Have always been an evolutionist, though have never been a simple or pure materialist from a broader philosophical perspective. The notion (and “notion” is all it has ever been, or little more than that) evolution has operated by pure randomness and chance (on a purely physicalist level) was perhaps the earliest question and doubt I entertained, however tentatively. I stay informed and read extensively, but ultimately am only a layman, no more than that. So it’s intriguing, helpful and even probative, in an informal and obviously summary fashion, to read more informed comments such as Yeshooroon’s above.

If there were not serious problems, Gould would not have put forth Punctuated Equilibrium to account for the ‘gaps’ in the fossil records.

Essentially, PE reduces all need for any logical framework within the theory of mac-E. You can have it by tiny steps, or large leaps. This is the very contradiction that Darwin stated would falsify his theory. The inability to explain all the steps. The question is today has science reached that point to determine if this is true.

There are legitimate reasons Netwon’s contributions to science are considered Laws. Laws of Motion, whereas Darwin’s science is still considered theory. While contradictions exist in both, Newton’s Laws can be relied upon for accurately repeated results over and over again on earth.

Genetic variation(mic-e) and inherentance within a species was shown by Mendel, not Darwin. Geneticist refer to “Mendel’s Law”, not Darwin for the initial underlying discovery which contributes to their field of study.

Modern biological research being done today does not rely on Darwin or Evolution. Leading scientist acknowledge this today: http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1

The amount of information complexity found at the cellular level was never anticipated by Darwin. Neo-darwinist and evolutionist supporters must be able to explain Evolution within the context of information theory now as it relates to functional complexity of storage access, symbolic representations and ‘smart’ use of compressed algorithmic data. This has nothing to do with gaps, it has everything to do with scientific observation.

It is my personal opinion that information exchange studied at the cellular level within living organisms will spur a paradigm shift from random/selection unintelligent materialist reductionism to digital/algorithmic functions of information transfer and intelligent recognition.

Assembler language(machine code) is an excellent example of CODON storage techniques used to reference amino acids by a multi-pass method accessing different starting points within storage. A programmer who designs such a code utilizing discreet algorithms is considered highly intelligent. The fact is today, nano options are being sought after for just such scales of use.

It is my personal contention that complex information cannot be transferrable without knowledge of transfer protocols. Protocols infer design and communication between a receiver and sender with enough knowledge to account for error processing mechanisms as well. Further, information complexity transferred by an intelligent agent for use in another form denotes the information transferred was created by an intelligent agent.

mac-E is unproven and has not been shown to be observable. All attempts to date have failed in producing a new species in the lab. Fruit Fly experiments, bacteria, viruses, etc., have only been observed as variations within the conserved genome of that particular species. New information for radical morphology has not been created or observed. In fact, it is the attempt at random processes which led to failed experiments. With information theory and protocol recognition, codes will be opened. It is cryptologist that are required in today’s biology labs. “Language Code Breakers”.

On much larger scale organisms, leading paleontologist disagree with current findings for example – reptile to bird morphologies. As in leading scientist say there is currently no proof for transitional fossils. Professor Feducia(sic) at UNC is considered one of the top orinthologist in the nation and he states its not done yet. Please note, he believes in evolution.

there is no reason not to have a good debate on these issues even though it is recognized territory of a considerable paradigm shift within the scientific community and population as a whole.

ID as a theory is not fully formalized(in my personal opinion) and the leading scientific proponents I’ve read do not suggest it be taught at the high school level.

Teaching about problems with macro evolution however should not be a problem, it should be considered healthy and students should be taught to be skeptical and ask questions without being attacked as being silly or stupid. To many times I see adults behaving with such disrepect and students pick up on it.

There is to much media distortion on this subject. And I’m really astonished that Roger adds to the misinformation the way he has, including Charles.

PJM it seems on this subject is simply acting like the very media it abhors and puts down every day bad reporting. Instead of having a healthy debate on both sides of the issues, the few post I’ve seen Roger make have been inflammatory rhetoric with ommissions of any factual knowledge. It fails to recognize good sources of information online in technical journals on both sides of the debate.

I expected much more from PJM. If this is to be the extent of reporting on scientific inquiry, then I’ll be seriously disappointed. Best stay off the topic if it can not be succinctly covered.

I do not expect PJM to be all things to all people. But I expect it to at least look significantly ‘deep’ at the current information available prior to making attacks on a subject matter which it obviously did not investigate properly before posting on the subject.

Otherwise, don’t make pop-culture poll choices, via lalawood national enquirisms and today’s current popular media tactics – low on content, high on opinon, appeal to authority figures within our popular culture and do not question or investigate for yourself.

There are multiple scientific viewpoints on these large encompassing issues of worldviews between Macro-E and ID. Some scientist I read are honest enough to say they don’t know yet.

These issues are much more complicated than a simple throw away glance and deserve attention.

As an example of real scientific theoretical concepts being put forth I’ve read a recent article put by two Professors recently which I found consise, clear and fairly straight forward for most here to read.

It is an excellent technical article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling online for anyone to peruse regarding three types of Sequence Complexity; Random, Ordered, and Functional.

The two authors put forth 4 null hypotheses which they asked to be falsified based upon their definitions of Complexity. They welcome all scientist to join in to help them falsify their hypotheses. They predict it will not be done.

This is a much better and logical way of looking at serious questions regarding biological complexity and new theories to account for the origin of species and information.

Richard Dawkins, an atheist enthusiast proposed Shannon Information Theory could account for much of the complexity now seen on cellular levels. Dr’s. Abel and Trevor state that Shannon Information Theory cannot account for Functional Sequence Complexity(FSC).

I encourage all those who care to take a look, go to this link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958

If the hypotheses cannot be falsified, then I suspect “design proponents” will begin to take a “small foothold” in academics and lab settings.

Whatever side you take these are exciting times. ID, information theory, it all serves a good purpose in the end. Evolutionist must be able to respond and shoot down such proposed concepts as IC of flagellum(still standing). They must be able to test it, not just speculate.

This is a valid test for both sides.

Obviously it’s pretty ridiculous to posit an intelligence that determined the fundamental constants of physics, expanded space-time into a big-bang, designed whole groups of galaxies, spinning them from gravitational yarn, carefully crafts solar systems, and then on Thursdays sets off a volcano, plays around with bacteria in a mud puddle in Zimbabwe on Friday, mucks around with a rabbit’s naughty bits on Saturday, and drinks beer on all Sunday.

We are definitely looking about a multiplicity of beings with a multiplicity of interests and attributes. No being that’s been molding mankind’s consciousness would have the slightest interest in setting the future mating habits of the red-spotted Amazonian turd-beatles. Sorry, that’s just breathtakingly stupid.

There may be an intelligence in charge of beatle R&D, but he wasn’t involved in making the Beatles, and he didn’t determine the proper orbital period of the moon. That would be another intelligence entirely, a force that can rewrite the gravitation constant of the universe or shephard unimaginal tons of matter around, as opposed to one who takes thousands of years of struggle before managing to mutate a single gene in one of the sperm cells spooed by a hamster.

Another irony is that those who claim to advocate only “true science,” not the philosophical or belief systems they (wrongly) ascribe to the scientific postulations of ID, themselves cannot substantiate much of what they propound by scientific means. The theoretical and empirical deficiencies of Darwinism and neodarwinism have been well known for years, even decades or longer in some cases. And many of those in the field of evolutionary biology have not even kept up with the revelations of quantum physics, so their biomolecular models are often pathetically outdated. They cling to them anyway, because it’s “science.”

NPR had a piece last week about scientists who even raise the slightest challenges to evolutionary theory or ask any questions that might be labelled “intelligent design.” Doesn’t matter if they’re not Christians or theists of any sort, their careers and reputations are simply and reflexively attacked anyway. We can see the same thing in comments above, when many anti-ID people resort immediately to ridicule and ad hominem attack, always the hallmark of weak substantive arguments. Don’t bother any of those people with any actual information about what ID theory is, because they already know it’s just creationism in drag—they read it in the New York Times. Just suppress the debate and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you because it’s so, you know, scientific.

I’m a big fan of Krauthammer and of Roger on this site. But they are both ignorant of what ID theory is. Anyone who has a real interest in this subject should stop their knees from jerking long enough to look up some of the quality writings on it. Or, if you don’t have time for that, simply attack anyone who disagrees with you as a fundamentalist apologist.

For example, in Gen 6:2 … “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”

Can there be any more striking similarity to the Greek Mythology system? Is is not obvious that this mimics the custom whereby Greek gods and goddesses entered into union with mortals and produced semi-divine offspring? Except the Hebrews modified the myth, corrupting the Greek version (which itself may be a bastardized and corrupted system even more ancient, that originally started out as serious stories of heavenly heros, using the image of men and women to pass down the knowledge of the stars). The Hebrews made the liason go only one way. Divine men going in unto mortal women.

Further on in Gen 6 the story continues, with the offspring of these liasons being giants of reknown. Again, the similarity to the Greek system is unmistakable.

That said, Intelligent Design is a whole different animal. The people mocking it as some kind of scheme to reinstitute Adam and Eve are just plain stupid, or are being turned off by the religious types that HAVE tried to hijack ID.

Anyway, the real question that started philosophy and science off on the same goal is the fundamental one: WHY does the universe exist? Evolution isn’t going to tell us the answer to that one. The answer to that question is in the stars, if anywhere, more than likely the ones that are very very far away, ancient light. Or it could be all around us, and we can’t see it because of the limitations of our sense organs. There are things that our sense organs and machines cannot understand, for example pure consciousness.

Anyway, my point is that evolution (anti-ID or pro) will not answer the question of why the universe exists, and in that respect Evolution is a dead end. Mathematics is a more vital discipline in the search for God than evolution ever will be.

But still, the Bible and the aforementioned, is great reading.

Owen Gingerich, Taking the ID Debate Out of Pundits’ Playbooks, excerpt:

“ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers. But evolution presented as a materialistic philosophy is ideology, and that is something that can be legitimately resisted. Unfortunately, the battle as it is being fought is a battle of misunderstandings on both sides of the terrain.”

Dembski, for those who can get past the kneejerk, ad hominem dismissiveness, What Counts as a Plausible Scientific Theory?, excerpt:

“The way a scientific theory gets empirically established is not by showing that the evidence requires that precise theory. That is an impossible task-there are always infinitely many theories that fit the data. Rather, it gets established through showing that the evidence discredits the main alternative theories but does not discredit this theory.”

Phillip Johnson, on Dennett and Searle’s adumbrations of scientism upon a more genuine and rigorous science, Daniel Dennett’s Dangerous Idea (where the term “dangerous” is a provocation in a manner which is not readily apparent), excerpt:

“Daniel Dennett’s fertile imagination is captivated by the very dangerous idea that the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution should become the basis for what amounts to an established state religion of scientific materialism. Dennett takes the scientific part of his thesis from the inner circle of contemporary Darwinian theorists: William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George C. Williams, and the brilliant popularizer Richard Dawkins. When Dennett describes the big idea emanating from this circle as dangerous, he does not mean that it is dangerous only to religious fundamentalists. The persons whom he accuses of flinching when faced with the full implications of Darwinism are scientists and philosophers of the highest standing: Noam Chomsky, Roger Penrose, Jerry Fodor, John Searle, and especially Stephen Jay Gould.”

“”The Darwinian theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to natural selection acting on random genetic mutations”.

It’s not self contained or perfect, but it’s a start in a rational conversation: we can question that proposal, refine some terms, and begin to talk to each other instead of past each other. So in the interests of further conversation, can you fill in the blank:

The intelligent design theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to _______ .”

I would reword the above to read, “Then intelligent design theory of evolution holds that the evolution of species is best explained by an intelligent agent.”

Timmah also wrote:

“The Darwinian theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to natural selection acting on random genetic mutations”

Let’s assume that the Dariwnian theory of evolution is a new theory and therefore is standing up to some intense scrutiny. A scientist may wish to attempt to falsify natural selection to see if it stands up to tests.

What is the possible outcome of his tests? What I mean to ask is, if he agrees that evolution is indeed a process but he isn’t sure how things evolve, what are his choices other than natural selection? Those people who are claiming that Intelligent Design is not even an option in science are trying to say that natural selection is the only option, any alternative is religious. This is why Pixy can say that everything proves Darwins theory. Even though Darwin himself said in effect that if things were demonstrated as irreducibly complex his theory would be in ruins, now neo-Darwinists say that even if irreducible complexity is true, it too proves Darwin’s theory.

What sort of science doesn’t allow for other possibilities?

mrsizer wrote:

“That leaves three choices: Natural (i.e. Aliens), Supernatural (i.e. God), or The-Universe-itself-is-intelligent (I forget the word for that idea). I would submit that most ID proponents do not believe that aliens are influencing evolution on earth or that a self-intelligent universe is guiding its own evolution.”

I would submit that it doesn’t matter what most ID proponents believe. Just as it wouldn’t matter if most Darwin proponents believed that God was responsible for natural selection. Where did the Big Bang come from? We don’t know.

Where did the intelligence come from? We don’t know. In order for ID to remain science it can only answer empirical questions and at this time it doesn’t have an answer to that question. It may never be able to answer that question, just as Darwin’s theory may never be able to answer a similar question.

One might well applaud the idea that science should be kept separate from theology and philosophy, and in general they should. (There will inevitably be areas for discussion in terms of the ontology and perhaps even metaphysics where practitioners can voice mutually interested views. But in terms of the methodological materialism which undergirds a genuine and rigorously applied science, there is virtually no room for importing ideas which lack rigor.)

However, it’s of equal importance that science take much better care to distinguish itself from scientism as an ideological adumbration to a more rigorous science, both in terms of applied and theoretical science. It’s interesting, after so many posts, that this flip-side of the coin hasn’t been mentioned a single time by enthusiasts who celebrate the notion of separateness. One specific and critical example is that when Darwinian evolutionary theory** is either overtly or more subtly leveraged to additionally forward pure materialist philosophical views, these same enthusiasts are decidedly mute and choose to demure for much enthusiasm and advocacy for this idea of separatenes. That is one of the junctures, and one only, where a more genuine and substantial scientific rigor is left behind.

If enthusiasts and advocates would apply equal levels of enthusiasm to keeping various forms of scientism and philosophy out of science, and would better articulate the epistemological limitations of a methodological materialism, among other subjects, the debate would acquire much more depth and breadth than is reflected in Krauthammer’s less than probative review.

The problem for the proponents of Irreducible Complexity is that it depends on our current state of knowledge. What appears irreducible now, may not, in fact, be irreducible. As knowledge advances, something’s irreducible status may change. This is the God of the Gaps problem, also mentioned above.

The opponents are also operating on faith – the difference is they believe it’s merely our ignorance, which may be overcome, that makes things appear irreducible.

Given the number of gaps that have been closed over the past couple of centuries, my FAITH is with the “we just don’t know, yet” crowd.

I recommend that any proponent of Irreducible Complexity read some books on Hierarchy Theory. An anthill is more than a collection of ants. A cell is more than a collection of chemical reactions. A person is more than a collection of cells. One of my favorites: Traffic patterns are more than the sum of individual drivers (it’s really very interesting). This is all perfectly natural and explainable, but very counter-intuitive (at least for reductionists).

The only recognized intelligence on earth is man (intelligence/sentience may be a continuum not a binary characteristic and dolphins, monkeys, etc… may fit somewhere – not important here). Man cannot be responsible for his own evolution. Therefore the intelligence is not human.

That leaves three choices: Natural (i.e. Aliens), Supernatural (i.e. God), or The-Universe-itself-is-intelligent (I forget the word for that idea). I would submit that most ID proponents do not believe that aliens are influencing evolution on earth or that a self-intelligent universe is guiding its own evolution.