heard alien life forms proposed but I think that is improbable. My question is why do we remove the possibility of a supernatural cause a priori? If science is simply the quest for the most probable explanation for something, then why eliminate a possibility before even considering it? Unless of course worldview is driving the majority’s assumptions. I will admit that my worldview molds my assumptions, will you admit that yours does the same thing? Take care. P.S Are you still thinking of submitting something to the Discovery Institute regarding your research on Symbiotic Homeostasis? You had asked me if I would help you with some of “the more complex divinity stuff” if you were questioned by them and I was just wondering if this was still your intent.

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by CPF

Interesting stuff from an evolutionist that claims evolution doesn't try to explain life's origins

It doesn't. Darwins Evolution by Natural Selection describes the diversity of life on earth, not the origin of life on earth.

I happen to subscribe to the serial endosymbiotic theory. That theory, more than any other, describes the modern theory of the origin of multicellular life, but still doesn't address the origin of the first lifeform.

I'm sure you see the discrepency.

More on the rest later...but I do feel we're just running in circles here. You appear to want me to accept a supernatural explanation. I'm not going to go there in a scientific discussion, although I will mention it in terms of a philisophical or metaphysical sense.

Again, thats where ID would do quite well. It would serve to clarify alot of what we think we observe in the natural world in terms of design, and explained in terms of the supernatural. It is telling that Kansas has to redifine science to include the supernatural, as I've pointed out before.

But for me to accept the supernatural-based position , I would have to also subscribe to things like cryptozoology. As a scientist, I would have no evidence for it.

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by CPF

I never said I.D should replace the ToE, but I do feel that it should be offered as an alternative viewpoint. Thank you for your warning, but I am perfectly ok with being wrong from time to time, if you can show me that the evidence for I.D is insufficient then I would be forced to agree that it does not belong in public schools. Lets look at it together and see if we can’t come to some conclusions.

You want it to be an alternate scientific viewpoint however. In order to get to that point, it would have to be accepted through the scientific method. And in order for it to get to that point, it would have to be not only hypothesized, but also observed, tested, and reproduced. It would have to possess predictive value. By observation, testing, and reproducing results, scientific opinions are formed that provide this predictive value. ID is insufficient on this basis. It holds no predictive value.

Why? Because it is not testable.

Originally Posted by CPF

I think it’s a bit more than simply a “philosophical” question. Lets look at DNA alone. We now know that DNA actually stores information (detailed instructions for assembling proteins) in the form of a four character digital code. Given what we know of information from what Mr. Dembski as well as many other information theorist’ have offered, it would appear that it is always the result of an interjection of intelligence. So if the observable facts tell us that information is the direct result of an intelligent source then what conclusions can we come to as far as the origin of DNA is concerned? Perhaps I have oversimplified this argument and I do look forward to any light you may be able to shed on this.

There is no proof there. You said it would appear to be interjection of intelligence. You are saying that it is intelligent because it is storage of information. Ok...there is information there. Does that in itself imply intelligence?

You may realize that over 90% of the human genome is junk or non-coding DNA. If it is intelligently designed molecule, why is there so much non-sense in its structure that does not confer genetic information. There is still no good explanation given by ID as to why all this wasted DNA exists that I am aware of. Maybe you can help me out there.

Currently, the more plausible explanation is simply that much of that junk DNA had served at some point in history as a "useful" gene, an exaptation. But that idea runs into problems when you consider the C-value enigma.

This is an active area of genetic research. If ID has a contribution to the science here, please point me to it.

Originally Posted by CPF

I have absolutely no problem with descent with modification, it is when you want to use that same mechanism to explain how complex organisms were built from the ground up or how say, one class or order can “evolve” into another…. that is where I and many others who support the ToID disagree strongly.

Since you disregard time as an influence in modification, I can see how you cannot grasp this. However, you agree that, unlike young earth creationists, the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Life is probably around 3.5 billion years old. Therefore, 3.5 billion years probably is enough time for adaptations to provide the basis of new species. What really helps to understand is the impact of biogeography and plate tectonics on the emergence of new species (macroevolution).

Maybe ID has a more plausible explanation as to why proximate island populations of animals often show such great similarities and yet are unable to interbreed, thus forming separate species. And maybe if you consider the time it has taken for the earths supercontinent Pangaea to break apart, one will recognize that there are certain groups of animals on certain continents that share characteristics with others on other continents, but are so very different. If ID belongs in biology class, please tell me: how does ID explain these magnificent riddles of biogeography?

Originally Posted by CPF

Let me ask you this question then; what does a naturalistic atheist do with the possibility of I.D being plausible? How do you fit the ToID into that kind of worldview?

Well, who said I am a naturalistic athiest? Where did I say that? Did I state that ID is plausible in the sense that it can explain biological phenomena better than evolution? Or did I suggest that since there are things I do not understand, I may take some comfort in the god of the gaps and may as well attribute it to ID since no better explanation exists for the unknown. That is a philisophical position.

Originally Posted by CPF

That’s an interesting question and I have to admit one I have not given much thought to. Diseases such as Salmonella have their purpose just as E coli has it’s own, so I suppose it is possible that they were independently designed and thus “pre-ordained to function the way they do. Now that does not mean that we should not continue to look for transitional forms as it would be disingenuous to just make assumptions. There are however many a symbiotic relationship found in nature that seem to absolutely defy a naturalist explanation.

Please give me an example of one, thank you. I have given you examples of why evolution is important to understand in terms of understanding emerging and mutating diseases. Therefore, I'm surprised you didn't give it some thought. Superbugs is very much a current concern to medicine. How does ID explain the emergence of disease resistant bacteria strains??

Originally Posted by CPF

I know it is currently anathema within scientific circles to even consider the supernatural, but doesn’t that somewhat hamstring you right out of the gate? I mean you could be looking for naturalistic alternatives while all the while the super naturalistic answer could be staring you right in the face.

Supernatural by its definition are those beyond the realm of nature. Every biologist I know has a keen interest in nature. Why should they instead be concerned with the supernatural? Should priests discuss life sciences in their sermons?