Asif, don't worry about it. The discussion has gotten a bit unwieldy, I will admit.

Deeppanpizza, there isn't really a difference in principle. On large scales we observe a mass to give off gravity waves which are ripples in spacetime that travel at lightspeed --- they are what propogate the gravitational force. Theoretically, if we looked at these waves microscopically, we would observe the waves to be grainy --- they are composed of quanta (called gravitons). This is analagous to the electromagnetic force where macroscopically we observe EM fields and waves, but when looking at these waves microscopically, we see they are made up of quanta called photons. Unfortunately, we have yet to produce an explanation for how exactly the gravitational force works at the quantum level, nor have we experimentally observed the graviton (whereas photons are easy to observe and the EM force is understood well at the quantum level).

Saif,

I apolgize for the delay. With a full time job, almost full time business ventures especially in the holiday season and trying to meet deadlines for the MBA program that I'm trying to get into, I fail to find time to sit down and post a proper response...but I WILL respond as soon this craziness eases off a bit, I promise. So thanks for baring with me if you would :)

I realized I had a brain fart and I didn't read/comprehend that quote below properly. Let me respond to it in another fashion. Look at this slightly altered version of the quote (using the same analogy of gravity) next to the original one:

Quote: ?It gets even better: "Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process? The claim of ID is that "NO unintelligent process could produce this system" the claim of Darwinism is that "SOME unintelligent process could produce this system." To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do"!?

Quote: ?It gets even better: "Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular physical system (say, solar system or a particular galaxy) was produced by a natural gravitational process (say, clumping of planets or distribution of stars)? The claim of IF (intelligent falling) is that "NO unintelligent process could produce this system" the claim of gravitational physics is that "SOME unintelligent process could produce this system." To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do"!?

Yet, is Intelligent Falling scientific? Just like ID, it is not. Clever yet obfuscatory rephrasing of the falsifiability condition will do nothing to remedy that. It's all nothing more than a big argument from incredulity, since it is not any sort of positive, substantial claim. ID is merely a proclamation of ignorance, and an appeal to stay in ignorance.

Plus, one should note that the TOE generally proposes SPECIFIC naturalistic processes that creates a system. Hence, a prediction is made and either verified or falsified.

Note that the above quotes could be formulated against other current scientific theories as well, beyond gravitiation and the TOE.

Sorry for the length, but I wanted to keep your quotations in so the discussion is easier to follow.

Quote: "When Dawkins (probably the biggest proponent of TOE) calls religious people IRRATIONAL (stupid rather) and claims that there shouldn't be such a thing as Muslim/Christian/Jewish etc. Evolutionists, you abruptly disagree claiming that TOE is not necessarily an atheistic theory ? it's just Dawkins' opinion (though I absolutely agree with Dawkins and which I'll come to soon). Yet some Kansas school board's comments to you, is an "example" of ID being a public propaganda? I really envy your logic?"

No, Richard Dawkins does not speak for the TOE; frankly, most scientists will tell you that the TOE stands silent on the issue of God's existence (and I agree with that stance). And by referencing the Kansas school board's comments, I was *ONLY* using this as an example of the public's attempt to redefine science. My claim that ID is based largely on public opinion is based on the fact that there are something like (count em) three ID articles published in scientific journals. Obviously ID theorists are not availing themselves to honest scientific pursuit if they cannot put their theories up the test of peer-review. Any scientist will tell you that even fringe theories start there; and if there is some merit to the publication, it will be quoted and referred, and grow in influence. Hence, the theory is not an outgrowth from legitimate scientific inquiry.

Quote: "Although I must say that when ID gains more grounds, it would indeed be a limited redefinition of how the mainstream scientific community views origin of life but the propagandistic label of "just a public opinion" would still be nothing short of propaganda itself! I love it how you are SO comfortable continuously passing the so-called "objective" judgments on a book that you haven't even read a single page of Because if you'd read the book (and other ID publications) in entirety, you'd have know that it contains IC and MUCH more. Remember how I alluded to the concept of "physical" vs "conceptual" precursors in one of my earlier posts for example?"

Yes, *IF* ID gains more ground in the scientific community, it will not be based so strongly on public opinion alone. That's tautological. But, frankly, since biologists overwhelmingly favor the TOE (over 99.9%), whereas the public does not, ID is primarily a public opinion. I am merely stating the obvious here --- sorry if you don't like it. Also interesting how the Discovery Institute list of only 400 signatories had to resort to finding many engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers (etc) who are no more academically qualified than we are to put a stamp on the subject --- they just had PhDs. Couldn't find enough biologists?

Quote: "Your lack of understanding of ID becomes further apparent when you I see you posting links as link & link. To understand why and how ID is an honest, objective and an absolutely scientific doctrine - instead of reading through the online propaganda (that you have been quoting from the beginning), if you had "loathed" to spend a few bucks and read FIRST-HAND what Behe (Myers, Dembski etc.) had actually argued, and not let OTHERS tell YOU what they argue ? you would've known that it does not matter to ID a BIT, if chimps share 98.5% of their DNA with humans or some organs could or could not be considered vestigial or not, or what color pants the Creator might be wearing this very moment ?"

Obviously you didn't actually read the link about the fused chromosome. The point of the article is not that chimps and humans have nearly identical genomes (which of course they do), but that chromosome 2 in humans is clearly the result of a naturalistic fusion of two chimp chromosomes. This is especially obvious since there are extra nonfunctional remnants of a centromere and two telomeres (from the extra chimp chromosome) still present in the fused human chromosome. Plus, these discoveries were preceded by PREDICTIONS (another important aspect of a scientific theory). Additionally, now you concede that there DO exist vestigial structures?

Both of these examples are unaccountable for by ID --- assuming that intelligent design posits that the design itself would be maximally efficient and economical (if the designer is directly intervening in the creation of genetic sequences, it would not code for useless structures). You accept this premise, correct? Lastly, what of atavisms? For the third time, HOW do you account for atavisms? And for the successively divergent cytochrome C coding (without affecting function) depending on the distance of the relation?

Quote:?When ID questions structures like bacteria flagellum, the Darwinists had no choice but to admit that it could not be explained in conventional evolutionary ways. So then comes the "explanation" that, simply put, flagellum must have come into being by combining together various functioning components structures of various other structures! Now, wait for a moment and think what's being said here? With absolutely NO intelligence of ANY sort (this also PRECLUDES the notion of the natural phenomenon/laws somehow being "breathed in" by the Creator ? something that you seem to be espousing and which is CONTRARY to TOE to its last bit, ironically enough something that you have been defending ? talk about contradiction!) different working structures were: a) broken apart (as part of their evolution) b) combined together to form an elegant machine as flagellum (One of the "better" explanations of "flagellum evolution is here link) Remember, the key here is "no intelligence of ANY sort".?

Your basic statements here still sound like nothing more than an argument from incredulity. However, I am no biologist and I don?t have enough detailed knowledge of flagellum evolution to go point-by-point on this one.

Quote: ?Now tell me, where is the "comprehensive testable evidence" that supports this so-called scientific explanation? Have NEW working flagellum been created in the labs following this explanations as a result of a "test"? Where is the "reproducible outcome" for this scientific explanation? Have such structures been reproduced as part of the resulting experiment? Where is the "observable proof" of this explanation? Have scientists seen it being built in the suspected fashion? Such questions go on and the answers of course are - No, no, and no. When these questions are posed, the ONLY escape Darwinists have is that of "time". Time must have carried out these magnificently complex operations. You say the possibility of a Creator or supernatural is unscientific. Explain to me, how in the world relying on "time" (which is really Darwinists' God) to explain every single complex "evolutionary step" is scientific???

You might as well ask for scientists to reproduce the evolution of a dinosaur into a bird in a laboratory. Not all forms of evolution are easily, directly observable in a lab. If you want something, though, you can refer back to those examples I listed earlier where speciation has CLEARLY been observed (you ended discussion on this, but ID needs to account for it). You seem to be under the impression that not having directly observable evidence for one aspect of the theory (even if there is indirect evidence) renders the rest of it unscientific?

If only direct evidence works for you, perhaps you should disavow knowledge of the existence of quarks (constituents of protons, neutrons, etc) since they have never been observed --- their existence has been indirectly inferred. Yet they are a cornerstrone of the Standard Model of particle physics.

The TOE?s strength is based largely on evidence that fits together like a perfect puzzle, where predictions are constantly made and confirmed; conclusions drawn in one discipline match those in another. Forest for the trees. Every single step cannot be perfectly accounted for with a 100% lucid explanation at this point. Perhaps with infinitely intelligent scientists, it would be possible.

Quote: "You said "And whether you like it or not, we MUST work under the assumption of methodological naturalism, or else science loses its predictive power." In other words science must explain every physical phenomenon in terms of "natural law" otherwise it's not science, correct? What you don't realize is that many laws of nature are descriptive and not explanatory to begin with! Remember how Newton said about gravitational motion "I offer no explanations"? Keeping with the spirit of "necessary natural law", all fundamental laws of physics that describe mathematically, but do not explain, would have to be eliminated as being scientific! Can you imagine such a "scientific world"?"

Yes, Newton said that, but you should know that is due to the fact that all Newton discovered was the inverse square relationship of gravitational attraction between distant bodies. He could offer no explanation to this mysterious instantaneous action-at-a-distance. We now know that macroscopically, gravity is propagated by gravity waves (traveling at the speed of light), and we also strongly suspect that at the quantum level, the gravitational interaction is mediated by particles called gravitons --- thus Newton's statement reflected the lack of development in gravitational physics at the time. Of course, if in Newton's time physicists mistakenly threw up their hands claiming that this interaction was due to an intelligent designer, we may never have developed a fuller theory of gravity. Indeed, even today, if you aim to be consistent in your refutation of good science, you should probably tell theoretical physicists to stop trying to work on a theory of quantum gravity (since this decades long venture is yet to make definitive progress, and has driven many to psychosis) since one can "offer no explanations" for it. Perhaps you should tell them to save their energy, and tell them that the reason they are having massive difficulty is because there isn't an explanation?

In fact, the explanatory nature of physics (and other sciences as a subset) goes back all the way to the basic theorems, conservation laws, and fundamental constants you find in the Standard Model. Yes, at that level a fundamental explanation is missing and is inaccessible to science (at least, for now). In those laws (or rather, first cause) some find God and others do not. It is an open question for all of us to answer ourselves, but it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. This is corollary to why the 'first cause' God is still compatible with the TOE. Plus, to say that God could not function in the first-cause sense would be limiting --- I think it is more elegant to say that God set all necessary initial conditions at T=0, and thus is not limited in creativity such that interference in worldly affairs are necessary to follow through with any ?divine plan?.

Finally, methodological naturalism is necessary because if we invoke supernatural causation, we cannot use that framework to make any further predictions, since supernaturalism is unpredictable almost by definition.

Quote: ?You said "Refuting the possibility of ID is impossible since it is unfalsifiable." Did you know that most of the philosophers of science do not hold the criteria of "falsifiability" as part of science anymore? Let me know if you'd like me to quote you some relevant sources for this.
Nevertheless, since you mentioned reading and agreeing with the refutations of various adversaries of Behe's claims, you overlooked one minor yet a crucial detail of this debate, viz, by them so-called systematically falsifying Behe's arguments they actually PROVED the falsifiability of Behe's claims, hence scientific, basically the opposite of what wanted to prove! To quote Behe: "Now one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say both that intelligent design is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that D is indeed falsifiable"?

Being a physicist myself (well, a grad student at least) I can tell you that physicists still hold falsifiability (in the Popper sense) as a gold-standard. I can't say what biologists think, but I see no reason why they would think any differently. As for most the mainstream among philosophers of science, I'd like to see your sources --- something doesn't smell right to me there. So what DO most philosophers of science these days define as science?

In any event, falsifiability is one piece of a larger puzzle. Falsifiability rests on the notion that a good scientific theory makes predictions --- it is in the course of confirming these predictions that falsifiability should be an issue --- a good, parsimonious prediction will have a strong degree of risk when measured for. ID of course does not include a framework with which to make future predictions. Could you give me an example of one? The fact that ID says certain mechanisms don?t work is not a prediction, since the very foundation of ID is based upon those nonfunctional evolutionary mechanisms. Consequently, we have a circular argument.

Additionally, if ID is good science, then it should also retain explanatory power over existing issues relating to the TOE --- which it does not (such as the examples above).

The fact is that ID posits an intelligent designer; no amount of evidence can absolutely disprove the existence of one, somewhere in the process. Nobody can observe every instance of speciation and claim there was no intelligent agent present. Thus, if one is able to successfully explain a single step in an evolutionary pathway, ID theorists will retort that the next step is irreducibly complex. You find yourself in an infinite regress of ID retorts. ID theorists, if some of their foundations are proven to be incorrect, can easily restructure their theory to deal with it --- and this lessens one's confidence in the original claims because of how the theory can evade disproof.

In fact, a few weeks ago I attended a forum at my university where an expert from each side (TOE vs ID), and the audience debated whether ID should be taught in science classrooms. The ID proponent self-contradicted himself several times; it seemed apparent there is little consensus as to some of the fundamental ID claims, for example which evolutionary claims to retain and which to throw out, even as to whether ID allows perfect or imperfect design, or both.

Quote: ?It gets even better: "Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process? The claim of ID is that "NO unintelligent process could produce this system" the claim of Darwinism is that "SOME unintelligent process could produce this system." To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do"!?

It sounds to me that to prove the first claim one would need to disprove the possibility of ANY unintelligent process, because otherwise the lines can be continually redrawn (the God of the Gaps, where the gap successively lessens --- which has been going on for centuries). As for the second one, why does one have to show that the system could not have been formed by any potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, in order to prove an unintelligent process creates a system? That doesn?t seem to make any sense? maybe my comprehension is slipping here. Could you rephrase it?

Quote: "Please re-read what I wrote. No where did I say tat those scientists do not believe in God."

That's not what I said --- I think you should re-read what I wrote (and not quote out of context). You claimed scientists reject ID because of an inherent bias against acknowledging the supposed necessity of an intelligent designer. But since ~40% of American scientists believe in God yet still reject ID as a scientific theory, this criticism is obviously invalid. In fact, I am sure such a comment would be interpreted as offensive.

Quote: ?And lastly, I was utterly surprised at your comment "?? I am assuming this was not intentional but only a misunderstanding. I assumed it to be given from the onset of the discussion that: TOE = ABSENCE of ANY intelligence in ANY form (including what you called God "breathing into the natural laws" the capacity to create/spread life about the earth since ID would've had no grounds to attack TOE otherwise) ID = PRESENCE of such intelligence in SOME form. The other theories, whatever they might be, WILL fall under the above two categories (if not, please share) and hence my comment was not directed at ID only but any and all of its derivatives/siblings/offshoots etc. were assumed to be part of my argument.?

Again, you should reference the entire quote. I did agree that design and not-design are the two possibilities. Yet the current formulation of the TOE (mutation, natural selection) is not the only naturalistic and not-design mechanism possible to explain life origins. If the TOE is false, it is possible we have yet to discover such an alternative mechanism (or we consider existing alternatives), and inductively from the history of science it would seem reasonable a priori that such an explanation exists. Thus, absolutely accepting the design mechanism based on the falsity of the TOE is unacceptable. But, the TOE itself is not in crisis, anyway.

The fact is, saif, despite my several attempts you either failed or refused to understand what ID fundamentally stands for.

You said: ?I even provided an example of the Kansas school board declaring that they had 'redefined' science.? Hence ID is not rooted in scientific inquiry but popular mass opinion.

When Dawkins (probably the biggest proponent of TOE) calls religious people IRRATIONAL (stupid rather) and claims that there shouldn?t be such a thing as Muslim/Christian/Je
wish etc. Evolutionists, you abruptly disagree claiming that TOE is not necessarily an atheistic theory ? it?s just Dawkins? opinion (though I absolutely agree with Dawkins and which I?ll come to soon). Yet some Kansas school board?s comments to you, is an ?example? of ID being a public propaganda? I really envy your logic?

Although I must say that when ID gains more grounds, it would indeed be a limited redefinition of how the mainstream scientific community views origin of life but the propagandistic label of ?just a public opinion? would still be nothing short of propaganda itself!

You said: ?And yes, Darwin's Black Box is a popular science book intended for mass consumption.?

I love it how you are SO comfortable continuously passing the so-called ?objective? judgments on a book that you haven?t even read a single page of :) Because if you?d read the book (and other ID publications) in entirety, you?d have know that it contains IC and MUCH more. Remember how I alluded to the concept of ?physical? vs ?conceptual? precursors in one of my earlier posts for example?

Your lack of understanding of ID becomes further apparent when you I see you posting links as www.livescience.com & www.gate.net

To understand why and how ID is an honest, objective and an absolutely scientific doctrine - instead of reading through the online propaganda (that you have been quoting from the beginning), if you had ?loathed? to spend a few bucks and read FIRST-HAND what Behe (Myers, Dembski etc.) had actually argued, and not let OTHERS tell YOU what they argue ? you would?ve known that it does not matter to ID a BIT, if chimps share 98.5% of their DNA with humans or some organs could or could not be considered vestigial or not, or what color pants the Creator might be wearing this very moment ?

When ID questions structures like bacteria flagellum, the Darwinists had no choice but to admit that it could not be explained in conventional evolutionary ways. So then comes the ?explanation? that, simply put, flagellum must have come into being by combining together various functioning components structures of various other structures!

Now, wait for a moment and think what?s being said here?

With absolutely NO intelligence of ANY sort (this also PRECLUDES the notion of the natural phenomenon/laws somehow being ?breathed in? by the Creator ? something that you seem to be espousing and which is CONTRARY to TOE to its last bit, ironically enough something that you have been defending ? talk about contradiction!) different working structures were:

a) broken apart (as part of their evolution)
b) combined together to form an elegant machine as flagellum

(One of the ?better? explanations of ?flagellum evolution is here www.talkdesign.org)

Remember, the key here is ?no intelligence of ANY sort?.

Now tell me, where is the ?comprehensive testable evidence? that supports this so-called scientific explanation? Have NEW working flagellum been created in the labs following this explanations as a result of a ?test??

Where is the ?reproducible outcome? for this scientific explanation? Have such structures been reproduced as part of the resulting experiment?

Where is the ?observable proof? of this explanation? Have scientists seen it being built in the suspected fashion?

Such questions go on and the answers of course are - No, no, and no.

When these questions are posed, the ONLY escape Darwinists have is that of ?time?. Time must have carried out these magnificently complex operations. You say the possibility of a Creator or supernatural is unscientific. Explain to me, how in the world relying on ?time? (which is really Darwinists? God) to explain every single complex ?evolutionary step? is scientific??

You said ?And whether you like it or not, we MUST work under the assumption of methodological naturalism, or else science loses its predictive power.? In other words science must explain every physical phenomenon in terms of ?natural law? otherwise it?s not science, correct?

What you don?t realize is that many laws of nature are descriptive and not explanatory to begin with! Remember how Newton said about gravitational motion ?I offer no explanations?? Keeping with the spirit of ?necessary natural law?, all fundamental laws of physics that describe mathematically, but do not explain, would have to be eliminated as being scientific!

Can you imagine such a ?scientific world??


You said ?Refuting the possibility of ID is impossible since it is unfalsifiable.?

Did you know that most of the philosophers of science do not hold the criteria of ?falsifiability? as part of science anymore? Let me know if you?d like me to quote you some relevant sources for this.

Nevertheless, since you mentioned reading and agreeing with the refutations of various adversaries of Behe?s claims, you overlooked one minor yet a crucial detail of this debate, viz, by them so-called systematically falsifying Behe?s arguments they actually PROVED the falsifiability of Behe?s claims, hence scientific, basically the opposite of what wanted to prove! To quote Behe:

?Now one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say both that intelligent design is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that D is indeed falsifiable?

It gets even better:

?Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process?

?

The claim of ID is that ?NO unintelligent process could produce this system? the claim of Darwinism is that ?SOME unintelligent process could produce this system.? To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do?!

He makes several such points but I?m getting tired of typing?

You also said: ?As for that last piece of propaganda, it is laughable. Something like 40% of scientists believe in God?

Please re-read what I wrote. No where did I say tat those scientists do not believe in God.

And lastly, I was utterly surprised at your comment ?you are the one claiming that it is reasonable to throw up your hands and say we cannot know how somesuch mechanism/system came into place. But then you turn around and say you do know (ID), all the while ruling out any other naturalistic possibility, or any other yet-to-be theorized possibilities altogether in favor of a single minded preconception! I cannot imagine how you fail to see the blatant contradiction.?

I am assuming this was not intentional but only a misunderstanding. I assumed it to be given from the onset of the discussion that:

TOE = ABSENCE of ANY intelligence in ANY form (including what you called God ?breathing into the natural laws? the capacity to create/spread life about the earth since ID would?ve had no grounds to attack TOE otherwise)
ID = PRESENCE of such intelligence in SOME form

The other theories, whatever they might be, WILL fall under the above two categories (if not, please share) and hence my comment was not directed at ID only but any and all of its derivatives/siblings/offshoots etc. were assumed to be part of my argument.

That was hardly an outrageous statement. I even provided an example of the Kansas school board declaring that they had 'redefined' science. And yes, Darwin's Black Box is a popular science book intended for mass consumption. That is an objective statement --- as I said, there are virtually no ID articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; just popular science accounts. Tell me why?

And, to my knowledge Behe's only 'new' idea was irreducible complexity. Everything else we have discussed is more along the lines of the standard creationist fare, so the bulk of this discussion can continue unhampered without reference to his book; I have heard most of the general arguments elsewhere. Besides, I am loathe to spend money and time right now on a book that obviously contains little scientific merit. Even if irreducible complexity is a stumbling block that needs extra explanation, it doesn't destroy the rest of the theory. But as I mentioned in previous posts I think any absolute, unambiguous claims regarding IC can be rejected on philosophical grounds alone (e.g. we have no reason to assume there is no explanation if we don't have one now). But beyond that, how about the fact that some of Behe's supposed IC systems have been found in more primitive forms in nature? I don't know how one can dispute that. No matter what, this isn't enough for me to accept the the overthrowal of the theory.

Quote: "The positive evidence of ID: It INDEED is the shortcomings of TOE. There are ONLY two possibilities when comes to the origin and propagation of life ? either it was designed or not. Do you disagree? If not, then the problems with the fantasy theory aka TOE is in itself a positive evidence for ID ? this is no rocket science. If it's established that certain aspects of life are inexplicable by means of TOE then it is perfectly justifiable to claim that that IS the positive evidence for ID. It's simple discrete logic."

I agree that life must either be designed or not (or restated, either naturalistic or supernaturalistic). However, the TOE and ID are not the only possibilities falling under these categories, so you have a false dichotomy. You also need to remember one of your fundamental assumptions --- you are the one claiming that it is reasonable to throw up your hands and say we cannot know how somesuch mechanism/system came into place. But then you turn around and say you do know (ID), all the while ruling out any other naturalistic possibility, or any other yet-to-be theorized possibilities altogether in favor of a single minded preconception! I cannot imagine how you fail to see the blatant contradiction. We have seen all throughout the history of science that naturalistic explanations have been repeatedly found for phenomena previously assumed to be supernatural (while, through the passage of time we no longer have any remaining examples of clear supernatural causation --- all of them have been superceded by naturalism). Thus, we can see inductively that closing to the door to further possible naturalistic mechanisms regarding life origins is a foolhardy approach. FYI, there are some alternatives toe TOE/ID; Quantum evolution for example (I remember once reading a link that listed several others as well, though I can't find it at the moment. I'll keep looking). Yes, they are fringe theories, but so is ID. And since ID possesses no positive evidence, we have no clear reason to favor it over these other theories, even if the TOE is proven false.

Quote: "When flagellum or an eye (INCLUDING the first light sensitive cell) are posed to Darwinists for example ? it?s not very tough to come up with bed-time story like ?scientific explanations? that you seem to be such a great fan of ? stories that are filled with ?it may have, could have, would have? ? I find it rather odd that the same people would have the nerves to point fingers at those who are at least honest enough to claim ?Yes we don?t know how it may have happened and we do not think our current line of thinking could hold keys to such questions?? if you believe scientific endeavor is synonymous with honesty pursuit of the truth then please live up to it, regardless of the consequences ? as someone once said while roughly paraphrasing ?the reason mainstream scientists reject ID is not because they find it unbelievable but because the corollary (involvement of creator/God) is so incredible!?"

Oh and a clarification; keep in mind I am not necessarily saying that there cannot be an intelligent agent, I am just claiming that if we conform to any reasonable definition of science, ID is lacking. And whether you like it or not, we MUST work under the assumption of methodological naturalism, or else science loses its predictive power. ID possesses no more merit than any other philosophical pondering because it is not founded upon empirical evidence. Refuting the possibility of ID is impossible since it is unfalsifiable. Thus, science is not perfectly synonymous with the honest pursuit of truth; in that vein it is limited. In my view, Truth with a capital T can be attacked through two avenues, science and philosophy (where religion is a subset of philosophy). Testability splits the two. As for that last piece of propaganda, it is laughable. Something like 40% of scientists believe in God --- meaning that even those who believe in God are generally rejecting ID as science.

Quote: "About your evolution being the house example as well as the protein cytochrome C bit ? please tell me how does the existence of common genetic material necessarily mean common ancestor? Why can?t it mean a common creator? You asked about vestigial organs and what?s commonly known as ?junk DNA?. We both know that the list of the so-called vestigial organs have decreased in size with the advances in science, for example, appendix that used to be considered a vestigial organ is now realized to be part of immune system! Similarly, how exactly do you know that the so-called junk DNA is actually useless? Isn?t the legacy of science to discover and rediscover? How do we know with absolute resolution that years, decades or centuries from now ? no more useful utility of this DNA would be discovered? And EVEN if the purpose of such organs/genetic material is not known, that in itself would not negate the presence of ID in creation of such material in the first place!"

Re: vestigial organs/atavisms. Check this out: www.livescience.com. IMO, some of these examples are pretty blatantly vestigial (viz. vestigial mating behavior in whiptail lizards, sexual organs on dandelions, wings on flightless birds). These are not mystery organs which we are yet to discover their purpose, but rather decayed versions of once-useful organs. But even more powerful than this is the related issue of atavisms (such as a human tail, or known cases of whales being found with fully formed hindleg atavisms). That is simply inexplicable under the ID paradigm.

Re: cytochrome C. I forgot to mention the kicker; that progressively dissimilar coding sequences for it (while retaining functionality --- since a large degree of neutral variation IS allowed without destroying functionality) are found for more distantly related species. A clear evidence for the nested heirarchy of organisms.

Re: DNA. How about all the shared genetic errors that have been confirmed to be found in separate species' genomes, such as bits of intersperced viral DNA from past epidemics (there are many more examples of these types of errors). By charting the relative abundance of these shared errors between species, one discovers a nested heirarchy of organisms that aligns perfectly with fossil records.

Lastly, I still want to know how you account for this: www.gate.net.

?It is the public who is trying to decide what science means? ? Saif, before making such outrageous statements, please tell me how many ID books have you read so far? And I don?t mean the critiques of those who disagree with the ID, talkorigin.org etc.?

I?ve been asking you to read one small book all along so that our discussion could have a bit more structure to it, but you are so occupied with your preconceived rejection of ID that without even reading, for example Behe?s book, you labeled it and all ID relevant material, as mere ?popular account??! So much for having an objective discussion huh?

Behe?s book is by no means an all-encompassing account for ID but it surely contains answers to almost all of your questions (that are basically the typical ones coming from the other side). Honestly, after every post of yours, I either find myself simply wanting to open the book and quote/paraphrase or point you to the book itself. I first tried to brief you on the concepts, but then you wanted to know the details ? and when I pointed you to the source, you respond with declaring all material invalid without reading even a single page of it ?

The positive evidence of ID: It INDEED is the shortcomings of TOE. There are ONLY two possibilities when comes to the origin and propagation of life ? either it was designed or not. Do you disagree? If not, then the problems with the fantasy theory aka TOE is in itself a positive evidence for ID ? this is no rocket science. If it?s established that certain aspects of life are inexplicable by means of TOE then it is perfectly justifiable to claim that that IS the positive evidence for ID. It?s simple discrete logic.

When flagellum or an eye (INCLUDING the first light sensitive cell) are posed to Darwinists for example ? it?s not very tough to come up with bed-time story like ?scientific explanations? that you seem to be such a great fan of ? stories that are filled with ?it may have, could have, would have? ? I find it rather odd that the same people would have the nerves to point fingers at those who are at least honest enough to claim ?Yes we don?t know how it may have happened and we do not think our current line of thinking could hold keys to such questions?? if you believe scientific endeavor is synonymous with honesty pursuit of the truth then please live up to it, regardless of the consequences ? as someone once said while roughly paraphrasing ?the reason mainstream scientists reject ID is not because they find it unbelievable but because the corollary (involvement of creator/God) is so incredible!?

About your evolution being the house example as well as the protein cytochrome C bit ? please tell me how does the existence of common genetic material necessarily mean common ancestor? Why can?t it mean a common creator? You asked about vestigial organs and what?s commonly known as ?junk DNA?.

We both know that the list of the so-called vestigial organs have decreased in size with the advances in science, for example, appendix that used to be considered a vestigial organ is now realized to be part of immune system!

Similarly, how exactly do you know that the so-called junk DNA is actually useless? Isn?t the legacy of science to discover and rediscover? How do we know with absolute resolution that years, decades or centuries from now ? no more useful utility of this DNA would be discovered?

And EVEN if the purpose of such organs/genetic material is not known, that in itself would not negate the presence of ID in creation of such material in the first place!

Ramadan/Eid Mubarak to you as well!

Quote: "Let me begin by saying that lets not trivialize the discussion by claiming that scientists do not advocate ID. Discovery institute?s 400 signatory petition should make that much clear if not more, even if some of them may not openly argue against the status quo."

There was probably some ambiguity in my wording; The reason that calling ID theorists 'scientists' would be a misnomer is because ID is not science. Though since you mentioned it, you should know that something like 99.9% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. That said, granted there obviously will be at least a few hundred willing to put their name on the theory. But even then, those who do not accept evolution are not exactly ID scientists either since they have not actually published any articles on ID in peer-reviewed scientific journals - the entire movement has been based on popular accounts (such as Behe's book) and not rigorous scientific inquiry. IIRC, all I recall is that there have been about 2 or 3 ID articles (that's it!) published in scientific journals; if there have been more, let me know. It is the public who is trying to decide what science means, and subversively insert religion into the science classroom. I'm sorry but science is not determined by popular vote! I found it interesting how the Kansas school board declared a few days ago (I'm sure you heard in the news) that they "redefined" science; and what issues it is capable of addressing. Yes, a school board - some of whom have openly acknowledged in court proceedings that they have no substantial knowledge of ID itself.


Quote: "Moreover, it?s your ?opinion? that there is no ?positive evidence? for ID, not mine."

Indeed. However, so far your arguments have been purely negative --- you are trying to refute evolutionary theory. This does not constitute evidence for ID itself; now, since you have mentioned now that you do not agree with my stance, I am curious as to what positive evidence you have been holding back.


Quote: "Once one starts looking deeper into the construction and engineering of a mere living cell, it?s only an insult to one?s (at least mine) intelligence, let alone evidence, that all this is a result of absolutely random chain of events over mere extended periods of time....... For all of the mechanisms that I have come across, I?d have to say yes I reject them all. Not because of the ?technicalities? since I?m not a biologist myself, but the gist of their arguments simply fail to grasp even the ?conceptual hurdles? that Behe?s arguments pose to them. As I have said several times before, this?d only make sense if one looks at Behe?s arguments in entirety aka his book. And unfortunately, I just don?t think I?m going to quote all his argument, premises and examples here. Call me lazy, if you will ?
"

Once again, fallacious argument from incredulity. And I counter that ID is the insult to our intelligence --- ID theorists are the ones want to end scientific inquiry into the topic. They wish the throw up their hands and claim "We cannot know, it is the hand of God (or intelligent designer, whatever)." All the while. scientists are plugging away at the theory and continually adding to its richness, explaining away ambiguities and discovering new evidence. For example, whenever ID theorists make a particular claim such as irreducible complexity (and claim they cannot move forward with any explanation), scientists come up with thorough explanations of the phenomena.

Alright, if you're not going to present argument for IC then I'll take a seat with that as well. But, hanging on to a single thread like irreducible complexity (flawed as it is) is not enough to constitute the overthrow of the theory of evolution. One has to look at the forest for the trees here - there is simply too much evidence at this point to declare the TOE dead based on ideas such as this. By analogy, if the TOE is a house, then right now scientists are trying to figure out the color of the carpet in one of the bedrooms... but there is no question that the house exists. I enjoyed one parody from The Onion about theory of "intelligent falling"... where we need an intelligent agent to account for the gravitational force. It's a good analogy, since if you look at our current conception of the gravitational force, it is not complete (in fact, probably less complete than the TOE). We have General Relativity that is so far an accurate description of gravity on almost all scales, however there is no unified framework to describe it (QM and GR conflict). Thus, according the the article, the unified theory/force must be Jesus Christ!


Quote: "As for your question of ?subgroups? and ?interbreeding?, you are asking the wrong guy. I?m sure your university?s genetics departments has some good geneticists
on board. However, the fact that you ask this question shows that you?ve misunderstood my argument from the very beginning, because personally, the MOST convincing arguments that I?ve come across so far for ID are in the vein of biochemistry at cellular and sub-cellular levels. It?s THERE when you see such fine-tuning in cells, where you see catch-22 type processes (x need y to work but y needs x to work!) taking place that ?random chain of events over extended periods of time argument?, in my opinion simply does not hold!"

My question was how ID can account for this observed speciation. Obviously it cannot. I suppose shoving the issue under the table is the easiest way of dealing with it; same goes for all the other evidence I presented which was also summarily ignored. Here's another one: Why do pretty much all known organisms genetically code for the essential protein cytochrome C, and indeed with the same genetic sequence (it is known that there could be several ways to code for it). Why do all organisms contain that same sequence? Common descent is the explanation. BTW, I am still very interested by what you think about the evidence for the fused chromosome in humans (mentioned in my last post). Why would God plant this evidence? Some diabolical plan to confuse us?

The rest of the above quote is a rehash of the argument from incredulity (no explanation yet for these processes, hence it is God). Of course, as usual when specific examples of those 'catch-22' type processes you referred to are presented, they are often (if not all) possible to account for within the framework of the TOE. Since you also seem to have a problem with complexity arising from simpler systems, I'd like to ask how you deal with the issue of an infinite regress of increasingly complex creators? Doesn't this make ID hypothesis rather untenable from the start?


Quote: "I liked your example of the police officer. How about we rephrase that bit as ?police officer who arrives at a crime scene and finds fingerprints, blood, lots of evidence everywhere... but doesn't make a judgment because he thinks there isn't necessarily a need for a perpetrator since it simply could have happened by chance and all these "clues" were merely a chain of coincidences?? ? I?m sure that?d sound absurd to anyone ? but"

You are misreading the analogy; the analogy is meant to underline the silliness of the denial of the obvious conclusion, only because we couldn't actually BE there to witness the event. The analogy implied no parallel between what the conclusions themselves were supposed to be. In the case of the crime scene, the evidence conspicuously indicates that a human was there --- fingerprints, blood, etc. In the case of evolution, any clear evidence for a perpetrator is lacking.

I?ve been only about 2 months late in responding ?. but I didn?t forget ? Ramadan/Eid Mubarak :)

So ?

Let me begin by saying that lets not trivialize the discussion by claiming that scientists do not advocate ID. Discovery institute?s 400 signatory petition should make that much clear if not more, even if some of them may not openly argue against the status quo. Moreover, it?s your ?opinion? that there is no ?positive evidence? for ID, not mine. Once one starts looking deeper into the construction and engineering of a mere living cell, it?s only an insult to one?s (at least mine) intelligence, let alone evidence, that all this is a result of absolutely random chain of events over mere extended periods of time.

You asked: ?Since the publication of Behe's book, there have been numerous responses in that vein. Do you reject all those mechanisms??

For all of the mechanisms that I have come across, I?d have to say yes I reject them all. Not because of the ?technicalities? since I?m not a biologist myself, but the gist of their arguments simply fail to grasp even the ?conceptual hurdles? that Behe?s arguments pose to them. As I have said several times before, this?d only make sense if one looks at Behe?s arguments in entirety aka his book. And unfortunately, I just don?t think I?m going to quote all his argument, premises and examples here. Call me lazy, if you will ?

As for your question of ?subgroups? and ?interbreeding?, you are asking the wrong guy. I?m sure your university?s genetics departments has some good geneticists on board. However, the fact that you ask this question shows that you?ve misunderstood my argument from the very beginning, because personally, the MOST convincing arguments that I?ve come across so far for ID are in the vein of biochemistry at cellular and sub-cellular levels. It?s THERE when you see such fine-tuning in cells, where you see catch-22 type processes (x need y to work but y needs x to work!) taking place that ?random chain of events over extended periods of time argument?, in my opinion simply does not hold!

I liked your example of the police officer. How about we rephrase that bit as ?police officer who arrives at a crime scene and finds fingerprints, blood, lots of evidence everywhere... but doesn't make a judgment because he thinks there isn't necessarily a need for a perpetrator since it simply could have happened by chance and all these "clues" were merely a chain of coincidences?? ? I?m sure that?d sound absurd to anyone ? but :)

So if you keep this biochemical/microscopic aspect of the origins of life in mind (BTW during Darwin?s time a cell was believed to be a basic primitive lump of substances as opposed to a sophisticated factory-like structure as we know today) then I?m pretty sure you?d see why the proponents of ID make the distinction b/w the so-called ?micro? vs ?macro? evolution?

Apologies for the delayed response; the fulltime class/work schedule has kicked in :)

Quote: "Design theorists/scientists claim that there is an overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in life"

That is false. As I have mentioned, there is no positive evidence for ID. ID theorists (they are not scientists) have only come up with half-baked attacks on the TOE, that's it. That is not evidence for ID - even disproving one of the tenets of the TOE would not logically lead one to ID. There are other competing theories. As for the issue of an intelligent agent (relating to my views), let's just keep it at this: In my view, the theory of evolution is very likely to be correct. Let's stay on that topic. Your interpretation that the TOE implies God's nonexistence is a separate discussion. For now, you can assume that my view is theistic or atheistic... doesn't really affect the discussion from my vantage point.

I have done some reading on Behe's arguments, and just by going over the gist of his claims, it is clear that the very philosophy behind his reasoning is faulty. I haven't read his book, so I can't respond to each point in detail - I am not a biologist anyway. But those who have written on the topic of the evolution of flagella (among other relavant topics) have written convincing arguments IMO. Getting into the nitty-gritty here probably won't accomplish much as we'll both just reference the standard apologetics/polemics... but the information is out there and we have to judge it for ourselves. The crux of it is that evolutionists actually use their brains and find explanations, while ID theorists sit there and say they don't know --- that since we cannot find a perfect explanation (even if solid explanations are given), then there isn't one. Anyway, there are *known* naturalistic mechanisms that in conjunction with one another, can form irreducibly complex systems. Since the publication of Behe's book, there have been numerous responses in that vein. Do you reject all those mechanisms?

Quote: "About the definition of species? I did not claim ID has a separate definition for species, my point was simple - that when one claims that a mere ?inability to interbreed? translates into fish?s fins becoming walking legs etc., and consequently gave rise to a whole class of reptiles ? that seems like nothing short of a GIANT leap of faith. If you are willing to buy the argument, for example, that fish grew legs, legs started working, miraculously started breathing air and all the other baggage, meanwhile the organism did not die! Then more power to you. In fact, if this is ?scientific explanation? then I think my grandma was a much bigger scientist especially when she wanted to put kids to sleep. From day one to this day after reading whatever I have read on the subject, such stories make for great creative fairytales but nothing more in my opinion? do you honestly think that such ?transitions? actually took place especially without ANY intelligent guidance?"

Standard vacuous argument from incredulity. It is ironic that you criticize macroevolution as a giant leap of faith, when indeed it is ID that should be classified as such, since in it's current form it cannot be proven, and is not falsifiable. You did not respond to my question about what prevents the branched subgroups from breeding with one another if they share the same genomes. And since you define speciation the same way, then you admit that speciation can occur naturalistically? What does speciation classify under... micro or macroevolution? And, it seems that you make a blanket statement that the potential for any observed evolution must *obviously* be contained within the genome. Have complete genome analyses been done on the listed speciated organisms which have confirmed that no genetic changes have taken place? No.

All evolutionary changes are gradual... observed speciation is not going to result in massive changes, but if you think that this subtle form of speciation is possible, then when you have hundreds of millions of years to work with, I think it's reasonable to accept that larger-scale changes are at least possible, especially when the rest of the inferential evidence falls in line with that view. Your claim sounds to me like a police officer who arrives at a crime scene and finds fingerprints, blood, lots of evidence everywhere... but doesn't make a judgment because he wasn't there to observe the crime directly. If ID was true, I would have expected to see the abrupt changes and sudden arisals of new body parts, with new species being created that had no relation to pre-existing ones. We can imagine a world in which evolution would not have seemed like a reasonable explanation, like I just did, but it just doesn't work like that --- for whatever reason, of all possible worlds, ours looks like one in which (macro)evolution occured.

I mean, when I look at the fossil record and find similar species to be related temporally and geographically, I don't know what else to conclude. Or shared genetic errors (junk DNA) in different species, vestigial structures / atavisms, fetal ontogeny, or the fact that apes have 24 sets of chromosomes while we have 23... and there is direct evidence that the missing one was actually fused onto one of the others? There's a lot more of that type of evidence. I just know what else to think. But hey, if you can put forth some convincing arguments against these, I would be willing to listen!

It?s called honest, not disingenuous. ?God? could mean anything ? and since Design theorists/scientists claim that there is an overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in life, their usage of term ?intelligent agent? is fitting. It doesn?t matter to ID if it leads to ET, or something else?

You said that intelligent agent (or intelligence) is not an issue here ?the fact is that that?s precisely the issue under discussion ? that is why I asked you about your stance.

TOE leaves absolutely no room for intelligent design. Otherwise, you?d not have had an opposing theory as ID in existence today. The claim that some intelligent agent ?breathed air? in the ?natural laws? would be absolutely rejected by a Darwinist since s/he would correctly observe that you?re tacitly implying Design in creation and propagation of life. How, you?d ask? Let me give you an example:

When ID brings up the classic bacterial flagellum question as to how such complex motor came into existence in a ?step by step, successive, slight modifications? where in absence of a component, not only the organ becomes useless but could hinder organism?s growth and could even cause the organism to be annihilated (since according to TOE other ?evolving competitors? would not have been burdened by such useless baggage-in-process). If you responded by saying that the natural laws that were breathed in by an intelligent agent made that possible ?you?d be in agreement with ID but be diametrically opposing TOE.

I?m tremendously summarizing here since I?ve already pointed you to one of the books that deals with such questions with much clarity and eloquence. I?d recommend that instead of looking at the literature that abounds with ?responses? to claims as Behe?s, you look at the arguments presented in totality first. When I first came across these responses I didn?t think much of Behe?s arguments either, until one day I decided to read the book myself. MOST, if not all, of these responses then rendered futile to me.

About the definition of species? I did not claim ID has a separate definition for species, my point was simple - that when one claims that a mere ?inability to interbreed? translates into fish?s fins becoming walking legs etc., and consequently gave rise to a whole class of reptiles ? that seems like nothing short of a GIANT leap of faith.

If you are willing to buy the argument, for example, that fish grew legs, legs started working, miraculously started breathing air and all the other baggage, meanwhile the organism did not die! Then more power to you. In fact, if this is ?scientific explanation? then I think my grandma was a much bigger scientist especially when she wanted to put kids to sleep.

From day one to this day after reading whatever I have read on the subject, such stories make for great creative fairytales but nothing more in my opinion? do you honestly think that such ?transitions? actually took place especially without ANY intelligent guidance?

About your DNA mapping question though ? I was actually surprised at your baseless accusation of me ?conveniently fitting? hence misrepresenting the facts. Evidence for microevolution is all around us ? organism?s DNA exists and due to environmental needs organisms could adapt to their advantage (one could phrase this as switching genes on/off since genes are already there to work with). If you?d like to see mapping for such phenomena, you could pick up any book that deals with DNA mappings of organisms such as Coleoptera, or blind cave fish. These are the examples off the top of my head. I?m sure you could look up tons more since microevolution is abundant and has been observed all around in nature.

Something note worthy though is when Darwinists talk about the evolution of various functionalities of life, ability to move, see, hear etc. they never make any distinctions between conceptual vs physical precursors of the organs involved ?

My stance is this: The TOE, in it's entirety, *can* account for common descent. Just like the laws of gravity form a self-sufficient theory, so does the TOE. We could call God the force which 'breathes fire' into those natural laws (sort of like the aristotelian prime mover), but that's not what we're discussing. Thus, the involvement of an intelligent agent is not necessarily the contentious point, just the truth of the theory. That is theistic evolution, which is distinct from intelligent design, since ID claims that several of the TOE's mechanisms are false.

As an aside, I think the way that ID proponents use the words 'intelligent agent' instead of God is disingenuous, when everyone knows that they mean God, and only God. Besides, if you admit the possibility of a different intelligent agent (say an advanced ET), the question of the ET's origin arises.

Once someone was talking about how sharks attack humans mostly because we look like harbor seals to them while swimming ? as soon as he finished, many disagreed pointing out that not only humans have legs, hands and fingers, their necks are shaped differently, their heads are much bigger and rounder and the motion of their bodies as they swim is very different too!

This exchange brings this story to my mind :)

I?ll respond to your queries about definition of species and mapping the DNA, in detail but first I need to understand what exactly your stance is. Your last post was confusing.

My stance, if not clear already, is:

Life could not have originated and spread on earth without an intelligent agent?s assistance. Direct or indirect is secondary in importance.

Keywords here are ?could NOT have?.

Do you claim otherwise? If yes, please elaborate.

The reason I say this is because I don?t think there is any point in discussing/debating an issue when the basic stance is not clear to begin with...

Ah, I see that the dichotomy of TOE and evolution is an ID construct --- alright, I can run with that terminology for now.

The examples of new species that I listed did not "lose" an ability to breed... the two separated populations (or more) diverged from one another though mutations and natural selection, such that they were no longer compatible genetically for purposes of mating. What other explanation could one arrive to, if the new species were no longer able to breed with their geographically isolated cousin species or parent species, but they were still able to breed with members of their own population? If this isn't speciation, then pray tell, what is? You are saying that all organisms contain DNA switches which allow subgroups to lose their ability to interbreed. That's an awfully large concession you are willing to make. What prevents these these branched subgroups from breeding with one another if they share the same genomes?

Additionally, since you claim that the potential for the observed variation is contained in the DNA of these organisms, could you point me to some literature that shows that the genomes of these species have been mapped, and that these genetic switches have been found? Or, are you just making the claim to conveniently fit with your side of the discussion?

Anyway, macroevolution is founded primarily on inferential evidence that DOES exist even though we cannot directly observe large scale changes due to the time scales involved... genetic similarities between species and biogeographical, homological, morphological, and paleontological evidence (and much more). It is all quite overwhelming, particularly how the evidence comes from so many distinct disciplines. So the scientists' claim that ID is nonscientific is not at all similar with ID claim that macroevolution is supposedly nonscientific... it is clearly scientific. It has put forth many types of positive evidence, and is falsifiable. On the other hand, ID has absolutely no positive evidence of it's own, and is not falsiable. All that IDers do is try to poke holes in the TOE.

Despite the fact that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones, the beneficial ones dominate because new traits that help a species fit into an ecological niche survive far more often, and spread through populations, as that link you provided mentioned. The negative mutations sometimes kill the organisms, or they decrease their fitness, thus making it less likely for them to survive longer and reproduce.

Moving on, I'm sure you must know that a plethora of mechanisms for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems have been presented. Since you are familiar with talk.origins, you can find enough information there. Plus, literature abounds with responses to Behe's claims that several systems are irreducibly complex. The general paradigm for the evolution of the eyes, or flagella (among others) have been expounded upon ad naseum. The problem with IDers is that even if you show that how a certain step is not irreducibly complex, they shift their focus to another part of the structure, or accept your rebuttal and then say that the next step is irreducibly complex. In effect, there is a practically infinite series of claims that the ID proponent will make. It will take a hundreds of thousands of pages to detail every small step of the evolution of the eye. That is simply not feasible, and besides we haven't yet figured out every tiny little detail of the evolution of the eye anyway. But we keep learning more, and the evidence that we can put forth right now is quite convincing (more than enough to refute ID's claims and make it look silly).

Back to the communism debate... no, you haven't provided anything beyond quotes. You made a quick, simple argument based on the word 'conflict', and that's it. Then, you failed to respond to my rebuttals, telling me they are besides the point. Your last explanation told me nothing:

"About the conflict ? though I?ve alluded to this before ? the biggest obstacle for Marx was to ?define? the problem, solutions were deemed secondary in importance. Nothing special of course, for in order for any problem to be solved effectively, it needs to be defined first. Once the BASIS (Marx wasn?t just mistaken to use this term) was stamped with ?objective-scientific? authority, that man?s innate nature is to be in conflict with another, Marx?s attempt, to alleviate the ?misery? of humans by ridding the evil he termed as ?class? , gained formidable momentum. To argue why didn?t he mimic TOE type natural selection is a leap from logic. I hope this also clarifies why later-Communist societies allowed or disallowed (eg. Lysenkoism) is detached from the realities of history."

You aren't actually saying anything here. Forget what Marx said for a second. Please tell me what a scientific theory of common descent has to do with the class struggle, beyond your one easily disproven catchphrase of conflict. But, more than that, explain to me the relation between a scientific theory of common decent and a statist, centrally planned economy. It's like comparing lawn chairs to skyrocketing oil prices (or any other similarly meaningless comparison).

When I said that conflict is a universal human phenomenon, I am not saying we are animals. I believe man is an essentially noble creature, but each of has the seed of violence within us. War and violence are things that have existed since the dawn of humankind (though I think it is possible we can move past them one day). Yes we are altruistic creatures... one can claim it is from God, or one can argue from an evolutionary standpoint that societies formed by individuals who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good of their people (altruism) would be selected for. These societies would triumph over more anarchistic ones. These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, anyway. No problem with TOE here.

And, Darwin's racism has no bearing on this discussion. Besides, he was far less racist than his contemporaries (he didn't actually advocate such ideas, just believed that they were inevitable), and you know how they say that a man's morality should be defined relative to the times he lived in. Western society is not nearly as racist as it was then, and evolutionists today don't make those type of claims anyway. But lastly, to say that a strong society will eventually overtake a weak society is hardly a controversial statement --- rather, an obvious one. Though, defining that fitness as inherent to race is not something people will generally say today.

And, the TOE does not reduce humans to an accident (though I stand by my statement that we would not any less moral creatures even if we were accidents). Like I said, one can believe in both God and evolution. Theistic evolution, or an essentially non-interfering Deistic God can close that gap. Additionally, we shouldn't necessarly take such an anthropocentric view of the universe when studying it. As if we are the totality of God's creation.

Finally, it's no big deal if you can't find the Dawkins article... No sense wasting that much time looking for it. But, I can't take the issue very seriously without verification; there is a lot of creationist propoganda out there, and it is possible that this is more of the same.

i tried to look up the article about Dawkin that i came across months ago btw but looks like it's hidden under huge piles of other stuff ... let me know if u really want to c it, i'd have to spend some time on it :)

About micro/macro/evolution, it?s not just you actually, I wasn?t aware of the difference b/w TOE and evolution myself until I got deeply interested in the topic.

The reason differentiation b/w TOE and evolution is necessary, however, is because Design theory criticizes TOE?s relentless claim to randomness/natural selection, whereas it supports evolution - it supports the latter in the sense that given a species? DNA, an organism could very well be able to turn on/off various features depending on the environmental needs etc., that already contain the necessary DNA coding required for such a change. What ID criticizes, however, are the claims that a species acquiring a brand new feature (human growing wings to fly or an organism that contains absolutely no light sensitive cells end up with eyes etc.) without any help of design or intelligence.

Thanks for the link, I?ve been to that website several times in the past. However, the author of this site seems to have completely misunderstood the criticism that ID puts forth.

I believe the definition of ?species? that the author is using here is the inability to interbreed, hence transforming into a new species.

Now notice, what essentially happened here is an ability has been lost (to interbreed) while some other traits (DNA for which was already present within in the organism) are highlighted due to various environmental reasons.

How could such a loss be called an ?improvement? toward a better/stronger species?

The fact that a ?brand new ability? to do something that the ?evolved-from? organism did not contain the DNA coding for, has NEVER been observed in nature yet, remains to this day (see examples above). However, the response that you?d get from Darwinists if you searched, is that since it takes millions and millions of years for it to happen, it?s not possible to prove...

Which actually is extremely ironic because the same Darwinists claim that ID theory is not scientific because it?s not falsifiable. When Darwinists defend the TOE with the time argument it inevitably puts their claim along with the ID in the so-called shelf of ?non-science?. Funny isn?t it? :)

However the argument of speciation goes further back. Darwin had said:

?If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down?.

When Michael Behe in 1996 developed the basis for ?irreducibly complex? organs/systems and asked Darwinists to show how such organs (bacteria flagellum, eye, blood clotting system etc.) could be developed with numerous, successive, slight modifications ? to this day there has been no solemn response. Some did attempt to answer the question, but in vain, in fact in most cases Behe corrected them in their understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity while others contained technical mistakes.

At this point, I HIGHLY recommend to you that you take a look at Michael Behe?s book ?Darwin?s blackbox?. It?s not possible for me to paraphrase his points and arguments here.

PS: About the most mutations being harmful, given the context of ID/TOE it usually refers to mutations of significance. The site you quoted elaborates on this ? Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial? www.talkorigins.org

Sorry about the delayed response, was caught up with a few deals even after coming back?

Though I wouldn?t want to keep beating the dead horse but since you brought it up, I appealed to the authority, indeed. The question is who doesn?t? When you referenced those sources about evolution, did you not appeal to the sources? authority, assuming their research/conclusions to be valid, subsequently building your analysis upon such assumptions?

Contrary to what you said, however, I did not just stop at that. In addition to providing you with the quotes straight from Marx, Mao etc. that would carry enormous weight for anyone looking at the issue on hand - something definitely one couldn?t and shouldn?t just ignore by claiming all these people were just ?abusing? it?an extremely a simplistic of a deduction; I tried, twice at least, to elaborate on the link b/w TOE Communism. I am not sure what categorizes as ?substantial analysis? in your opinion.

As far as ?blame? goes ? one couldn?t really blame Marx for the atrocities that Communism brought forth either. The point of this article is not to put blame on anyone or anything but to bring forth the aspects of our history that are usually overlooked due to various justified or unjustified reasons.

I?d like to know however, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that conflict is a universal human constant. These are very strong words. And as you do, please elaborate on how Altruism (not just human, but which is prevalent among animals as well) fits with the proposed constant of human conflict.

As for your question about TOE and amorality, absolutely. I don?t consider Darwin?s claim that ?the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world? or when he compared Baboons with ?negroes? and Australian apes, or the example of Ota benga committing suicide in the zoo, exactly a ?moral? stance.

Again this is just a glimpse. There is LOADS of such material widely availabe, one only needs to search to be soon overwhelmed.

In summary, as I said earlier, ANY ideology which reduces a human to a mere animal, an accident - be it TOE or not, such atrocious conclusions are bound to be made.

I?ll address the issue of micro/macro evolution in the next post since these two are unrelated topics?

i'm off to PA ... will reply when come back iA ;)

Couple things I wanted to add:

Your statement that most mutations are harmful is incorrect. The majority of mutations are neutral (one study estimated that about 3 of 175 human mutations are harmful). The harmful do outnumber the beneficial, but the beneficial ones do occur in a significant number. Additionally, when considering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.

Secondly, assuming you equate macroevolution with speciation, I found a nice listing of documented, observed cases of speciation: www.talkorigins.org.

This is of course neglecting implicit fossil evidence (among other things).

BTW, could you pass on some more information about Dawkin's supposed gaffe?

Sorry Asif... I still don't see it. Your claims still rest on nothing but quote-mining (an appeal to authority), not any substantial analysis. I thought I clearly laid the conflict issue to rest. Conflict is a universal human constant. The Marxist revolution has no special connection with the TOE any more than any type of conflict may have. Even if the TOE may have been abused (as I have conceded), it should not shoulder the blame. I guess I'll end it there too. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here :)

BTW, do you still stand by your statement that the TOE imples amorality? Oh and in reference to the bit about secular ethics, it is related to atheists because all atheists are seculars. And, evolution does not have to be atheistic because one can still claim that God set the initial conditions of the universe, with evolution part of the package. Or that God was the driving force behind each instance of speciation (while still using the TOE's mechanism).

Last, I am familiar with the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. I am simply unfamiliar with the usage of TOE and evolution to define the two. In any event, I do sometimes find it odd that creationist/IDers can support microevolution, but not take the further step that isolated splinter groups from one species cannot experience enough genetic change such that the two groups can no longer breed. Thus, speciation. Tell me, why can there be genetic variation between groups, but that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE that the variation could take a turn that does no longer allow breeding. In fact, macroevolution (not just microevolution) has indeed been observed in nature. Experiments with fruit flies have generated reproductively isolated sub-groups, as have studies of displaced cichlid fishes in African lakes.

Hmm... looks like this has actually transformed into a discussion about the actual theory :)