Comment on God and Granite Cubes by gene fortner.
I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism.
I don’t think you really know what the Theory of Intelligent Design is.
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”  Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.
Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?
Where did you get that idea? As usual an ignorant media presented a biased view. What happened in Pennsylvania and Kansas is that the school boards thought that the glaring warts of evolutionary be taught along with regular evolutionary theory. A straw man was created (creationism / intelligent design) to defeat what should be considered normal science methodology.
To the average high school student Intelligent Design is self evident and does not need to be taught. The Theory of Intelligent Design in a rigorous form in probably more appropriate to the university.
Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.
It depends on what you call evolution, if you mean;
“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”
Evolution as taught is not supported by the data, God designed life to adapt, not evolve, and that “adaptation” has an edge, based on its Kind. This is well supported by the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of heredity.
God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion,
God did create a fine tuned universe for carbon based life and life with the ability to adapt and produce the variety of life that we see in the fossil record and extant life.
You beg the question as to why academia does not want to teach the glaring faults in evolutionary theory.
gene fortner Also Commented
Yes we “know” how “Evolution works”. What we don’t know is how “Evolution” can produce the new information required for new organs and new body types. In fact all empirical science demonstrates otherwise. A mechanism for new information is sadly lacking in the currant theories.
The limit of evolution seems to be defined by the Laws of Biogenesis and Heredity.
God and Granite Cubes
You have no empirical evidence for Neo-Darwinism (evolution).
The is absolute empirical evidence for the laws of Biogenesis and Heredity. They disprove evolutionary theory.
Don’t you think you should give some proof of evolution before you philosophize about topics you clearly have little knowledge?
God and Granite Cubes
Nima Arkani Hamed and others have proposed over 1e500 universes because fewer of them would not obviate fine-tuning. Why believe in them? As a New Scientist writer has explained:
But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely turned for our existence … This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes — a multiverse.
Cosmologists deserve credit for making the choice so clear. In that spirit, Discover Magazine offers the multiverse as “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator” (2008).
It matters that this stuff is considered “science” today.
Recent Comments by gene fortner
A scientist starts with data, the proposes a hypothesis to explain that data. A creation scientists uses the scientific method to test the validity of the Bible.
So far the Bible is way ahead of secular scientist attempts to explain the universe.
Neo-Darwinism is dead.
Here are some of the attemps to replace it.
They too will fail
In Search of “Evolution 3.0”
There are eight contenders for the next incarnation of the theory of evolution.
I have heard and read that the theory of evolution is a “theory in crisis.” But the research path I’ve been on has led me to flip-flop on that notion depending on what I was reading at the time. However, very recently, I think I have come to settle on the “theory in crisis” side of the fence. It has always been my contention that, by far, the best refutations against the theory come from evolutionists themselves. By “best” I mean ones likely to be taken seriously by those who adhere to the tenets of evolutionary theory. This is because no matter how scientifically sound an argument is, if it comes from a source with the slightest religious or Intelligent Design affiliation, it is automatically discredited on that basis.
That being said, the ongoing search for the theory’s replacement, in my opinion, offers some of the most powerful evidence against the theory. It appears that the recent developments in microbiology and genetics have been at work silently in the background (i.e. with limited public exposure). I’ve just read through Stephen Meyer’s refutation of evolution in Darwin’s Doubt. It is very compelling scientific evidence. The result of this silent work is now manifesting itself in a search for a replacement for neo-Darwinian evolution.
The surfacing theories that I am currently aware of are:
1. Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP)
3. Natural Genetic Engineering
6. Evolutionary Developmental Biology
7. Neutral Evolution
8. Facilitated Variation
The fact that all of these new theories are surfacing
True but some try to use snowflakes as the appearance of design.
The ability to detect design is God given.
Send a couple of 10 year olds through a field looking for artifacts, they will come back with arrowheads, broken pieces of pottery, nails, ……
Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
@Professor Kent: Prof,
The 2nd law applies to the universe, including open and closed systems.
Notice how sunlight (UV) degrades paint/skin/…
What you need to do to refute Dominic Stratham’s hypothesis is to come up with a hypothesis that matches the data better than his.
His hypothesis matches the data much better than current just so stories and it makes sense.
Your attempt to refute his hypothesis was a lazy man’s attempt at an apopeal to authority.
Engineers are much harder to fool because they design things.
Academia only has to come up with a story that matches the current dogma’s premise.
PS: A few hundred years ago, the consensus was against Galileo.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: Bacteria did have the digestive function before nylon was invented. The fact that they could not digest nylon before nylon was invented is simply because there wasn’t any nylon to digest.
New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.