Maybe chimps are "your" ancestory... Not mine... All of your "facts" are speculative... This could all be by ID, not some "random" mutation process...
You must have missed it in my somewhat lengthy post. Creationists believe life was created by a deity.
So we agree that the "conclusions" are speculative. The data itself is not speculative, that's what makes it data.
Thank you for the link. I watched and listened to the lecture and Q&A that followed, and it was almost 2 hours very well spent. I wish that the people who stand behind ID would at least take the time to listen to what Ken Miller has to say. (Dr. Miller was an expert witness in the ID court disputes.) I would welcome their comments AFTER they took the time to listen to this engaging, educational and occasionally humorous lecture. In fact, vhehn, why not start a thread with the link in the first post, offering a forum for debate among those people who at least listened to Miller's lecture of about 70 minutes or so? Then we would all at least have the same frame of reference in the debate that would invariably follow. Although I do not believe in a deity of any kind, I can't help but think, "Thank God for Ken Miller."
I will watch the link after hours but I am not talking about anyone named behe. I am talking about the Chair of the physics department at Stanford, one of the three considered to be the founders of string theory and many many other astrophysicists who understand the implications of the anthropic principle.
Point one speaks to a natural, intelligent life form that seeded life on this planet but arose from abiogenesis on their homeworld. Ok, I will bite- this sounds like something science should be able to handle. But note the choice of competing theories isn't ID vs Evolution but abiogenesis here vs abiogenesis elsewhere. Theres plenty of evidence for abiogenesis here, and none for elsewhere. Not to say that life couldn't be out there someplace haven arisen by abiogenesis- just that theres no reason to supplant a perfectly working theory with one for which we have no evidence. A point has to be made: if abiogensis can happen elsewhere, and in sufficient quality to foster a race of life-seeding intelligent beings, why is it so far fetched to believe it happened right here? Further, moving the goal post to another planet, or parallel universe, doesn't help either. We still have to answer the question of where life came from there. We're back to the infinite creators problem. Point two skips right to the supernatural (though apparently on another planet) which by definition lies out side the realm of science. "God did it!" has no explanatory power because theres literally nothing it cannot explain. This is the argument most Intelligent Design proponents make, minus of course the extra planet. Life begat from the supernatural- its really the only option to avoid the infinite creators problem without ascribing to abiogenesis. The important point is that as soon as something supernatural comes into the argument, you're making a theological, rather than a scientific argument. Oh and before we get started- no abiogenesis isn't a complete theory- its not nearly as strong as evolution, but it suffers from a distinct lack of competing theories that dont resort to logical fallacy and arguments from incredulity.
Stu wrote: Provide a quote from any dictionary or encyclopedia that defines creationism this way. Stu has invented his own watered-down definition of creationism in order for it to include the concept of intelligent design. From the Encylopedia Britannica: Now compare that to what William Dembski says about ID: ID isn't anti-evolution. What ID disputes is this: The only way Stu can pin the "creationist" label on ID proponents is to define creationism so broadly that anyone that disputes that evolution is undirected and devoid of purpose is a creationist. Does Stu think everyone except atheists are creationists? What would happen if the creationists began to embrace Stu's watered-down definition of creationism? Consider:
Ok....I see- so this ID that has been going around for going on 10 years isnt the real, scientific ID. The Discovery institute allowed the fake ID to get into court so it could get ruled unconstitutional by mistake. ID is not, and never will be science. It is allegory at best and logical fallacy at worst. Its a con game designed to dupe people into beleiving there is some empirical evidence for their faith. We're debating semantics here, but Ok...agreed. I win- there are 0 scientists claiming ID is science. Lots of hacks... lots of con men... 0 scientists. If you wish to disprove me, send me links to published, peer reviewed ID papers in recognized scientific journals. Heres a hint to save you some time: there are none. The appeal to science made by ID is pure smokescreen designed to dupe people into believing it to be legitimate science. As I have already discussed, it cannot be science, never will be. You can put lipstick on it all you want, its still a pig. Mutations happen all the time. Grab a petri dish of bacteria, you will see several mutations per second. We can even induce mutations, allowing us to predict when, where, how, etc. This is early 1900s biology. We know of many environmental stimuli that spur mutations. Just because you don't personally know how this works doesnt mean the rest of the scientific community is clueless. The only perfect science is mathematics. Physics happens to be pretty math intensive, but the underlying process of scientific inquiry is the same whether we talk about physics, chemistry, palentology, zoology or biology. Its on this level that ID fails to qualify. Agreed. But until one comes up with something other than 'God Did It!', we'll just have to suffer with the theory thats been vetted for over 150 years by intense scientific inquiry. What are you talking about? There most certainly are formulae. Many causes of mutations are known. This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. You dont understand biology, therefore, evolution is wrong. Only if you can prove it. But you can't- its not provable. You either believe or dont- making it a theological, not a scientific argument. And stop calling it random selection - its called natural selection. Its an inherent survival bias. Theres nothing random about that. What are you talking about? Its been proven, repeatedly. You can watch mutations happen at the cellular level. There is no faith involved. Further, only Creationists call people 'Darwininsts'- thats like calling physicists 'Newtonists' or 'Einsteinists'. All biologists are 'Darwinists'- his little theory has grown to become the cornerstone of modern biological sciences. The fact that you dont like it doesnt detract from it. So is building a foundation for ID on the ignorance of, to name but a few, science, the scientific method, logic, and honesty. No one cares what you say. You can deny reality all you want- the rest of us will continue to make progress with out you. You can cover your eyes and ears all you want to shield you from this uncomfortable truth- but it doesnt change the fact that ID is theology, not science. Evolution is tried and tested science. Its been done. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the evidence is your problem. We know more about the cause of evolution than we do about the cause of gravity. Like ID you mean? Where's your contentment formula? You are confusing materialism (as in Madonna's "Material Girl") with methodological materialism. The latter is just the realization that only material things can be empirically observed, measured, etc. The supernatural, spiritual, etc, is highly subjective and exists outside the realm of science.
Not so. You need to hear the lecture by Ken Miller regarding what he said happened in 1987, when the term "Creationism" was essentially replaced with "Intelligent Design" by the very people who coined the semantic variation. You might say that the new term "evolved." Spend an hour or so and listen to what Dr. Miller has to say, and how he responds to so-called ID scientists who have refuted evolution. Miller was an expert witness in the ID court disputes, so you should find what he has to say fairly interesting and comprehensive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (With thanks to vhehn for his earlier reference to this link.)