This is the third and, hopefully, the final installment of the previous series of comments.

>> Thousands of years ago, people perceived a god/miracle in all aspects of our world since they were yet to find any rational/scientific explanation of any of these natural phenomena. Today, we can explain just about everything we observe in nature in terms of scientific theory, and I don't think it is unreasonable to think that even that which we still do not comprehend completely, will one day be understood in the same way.

An unbiased and rigorous assessment of the Darwinist mechanism should be an adequate illustration of the fact that the real irrational and unscientific explanation is the evidence for microevolution illegitimately extrapolated to account for irreducible complexity and complex specified information in living things. The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is not a rational and scientific explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems and complex specified information. A rigorous study of living things at the molecular level instead leads to the scientifically justified inductive inference that certain features of living things (irreducible complexity and complex specified information) have been intelligently designed, a conclusion that is indeed completely rational and scientific. The conclusion, which is not just a negative (anti-evolution) or god-of-the-gaps argumentation, is a POSITIVE case for design.

In the past, certain natural phenomena such as gravity, the rising and setting of the sun and moon, lightning, rain, motion of the planets, etc. have indeed been entirely attributed to supernatural cause. Today, an educated person attributes such phenomena to natural cause. But that does not mean that the problem of the origin of life, irreducible complexity, and complex specified information is necessarily also headed the same path in the future. It may be easier to see the argumentative fallacy if the argument structure is clearly spelled out as follows:

Premise 1: In the past, certain phenomena in nature were attributed to non-natural cause.

Premise 2: Today, those same phenomena have been proven to be a result of natural cause.

Premise 3: Today, the problem of origin of life, irreducible complexity, and complex specified information is being attributed to non-natural cause.

Conclusion: Therefore, in the future, we HOPE (or it is not "unreasonable to think") that the problem of origin of life, irreducible complexity, and complex specified information will be proven to be a result of natural cause.

The trouble with the argument is that it fails to note that there exists a POSITIVE case for design and that evolution is ill fated, as a theoretical framework, to ever offer a rational explanation to the problems posed above. If we have a positive case for X (i.e., X is true), and Y is shown to be false, and there are no other alternative explanations, then it is justifiable to conclude that X is the most reasonable explanation. We need to follow the evidence where it leads for that is the true scientific spirit. The current molecular and biochemical features of the cell are pointing to design, and neo-Darwinism has left us in the dark for too long (since the 1950s with the discovery of the structure of the DNA).

>> Lastly, I would like to address the misnomer stated in the original post about "intelligent design research". There is no such thing as ID research, rather just anti-evolution research. ID itself has no evidence on its own, is unfalsifiable, and is therefore not science.

I am afraid that you have blindly repeated the propaganda of pro-evolution and anti-ID American media without consulting the appropriate ID literature by the leading ID proponents, theorists, and researchers such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich, Guillermo Gonzalez, Casey Luskin, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, and others, who have already addressed these objections in books, peer-reviewed scholarly research articles, conferences, court trials, public speeches, debates, and Internet forums. There are a lot of misconceptions about ID in the comment above, misconceptions that the ignorant and ill-informed journalists have spread like the California wildfire despite repeated clarifications. Even after repeated clarifications, many journalists of the mainstream media and even evolutionary "scientists" at world-famous universities have also been documented to intentionally or inadvertently misrepresent the scientific and philosophical propositions of ID and its proponents (such as the claims that there is no positive evidence for ID, ID is only negative argumentation, ID is god-of-the-gaps argument, ID is a science stopper, ID is creationism, ID is religion, ID is not testable, there is no such thing as irreducibly complexity, design is an illusion, and so on). The media is fraught with blind adherence to Darwinism and marked with prejudiced and inaccurate treatment of the promising field of ID theory. The reason seems mostly a combination of ignorance, contempt, religion, politics, bandwagon fallacy, and fear of backlash on the Darwinists' careers due to conservative Darwinist monopoly on education, research, and employment.

Please refer to the IDEA Center?s ID FAQs & Primers www.ideacenter.org), which seems to be right on target in tackling the specific objections posed above. It is time-consuming to correct the misconceptions here when the IDEA Center has already done so at its informative website.

I hope this has been an enlightening series and has clarified some of the misconceptions about ID and evolution.

This is the second installment of my extended response series to Saif6's comment below from 5/23/05.

>> Intelligent design also relies strongly on the God of the Gaps theory.

This is a common objection to ID theory and has been thoroughly addressed in ID literature. ID is not god-of-the-gaps argument, "We do not know of a naturalistic method to get from A to B. Therefore, God must have done it." I will refer you to the IDEA Center, which presents a detailed answer to this objection www.ideacenter.org).

>> Basically, that is the claim that something which is not scientifically understood (which of course, I don't think is the case about evolution) can only be explained through a miracle/God.

This is another common objection, and, in fact, is a misrepresentation of ID theory. The scientific arm of ID makes no reference to God or miracles. ID theory, in a nutshell, simply "holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution" www.ideacenter.org). As a purely scientific theory, ID cannot and does not answer any of the following questions, ?Who is the designer? Is it God? Who is God? Why did God design life? Who designed the designer? Is life a ?miracle?? Did aliens seed life on earth 3.5 billion years ago (panspermia)? Why is there evil and misery on Earth? Is abortion right? Should human cloning be banned? Is genetically modified food right? Should we shut down the Naseeb site? What is "right" and "wrong"? And so on." These questions are addressed in the theological, philosophical, and other speculative circles, and not in the scientific arena of ID.

Monotheistic, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) firmly believe the designer was God. Polytheistic religions such as Hinduism may believe multiple gods acted jointly to do the design work. An atheist may believe that a time-traveling alien life form the future was the designer. All these groups are free to believe whatever they wish. ID, as a scientific theory, has nothing to say about these issues that are strictly outside the bounds of human, direct observation and scientific evidence. ID simply infers, by looking at certain features or EVIDENCE in the universe and life, that the features must have had an intelligent causation. As to who the designer was or how he designed the system, ID, as strictly a scientific theory, has shut its mouth in total ignorance.

I have posted this response to Saif6's comment below from 5/23/05. I joined Naseeb just in the last 2 weeks, so it may be quite late to respond to his comment nearly 2 years later. However, to expose an accurate understanding of ID theory to members of this Village, I would like to shed some light on a few matters of apparent confusion or misunderstanding about ID and evolution.

>> Nevertheless, the fact remains that evolution is supported VERY strongly by a wide array of sciences. For example, genetic similarities and between species and their correlations in geography and time... numerous fossil findings (and various intermediary forms that HAVE been found)... micro-evolution is pretty much tested and true.

That is correct. There exists sufficient evidence for microevolution. It has been tested well. However, such is not the case with macroevolution. The crucial point is that neo-Darwinism has not offered detailed, gradual, step-by-step evidence for macroevolution via its proposed mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.

I have noted that, when their theory is challenged, Darwinists tend to make little distinction between microevolution (small-scale genetic variations that happen within a population or species) and macroevolution (large-scale changes that result in the formation of new life forms above the species level). Darwinists illegitimately extrapolate the evidence for microevolution to macroevolution. I, wholeheartedly, agree with ID theory and neo-Darwinism that there is sufficient evidence for microevolution. However, ID theory and I maintain that random mutation and natural selection are incapable of beneficially altering a species' gene pool sufficient enough to produce the elements characteristic of macroevolution and that ID is required as a causative agent in producing those elements. Two elements that lead us to infer design are irreducible complexity, which Michael Behe illustrated in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and complex specified information, which William Dembski covers in his various works such as The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, and The Design Revolution.

With the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Charles Darwin gave the following testable criterion for his theory of evolution:

"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. But I can find out no such case." 1

Of course, Darwin could find no such case that could falsify his theory because in the 19th century the cell was thought to be a mysterious black box, not the sort of complex structure containing many discrete, integrated, information-rich, sub-cellular components that we discovered in the 20th century. In particular, in the last 10 years or so it been demonstrated that the irreducibly complex biochemical systems (such as bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, cellular transport, immune system, and biosynthesis of AMP) and complex specified information inherent in life, cannot be produced by "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Neo-Darwinism has not offered plausible, gradual, step-by-step, and detailed accounts, as Charles Darwin himself required of his theory. With the publication of Darwin's Black Box in 1996, Behe shattered the Darwinist community, arousing many critics in the wake. The critics have yet to fulfill the biochemical challenge to evolution. In response to the challenge, not a single, detailed, gradual, step-by-step, testable evolutionary model, except empty rhetoric, just-so stories, narrative conjecture, and standard evolutionary argumentative fallacies, has been put forth to explain the origin of irreducibly complex systems and complex specified information.

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

I can't read plato's comments and the article won't load, so I can't comment on those. However, my opinion is this: Anyone who claims that evolution has reached it's final, exact formulation is kidding themselves --- We still need to work out some of the kinks of the theory. Nevertheless, the fact remains that evolution is supported VERY strongly by a wide array of sciences. For example, genetic similarities and between species and their correlations in geography and time... numerous fossil findings (and various intermediary forms that HAVE been found)... micro-evolution is pretty much tested and true. Anyway, list goes on. I think we should let the evidence speak for itself, not our preconceived biases, and how we WANT things to be. If we do claim that evolution is wrong, then we would have to say that God planted a lot of false evidence just to confuse us, and I really don't like that explanation. Intelligent design also relies strongly on the God of the Gaps theory. Basically, that is the claim that something which is not scientifically understood (which of course, I don't think is the case about evolution) can only be explained through a miracle/God. Thousands of years ago, people perceived a god/miracle in all aspects of our world since they were yet to find any rational/scientific explanation of any of these natural phenomena. Today, we can explain just about everything we observe in nature in terms of scientific theory, and I don't think it is unreasonable to think that even that which we still do not comprehend completely, will one day be understood in the same way. Lastly, I would like to address the misnomer stated in the original post about "intelligent design research". There is no such thing as ID research, rather just anti-evolution research. ID itself has no evidence on its own, is unfalsifiable, and is therefore not science.

sorry

After all those discussions plato, your comment disappointed me.

this is silly. research is research. if it supports evolution it does. overwhelming evidence from multiple fields does support it. _________________The only things that exist in intelligent design literature are criticisms of evolution," said Keith________________
from the same article. that does not make for scientific theory. and there is no evidence, only conjecture. ___________________________________ ______was a wheel barrow and two crates full of copies of scientific journals _ to suggest evolution is well-documented.
___________________________________ ___________________

ok, if they start teaching intelligent design in science class, i want them to teach alchemy in chemistry.
I want them to teach the 7 days of creation in Biology too, i mean why not? there are proponents, www.christiananswers.net
and why not teach that "jesus is our king" in social studies in sixth grade. might as well, we have supporters for it, even an atorny general!! big names !