@dilophosaurus65 Evolutionism, like scientism, are words that religious people use to say that evolution and science is just like religion. They know that there is no logical reason to believe in god/gods so they try to say that believing in science is equally bad.
dilophosaurus65 evolutionism...well it's made up theories that something happened gazillion years ago with no actual back up, evidence...in other words horseshit lol 😂
please also read the book to understand the basis of the ideas 1. DNA and sequencing is too complex and organized to have evolved gradually. mathematically the chances of phenotypes evolving is 10 to the power of 70+ 2. protein folds are too specific in tertiary confirmation for even slight variance leading to a functional conformation. read point 1 3. cladistics and natural selection do not reveal genetic engineering, epigenetic, and factors that actually reveal evolution is rapid and occurs in short spurts as opposed to slowly over time 4. there is no reasonable explanation for the sudden appearance of the information required to create the various forms of animals found in the burgess shale, let alone the complex sub structures such as flagella 5. the key argument here is the probability of amino acids 'randomly' developing, and protein folds 'randomly' developing to create diversity of cellular and animal phenotypes and the complex interactions between intracellular mechanisms are too slim given rapid evolution of species and the diversity of the earth biosphere
jib1000 Code is information and if code functions it's an information system. Code; A sequence of instructions or comands for a process or function. "The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike." Richard Dawkins - River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, p. 17, 1995
+Wg Williams Yes it's interesting that one of the world's most prominent atheists concedes that the genetic code possess all of the hallmarks of an information system. He just can't bring himself to admit that the best explanation for this is that it IS a truly designed information processing system.
walkergarya "Historically, scientists have defined living creatures by the presence of DNA, but how living creatures process information may be a better hallmark of life, a new study argues."... "In trying to explain how life came to exist, people have been fixated on a problem of chemistry, that bringing life into being is like baking a cake, that we have a set of ingredients and instructions to follow," said study co-author Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona State University. "That approach is failing to capture the essence of what life is about." www.livescience.com/25453-life-origin-reframed.html
Most of you didn’t actually WATCH AND LISTEN. Pretty obvious based on most of these ignorant comments. All his points are solid and well delivered. Just a bunch of deniers you are. Keep an open mind. If you think he’s wrong, where did information come from? The only thing that can answer that with accuracy is the Bible. Unless you think you are smarter than all the scientists, I’d love to hear it.
One small point: when Dr Meyer discusses Charles Marshall's criticisms of his book, at around 9:00 he says Marshall "begs the question". Usually these days, this term is used with the meaning of "prompting the question". When I studied formal logic, "begging the question" was an invalid argument form that assumes what it tries to prove. Yay, finally someone who uses that term with its correct meaning! Language is a refined tool to express deep meanings, let's not lose these fine distinctions.
ExtantFrodo2 I try to avoid getting bogged down in semantics, but I think we are all agreed that a conclusion is presumed correct but not in fact validated by the context
LOL, instead I have trained 4 boys in the fine art of pointing out Evolutionary logic holes and unleashed them upon unsuspecting Academia. :) Let the games BEGIN!
Wow Pete...you just don't get the point. How many of those Nobel Prize winners are already creationists? DInkus, it isn't a totally knew science, it is a very real perspective when interpreting, reviewing and most importantly not INVENTING data when displaying discoveries. You are also making the very common logical error of stating science can solve any problems which stem from a source Naturalistic science can't even be bothered to recognize. Perhaps instead of being snarky, tell me how Naturalistic science has ended, "all worldhunger, worldpeace and the extermination of diabetes, HIV, cancer and so on."
You have some serious daddy issues, and spend entirely too much time trying arguing against something you say you don't believe... AND I'm not your son, nor a "dude". :) Cheers
HAHAHA And then you talk smack. KID LOL. I'm a FEMALE Marine, mother of 4 boys...SON. Your use of good diction, and ability to type big words, does not rational NOR logic make you. Makes you capable of stringing your ideas together in coherent large sentences YAY! You win a prize....You did no smacking or spanking kiddo, some of us simply have lives, and determined a few of your lengthy time consuming and written like you are submitting a college paper posts a while ago, that arguing with you is not only absolutely pointless as you are entrenched in your position, but you are only looking for arguments you can counter. Thanks SON, I already have a couple of degrees, I don't need to compete with an internet troll to feel accomplished or validated today. I would suggest instead that you do a little more research and living. Cheers!
I've just been sitting here wondering how much time you actually have to waste...I'm not competing with you child, just returning your weird overly written, (considering this is youtube, not a college forum) yet under thought out statements. I simply have nothing to prove to you, and why should I really point by point go through your arguments based more off your emotions, opinions, and apparent need to have the last word and be seen as right by some poor undereducated Christians. I respond a little, you waste your time writing me a paper. Degree in Psych, a degree in IT with a major of programming, just so...you know you can tear those down in your next diatribe, all of which were earned in accredited, secular institutions. :) Have fun!
When I first began to think about our origin and considered random mutation as a possibility I also asked myself if it were possible for life to have been programmed to adapt to various environmental stressors, and if so, random mutation didn't make sense as an explanation. One example of this was the way in which animals stranded on a small island would shrink in size, such as the dwarf woolly mammoths found on the islands of North America, and the experiments done where some reptiles were transplanted on small islands, and observed to have shrunk in size in a few generations. For them to downsize and thus need less food, happened too fast for a slow gradual random mutation to occur, something else was driving this to occur, something per-programmed.
Atheist Lehman because it occurs too fast for it to be the many random mutations required to miniaturize. Those same miniaturized creatures return to normal size when returned to the continent after only a few generations.
That's my point, the downsizing genes are already there, as if preprogrammed for such situations. I don't know if you have a probably and statistics background but you have to ask, what are the chances? How many genes are involved, and if the genes are the same, only expressed differently and appropriately based on various environmental stressors why. Someone else, a programmer must be involved, not randomness. I am aware that biologist and life scientists are taught to presuppose that this type of thinking is to be avoided because it discourages further investigation and study, but to presuppose is to make the same mistake as those who presuppose a Creator.
I would need to know all the necessary events that would constitute a sufficient outcome. Some events might be independent others dependent. I am not a biologist, nor a geneticist.
We know random mutation takes place in genes and natural selection culls this variety into adaptations, we can observe the process. No one has ever detected any kind of "intelligent design" affecting genes.
To say something isnt 'science' Is not even a grammatically or philosophically honest. Science is an approach. Its a method. Thats it. Its being turned into a 'thing' it isnt.
+Steve Koschella science is a practice, a method, it's not an idea. It's a methodology that produces data upon which conclusions are based. Yogi Berra said it best "in theory there is no difference between practice and theory, in practice there is."
+James Pellitteri Science is governed by philosophical principles That's why doctoral degrees are all PhD's (Doctor in Philosophy). Without philosophy there could be no science.
People who try to debunk the concept of intelligent design because they believe it has something to do with religion or a God have no problems believing extraterrestrial life could just as well have come to earth and seeded life - and if not on this planet, on some other.
+SnoopyDoo Why wouldn't they? We could do that right now if we found a planet with liquid water. Why do you have no problem believing in a magic space wizard but you can't fathom life happening in more than one place in the universe.
jib1000 "you can't fathom life happening in more than one place in the universe." - Where did you read anything in my post about not fathoming? You read stuff that isn't even there.
SnoopyDoo You acted like believing in aliens was somehow not based in fact, or at least is just based on faith. It isn't. We have no reason to believe in a god, we have every reason to believe life exists somewhere else in the universe. Don't try and make scientists look as irrational as religious people.
SnoopyDoo It's not a belief based in faith. It's based in fact. It is rational to believe that aliens exist. It is not rational to believe in god. We know life exists, god not so much. We know what elements you need to make life, god not so much. We know that all the things you need to make life are abundant in the universe, god not so much. We understand so much about how life works, god not so much. To address your original point again, the only reason anyone tries to "debunk" ID is because it isn't science, and people keep trying to say it is. There's no theory, no experiments, no data, no nothing. ID has contributed nothing to the scientific community, has provided zero benefit for mankind.
+Jesus Christ Intelligent Design is, as theories go, very simple; "a deity did it." That all there is to it. Nothing to learn, nothing to understand. Blind agreement gets you a PhD in the study of Intelligent Design. Evolution is much more complex. There is a lot of science to understand (biology, paleontology, archaeology, sociology, geology and psychology,) that's a lot of "ologies". Why adopt a theory that is so difficult (and holds you in such low regard) as evolution when Intelligent Design answers all your questions and makes you the star and end product of the show!
and we're still waiting for evolutionists to show the video of 'scientists' observing living matter bringing itself into existence from non-living matter
You may have to wait a long time. Not as long as waiting to see god. In the next 100 years abiogenesis will occur in the laboratory. How many thousands of years has god been missing in action? He can hide a bit can your lad.
That's a nice list of leading scientists you have there. How many of them are even biologists? I saw many 3, out of how many peer reviewed BIOLOGISTS that actually exist worldwide?
@Folk Aart Now that is just clumsy and inelegant. Witless, by which I mean lacking in wit, not dull stupidity. I thought you a man of humour, not humours.
That's because he does. You don't get a PhD from Cambridge without having some smarts. That doesn't mean necessarily that his theory is automatically correct but it should warrant that people take him seriously.
Yes, and yet, they constantly rail against the modern secular educational system as being rife with corruption, dishonesty and overpowering bias in favor of Evolution, and yet, guys like Meyer willingly attended those institutions, passed with flying colors, and somehow isn't a model of indoctrination like he suggests all of his classmates are. Hmm....could it be that there's no correlation whatsoever? Maybe he's not so bright. But my money is on him being a fraud.
He has studied the history and philosophy of science, not biology or genetics or any field related directly to evolution. If you look at his scholarly focus it is build around being able to argue against evolution, not to study biology.
Tim3shark "Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science". Your comment only reveals your ignorance. Stephen Meyer is eminently qualified to make the assessment that many aspects of evolutionary science, especially abiogenesis are poor science based on many commonly agreed definitions of scientific theory. The main ones being observability and repeatability. ID on the other hand is based on a well established principle of functional complexity always originating from an intelligent agent.
+Steve Koschella Your definition of philosophy of science shows why he isn't qualified, he doesn't know the actual science. He also routinely redefines the definitions of theories, hypothesis, and evidence in order to fit his ideas. If nothing else his preconceptions are what makes him unqualified to talk about evolution, his entire purpose in studying science was to find a way to tear down evolution and raise up creationism in its place. He spends very little time actually talking about the 'science' of ID and all his time trying to tear down evolution or twist definitions to correspond with his view. Its funny how someone who studies what makes science, science spends so much time trying to redefine scientific terms and ideas, its almost like he has an agenda. Abiogenesis is the least understood 'part' of evolution, though it is a slightly different field than the rest of evolution. Getting to the first cell is the biggest gap in knowledge that we have left in evolution, the rest of it is very solid. Since you brought up observability and repeatability I think it only fair to point out that nothing in the established ID "theory" is either. I use quotation marks because there is no actual ID theory, it is little more than an undetailed idea that people try to use as a scientific version of creation. Show me where the principle of functional complexity always originating from an intelligent source is well established. It is another "god of the gaps" style argument... things are complicated so it must be designed, why?... because we design complicated things so it must be the same everywhere. It is an assumption at best, and it does as much to disprove ID as support it because it does nothing to tell us where/how the original designer (who I assume is complex) came to be, unless you use the "God exists outside of space-time so he did it" copout argument (which is the same as saying he doesn't exist, because how can something exist outside of reality and still be real?) Using functional complexity as a core causes an infinite loop of what came first and how questions. Holding up such arguments as proof shows how little actual evidence there is for a designer. Evolution is based on a mountain of evidence that is observable, repeatable, predictive and useful including; fossil evidence, genetic evidence, the use of selective breeding in livestock, ect. Where ID is supported by leaps of logic based around putting a designer into any gaps in knowledge, and crediting the designer with any complexity without real evidence.
Darwin was wrong about gradualism in the fossil record. We know that, thanks. the Cambrian Period is when the major PHYLA showed up, not complex animals.
You show up often, 777THUTH777. Greetings. I smile at the idea that Phyla are not complicated. I would disagree. The lack of gradualism in the fossil record is a kill shot. It would verify that the rate of genetic evolution (mutation) is wildly non-linear.
+walkergarya I'm all ears. Point me to any research anywhere that demonstrates the mechanism for creating any significant process of biology by purely natural means. There is a wealth of research that tries to show how some biological processes could possibly occur, but all involve either huge intervention by the researchers to help the processes along, or minor achievements are used to extrapolate in totally incredulous ways theories of abiogenesis totally unjustified from the research.
We should aspire to be correct even if by being corrected. We know only one way more chickens come into existence. It’s simple math. A male and female pair are the only possible beginning stage adequate for reproducing life. The coding is designed to mix the a compatible DNA having the components to only produce more (male or female) chickens. However what is not simple is the vast amount of information/ programming that exists in the sequential digital coding of DNA, chemistry, mathematics, artistic design, mechanics, and engineering which amount to a level of science far greater than our own. To think it could exist without being purposely designed Is worse than arguing an observable science with a theory (it’s arguing that at some time other mechanisms were responsible for producing or reproducing chickens than the components & requirements we know to result in the reproduction of chickens). The only other way than the reproduction process to make chickens is the way the 1st couple got here (being designed them from “scratch”)
the Cambrian explosion." He nevertheless accepts a 10-million-year duration of the explosion itself, in keeping with the common judgment of numerous Cambrian experts about the length of time in which the vast majority of new phyla and classes arose" this is itself in stark contrast to Darwinian gradualism.
The true meaning of M.A.N. - Me And Nothing else. What an arrogance entwined with such an ego, that which leads to I-gnorance. Namasté, to Our Youniverse for We Are the Youniverse Itself, the Breath of Eternal Life Entwined Perfectly With Pure Unconditional Love. L.O.V.E. - Life Over Violence for Eternity H.A.T.E. - Hell At The End waiting Choose and decide wisely, rather blindly.
A problem that I have with the idea of 'Intelligent design' by a god is that so much of human design is second rate. The eye is built with parts reversed, such that the optic nerves are in front of the receptors, and is far poorer than the eye of so called inferior animals. Why is the urinary pipework in women so badly routed that it causes all sorts of problems, (ask you wife about it) . Who would 'design' an airway and the throat to be in the same pipeway. Why does man have an appendice that so often kills? Or did god get it wrong?
"...there's strong evidence that a designing intelligence acted in the history of life. And someone comes back and says it's not science.That's kind of an odd response. What they aught to say is no that's not true. the evidence points in other direction." This is a quote from the 11:00 minute mark. Its a very odd comment and one that makes me question his scientific credentials. I'm specifically referring to the "what they aught to say...." part of his comment. No. That's not what a scientist aught to have said. What a scientist aught to have said is "lets see the evidence". In fact that is exactly what scientists do say. If he's a real scientist it's very odd that he would make that kind of mistake. "....I self consciously used the same method of scientific reasoning that Charles Darwin used...." He then continues and says that if ID is unscientific then Darwin's theory must also be unscientific. Again, that is a very odd comment, because there is a whole lot more to a scientific theory than just proposing some hypothesis. Anyone can do that, and apparently does. The scientific methodology includes includes some key elements such as independently verifiable evidence and making predictions that are subsequently verified. Again, I have to question this guy's credentials if he's making that kind of mistake. "Multiple competing hypothesis"??? Does he mean the one developed by the CIA????? "testing" So his definition of testing a theoretical analysis of cause and effect? C'mon man... That's not scientific testing. What exactly is his degree in again? Philosophy of Science??? Oh that's starting to make sense. He's not a real scientist. "intelligent design is again based on scientific evidence". Still waiting for him to produce that evidence. Just one piece. Saying the evidence exists doesn't actually mean it exists. Oh wait, he's christian. That is what it means.
Phd in the philosophy of science does not make anyone able to disprove evolution or other scientific theory. The question is how many biologists are rejecting evolution, not how many scientists.
ID theory is simple. A source of super intelligence capable of manipulating matter at an atomic level is a better explanation of the existence of life than any other available.
+jib1000 Read the literature by ID proponents. Read Stephen Meier's book Signature in the Cell. You will be surprised by the integrity and power of the case for ID.
Steve Koschella When ID proponents can state the theory of ID I will read what they have to say. There can be no case without a theory. No theory, no science.
+Steve Koschella *Darwin's theory is presented as a theory, not a fact. The fact of evolution is presented as fact.* "Many _LEADING_ scientists are rejecting Darwin's theory" *No, they are not. The only one's rejecting it are creationists.* *The Cambrian explosion was **_10's of MILLIONS_** of years! There was nothing **_sudden_** about it.* *"No prior ancestors before them." *Yes, there were.* *That was 43 seconds into this idiotic video.*
+asix Would Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project qualify as a leading scientist? What were the ancestors of the creatures in the Cambrian explosion? Where are the fossils? If there are billions of Cambrian fossils, there should be just as many pre-Cambrian fossils, shouldn't there? Where are they? I beg to differ that Darwinian evolution is only presented as a theory. Yes, the language might include the word theory, but usually includes statements like "scientists now accept" and "science has shown" etc. That would seem to me to be saying that the "theory"is acually a fact. Evolution is not presented in biology text books as a tentative theory as yet unproven. It is always presented as a proven theory with a few unanswered questions.
Steve Koschella *Francis Collins does not disagree with Darwin's theory. All scientists disagree with numerous parts of his theory but, not the theory itself. Collins believes in theistic evolution, not young Earth **_"Abracadabra!!"_* "What were the ancestors of the creatures in the Cambrian explosion?" *All of the organisms that didn't die from the asteroid that killed 99% of life.* "Where are the fossils?" *in museums, colleges etc....* "If there are billions of Cambrian fossils, there should be just as many pre-Cambrian fossils, shouldn't there?" *No. The further back in time we go, the fewer fossils we should expect to survive. Not to mention, the existence of **_ANY_** pre-Cambrian fossils destroys your argument.* "Where are they?" *I've already answered this.* "Yes, the language might include the word theory, but usually includes statements like "scientists now accept" and "science has shown" etc." *So? Scientists **_DO_** accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Science **_HAS_** shown the theory of evolution as the best model of how life became so diverse.* "That would seem to me to be saying that the "theory"is acually a fact." *Do you understand that theories are explanations of facts? Again, biological evolution is a fact. The TOE is an explanation of that fact.* "Evolution is not presented in biology text books as a tentative theory" *Nor should it be. Evolutionary theory should be & is.* "as yet unproven" *Theories don't get **_"PROVEN"_**. Except for being "proven" to be the best _current_explanation of an observed fact. Which, evolutionary theory has achieved.* "It is always presented as a proven theory with a few unanswered questions." *So? It HAS been **_proven_** to be the best explanation.* *_"ABRACADABRA"_** has zero credible evidence. Sorry Steve but, that's not an explanation.*
+asix Theistic evolution is belief that the divine creator was involved in the evolutionary process. This does not conflict with Stephen Meyer's theories. In fact is is the only logical conclusion to come to when looking at the facts.
I have a challenge for any people who want to prove Intelligent Design. I want you to describe scientific evidence of Intelligent design in a post. Rules: 1. Don't state reasons that other ideas are wrong, focus on evidence that supports ID. 2. Explain all evidence for ID in a clear way. 3. Do not quote scripture. 4. You should be prepared to defend your evidence in scientific debate. 5. Do not hurl insults or personal attacks at anyone. 6. I'm looking for scientific evidence not philosophical. Thank you, and good luck.
Stephen Meyer has written a 600 page book presenting the case for ID, and you want someone to prove ID in a post to save you the trouble of reading the case for ID for yourself. I don't think you are being serious.
Actually both of his books are pretty much just direct assaults on Evolution. They have never published a plain objective argument for Intelligent Design.
+David Butler Read Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" for a very thorough presentation of the ID hypothesis. This is in my opinion the most complete and scholarly presentation of the subject. If you want to argue intelligently against ID, at least get a good understanding of the basis for it. Very few opponents of ID actually deal with the arguments in it's favor, they mostly argue from ignorance.
Its rare that I find true arguments for ID. Mostly I hear things like "its too complicated to not be designed" or "look at ___, people designed that, so life must have been designed too". I also tend to get a lot of eye-rolls and crude jokes twisting my arguments instead of a straight scientific debate when I try to discuss it.
When someone introduces an unknown intelligence of unknown origin, unknown intent and most of all of unknown limitations to explain his proposition; he is introducing a bigger mystery than the mystery he is trying to solve. Not to mention that the whole foundation ID lies upon fallacies of various kinds and misinterpretation of science.
Yes, as Darwin himself wrote at least 600 times, "We may well assume ...." Unknown factor X plus UFX plus UFX ...... Or in the fairy tale, Princess kisses frog = prince. Darwinian tale: Chance plus billions of years = prince.
design has to be i,d, or it wont work a cars parts have to be i,d, they have to be assembled i,d, and driven i,d, or you have a theory tail, tale,told,by,a,teller,fortune,less.
Theories only get to become theories after they are shown to repeatably provide accurate predictions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory "A *scientific theory* is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a *scientific theory* is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a *scientific theory* may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light). *Scientific theories* are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. *Scientific theories* are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."
It's funny to hear this coming from a believer. Maybe one day you'll lose your faith, and you'll read this sentence from you, and you'll cringe so bad you might die from it
I've been meaning to watch a video on Intelligent Design for a while now to see what the other side of the argument was. I have to say this was pretty awkward to watch, I actually started watching it yesterday but I had to stop it every now and again to go back and make sure he actually said what I thought he said. What he proposed as Intelligent Design Theory (14:30) is at best a basic hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. Saying evolution is a materialist view of science is absurd. Science does not deal with the metaphysical, it is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Sadly you are unlikely to find any real info about the "theory" of Intelligent design. The reason is that there is no actual structured scientific theory. ID is little more than a way to try to make creation sound scientific. If you look for info on ID all you will find is people trying to poke holes in the evolutionary theory.
Not in the slightest. The 'textbook version' is the only version I am relating to by the use of the word. The reason the announcer is doing this is because they're perpetuating Meyer's bullshit 'teach the controversy' strategy, by basically attempting to nitpick small or controversial issues in the current model and pointing to kooks as saying the whole thing is in tatters. So they point to guys like James Shapiro and do a lot of god of the gaps arguments to suggest 'Neo Darwinism' has problems, which is about as far from the truth as the Moon is from Earth. My goodness indeed. Of course, whatever their arguments are in the rest of the video are bunk, because they've got the idiocy to bring in Meyer himself, a total fraud who has dozens if not hundreds of blatant quote mines, lies, misrepresentations in his recent books. I researched several of them myself quite by accident. Meyer is nothing but a fraud.
//The preliminary remarks in the video were merely and overview of what was happening within the scientific community// Oh please. What Pigliucci says and what Meyer is asserting are as different as night and day.
Oh, btw...you should read this part of Pigliucci's statement... "Now, intelligent design as a philosophical idea had already been famously demolished by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), but Hume could only provide a plausible criticism of intelligent design, not an alternative explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. That job was Darwin’s chief contribution to humanity - and this alternative explanation truly was a paradigm shift, whose effects still reverberate in the modern creation-evolution ‘controversy’. To abandon a supernaturalist view of life on earth in favor of explanations based on natural causes does create an incommensurability - one that finally moved biology from the realm of natural theology and mythology to that of serious science. Charles Darwin will justly be celebrated this year for this momentous achievement in the history of thought." Whoops.
***** Your clear defense of Meyer is noted as being support for ID. He 'is' the movement effectively. Everyone knows this. Anyone who's taken a few hours to peruse his videos or books and is knowledgeable about the subject of evolution knows what this guy is all about: A creationist attack on evolution using pseudoscientific arguments. The same old SHIT. The 'whoops' was a simple statement that Pigliucci's comments aren't your friend like you think they are. Not exactly a quote mine on your part, but it's noteworthy you didn't seem to care about the rest of what he said in your link. There are NO differences in ID and Creationism, other than some loosely held definitions meant to placate the dimwitted. Kitzmiller vs. Dover settled that 10 years ago. Done and sealed. Sorry buddy. I do love these games where you guys insist there's a difference, but there simply isn't. It's just a collection of blatant creationists, most of them YECs, who like to hide behind the pseudobullshit of ID in order to further their arguments.
You guys need to understand that if you're ever going to win this debate, you need to start being HONEST. This means no lawyer arguments for creationism, but real science, honest methods, convincing evidence, and corroborating results. ID proponents like Meyer seem to think this is a tension filled alimony hearing or something where a few clever phrases or misrepresentations is a proper approach.
Presupposing gene regulatory networks is the same "magic" as presupposing God as an intelligent designer. So materialistic scientists commit the same "sin" as they point the fingers at ID scientists.
In the past 20th century to now, the majority of Nobel laureates have identified themselves as Christians. If you'll do the research from their own writings, many will say point-plank that they hold the view of creation by God.
"Intelligent Design" never described how species form, never explained how any physical process worked or what methods were involved in a logical, step-by-step way. It was nothing but a critique of evolution. Now "ID" is dead, especially since Creationists lost so decisively in the 2005 Dover PA case.
The Creationists never appealed the case because they knew they'd lose in every court in the nation. The judge in the Dover PA case heard testimony from many scientists who volunteered to lend their expertise-- all of them for evolution, NONE of them for "Intelligent Design." The judge scolded the Creationists for lying under oath and then dismissed their lawsuit.
The Dover PA ruling against "Intelligent Design" happened in 2005-- over a decade ago. If the advocates of "ID" thought they had a legal case why didn't they appeal the ruling to a higher court, or try the same tactic with some other school district? Because they know they'd lose, that's why. So the just went back to peddling books to religious fundamentalists and abandoned their scheme to invade public schools.
Every scientist in the world agrees that Intelligent Design is fake science-- that's over half a million experts. The minority of scientific professionals that supports ID is so tiny it is negligible.
The Creationists could have appealed to a higher court, but they knew they would always lose. Every single school board member who promoted "Intelligent Design in that school district was subsequently voted out of office by the public. Americans don't want Creationism in their schools.
"Evolution is a fact! Evolution is a fact! Evolution is a fact!" Maybe if I keep saying it enough, people will stop believing evolution is just a theory.....
Nobelist George Wald said earlier in his career there were only two possibilities for origin of life. One, by spontaneous generation (chance inanimate matter > life) or Two, Special Creation by an Intellect. "Spontaneous generation is impossible, but the alternative, Special Creation, isn't acceptable. Therefore, I choose SG." In other words, he would rather go with the impossible. However, years later, his viewpoint changed closer to deism. Whether Mother Nature or Infinite Intellect, both causes require 'X factors' we can only imagine. Mother Nature must have either Infinite Intellect/Power or is just blind luck. If the former, then she has the traits of deity.
So refreshing to hear scientific, logical criticism of evolutionism.
@dilophosaurus65 Evolutionism, like scientism, are words that religious people use to say that evolution and science is just like religion. They know that there is no logical reason to believe in god/gods so they try to say that believing in science is equally bad.
dilophosaurus65 evolutionism...well it's made up theories that something happened gazillion years ago with no actual back up, evidence...in other words horseshit lol 😂
please also read the book to understand the basis of the ideas
1. DNA and sequencing is too complex and organized to have evolved gradually. mathematically the chances of phenotypes evolving is 10 to the power of 70+
2. protein folds are too specific in tertiary confirmation for even slight variance leading to a functional conformation. read point 1
3. cladistics and natural selection do not reveal genetic engineering, epigenetic, and factors that actually reveal evolution is rapid and occurs in short spurts as opposed to slowly over time
4. there is no reasonable explanation for the sudden appearance of the information required to create the various forms of animals found in the burgess shale, let alone the complex sub structures such as flagella
5. the key argument here is the probability of amino acids 'randomly' developing, and protein folds 'randomly' developing to create diversity of cellular and animal phenotypes and the complex interactions between intracellular mechanisms are too slim given rapid evolution of species and the diversity of the earth biosphere
Magic numbers.
Here is a formal argument supporting ID I composed.
ARGUMENT FOR A SUPREME BEING ORIGIN OF LIFE.
1. Life exists.
2. Life is the result of an information system operating with chemistry, known in the field of Biological study as Genetics.
3. The only evidence for the origins of all known information systems are from Beings with a mind.
4. It is not pragmatical to prescribe undemonstrable and/or unknown causes as the means of origin for any particular thing.
5. Science has no evidence for a material (natural) cause for the origins of the information system in life.
6. It is pragmatical to prescribe the origin of any information system to a Being with mind.
7. The term for the means in which information systems arise and are first applied from is, "Designed".
8. Any Being with a mind able to design life's information system would pragmatically be, a "Supreme Being" to humans since this would account for humans' existence.
Conclusion; Pragmatically, there was a Supreme Being Designer of Life.
_________________________________
Occam's razor; "For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable."
It is not pragmatic to study any result from the historical past within a known means of operation but not have consideration for attributing the only known and common cause of that operation.
To fail to even consider the only known cause of an effect without any evidence to the contrary or any demonstrable or rational alternative, is absurdity. It's the result of worldviews like Materialism and Naturalism that make this error, not Science. Occam's razor and logical deduction eliminate any purely material cause for the origins of life when compared to a designer theory.
This argument demonstrates that pragmatically, there is supreme being with a mind because logically the only known evidence leads to this conclusion. Any other unexplained means is the eliminated with Occam's razor logically by having no accountability or explainability.
This argument also demonstrates that a supreme being can be known as a cause by being demonstrated logically as this argument does accomplish.
Occam's razor is for the failing explanation over the ad hoc hypothesis that can't be verified or falsified.
"Simpler" means explainable by known means in this case as "preferable" to the unexplained and unknown. My argument is a means of explanation as to what is known and has been demonstrated as true for same means of origin in all other cases.
We can test this argument by the failure or not in find information systems not designed by beings with minds or by learning more about information systems themselves.
Information; Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.
An information system is an integrated set of components for collecting, storing, and processing information.
If we can know of black holes, dark energy and dark matter, we can know of a Supreme Being by these same means. This argument logically leads to knowledge of such a Being.
Wg Williams ©
walkergarya
The difference in natural phenomenon and their system's information verses a designed information system's information is;
Designed Information Systems will; contain, process or create some data, code or information that is; externally to, unaccounted by and not inherent to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Natural Phenomenon and Natural Systems will NOT contain, process or create some data, code or information that is; externally to, unaccounted by and not inherent to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Some or most aspects of a designed information system won't apply to this rule but ALL designed information systems will have at lease one aspect that does.
This is the discerning factor of the information of mind verses natural data or information.
Wg Williams©
Flawed from point #2 on. There are no "information systems" in biology.
jib1000
Code is information and if code functions it's an information system.
Code; A sequence of instructions or comands for a process or function.
"The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."
Richard Dawkins
- River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, p. 17, 1995
+Wg Williams Yes it's interesting that one of the world's most prominent atheists concedes that the genetic code possess all of the hallmarks of an information system.
He just can't bring himself to admit that the best explanation for this is that it IS a truly designed information processing system.
walkergarya
"Historically, scientists have defined living creatures by the presence of DNA, but how living creatures process information may be a better hallmark of life, a new study argues."... "In trying to explain how life came to exist, people have been fixated on a problem of chemistry, that bringing life into being is like baking a cake, that we have a set of ingredients and instructions to follow," said study co-author Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona State University. "That approach is failing to capture the essence of what life is about."
www.livescience.com/25453-life-origin-reframed.html
Most of you didn’t actually WATCH AND LISTEN. Pretty obvious based on most of these ignorant comments. All his points are solid and well delivered. Just a bunch of deniers you are. Keep an open mind. If you think he’s wrong, where did information come from? The only thing that can answer that with accuracy is the Bible. Unless you think you are smarter than all the scientists, I’d love to hear it.
Wonderful and awesome video thanks for sharing and GOD Bless
Thank you for these books and especially for breaking monopoly in scientific thought ))))
One small point: when Dr Meyer discusses Charles Marshall's criticisms of his book, at around 9:00 he says Marshall "begs the question". Usually these days, this term is used with the meaning of "prompting the question". When I studied formal logic, "begging the question" was an invalid argument form that assumes what it tries to prove. Yay, finally someone who uses that term with its correct meaning! Language is a refined tool to express deep meanings, let's not lose these fine distinctions.
Begging the question - skirting round the issue, not actually addressing it and proceeding as if you had addressed it
@@johnlawrence2757
I'm pretty certain that dinsy512 is correct.
ExtantFrodo2 I try to avoid getting bogged down in semantics, but I think we are all agreed that a conclusion is presumed correct but not in fact validated by the context
@@johnlawrence2757 Yes, more so than "issue avoidance".
Thank you, and may God bless you for sharing your interviews and discussion. They have absolutely enriched my walk with Christ!
LOL, instead I have trained 4 boys in the fine art of pointing out Evolutionary logic holes and unleashed them upon unsuspecting Academia. :) Let the games BEGIN!
Wow Pete...you just don't get the point. How many of those Nobel Prize winners are already creationists?
DInkus, it isn't a totally knew science, it is a very real perspective when interpreting, reviewing and most importantly not INVENTING data when displaying discoveries. You are also making the very common logical error of stating science can solve any problems which stem from a source Naturalistic science can't even be bothered to recognize. Perhaps instead of being snarky, tell me how Naturalistic science has ended, "all worldhunger, worldpeace and the extermination of diabetes, HIV, cancer and so on."
You have some serious daddy issues, and spend entirely too much time trying arguing against something you say you don't believe...
AND I'm not your son, nor a "dude". :) Cheers
HAHAHA And then you talk smack. KID LOL. I'm a FEMALE Marine, mother of 4 boys...SON. Your use of good diction, and ability to type big words, does not rational NOR logic make you. Makes you capable of stringing your ideas together in coherent large sentences YAY! You win a prize....You did no smacking or spanking kiddo, some of us simply have lives, and determined a few of your lengthy time consuming and written like you are submitting a college paper posts a while ago, that arguing with you is not only absolutely pointless as you are entrenched in your position, but you are only looking for arguments you can counter. Thanks SON, I already have a couple of degrees, I don't need to compete with an internet troll to feel accomplished or validated today. I would suggest instead that you do a little more research and living. Cheers!
I've just been sitting here wondering how much time you actually have to waste...I'm not competing with you child, just returning your weird overly written, (considering this is youtube, not a college forum) yet under thought out statements. I simply have nothing to prove to you, and why should I really point by point go through your arguments based more off your emotions, opinions, and apparent need to have the last word and be seen as right by some poor undereducated Christians. I respond a little, you waste your time writing me a paper. Degree in Psych, a degree in IT with a major of programming, just so...you know you can tear those down in your next diatribe, all of which were earned in accredited, secular institutions. :) Have fun!
When I first began to think about our origin and considered random mutation as a possibility I also asked myself if it were possible for life to have been programmed to adapt to various environmental stressors, and if so, random mutation didn't make sense as an explanation. One example of this was the way in which animals stranded on a small island would shrink in size, such as the dwarf woolly mammoths found on the islands of North America, and the experiments done where some reptiles were transplanted on small islands, and observed to have shrunk in size in a few generations. For them to downsize and thus need less food, happened too fast for a slow gradual random mutation to occur, something else was driving this to occur, something per-programmed.
Atheist Lehman because it occurs too fast for it to be the many random mutations required to miniaturize. Those same miniaturized creatures return to normal size when returned to the continent after only a few generations.
That's my point, the downsizing genes are already there, as if preprogrammed for such situations. I don't know if you have a probably and statistics background but you have to ask, what are the chances? How many genes are involved, and if the genes are the same, only expressed differently and appropriately based on various environmental stressors why. Someone else, a programmer must be involved, not randomness. I am aware that biologist and life scientists are taught to presuppose that this type of thinking is to be avoided because it discourages further investigation and study, but to presuppose is to make the same mistake as those who presuppose a Creator.
I would need to know all the necessary events that would constitute a sufficient outcome. Some events might be independent others dependent. I am not a biologist, nor a geneticist.
"I am not a biologist, nor a geneticist."
*Yes, that's quite obvious.*
We know random mutation takes place in genes and natural selection culls this variety into adaptations, we can observe the process. No one has ever detected any kind of "intelligent design" affecting genes.
To say something isnt 'science' Is not even a grammatically or philosophically honest. Science is an approach. Its a method. Thats it. Its being turned into a 'thing' it isnt.
Philosophy of science. A bit different than practicing
Show me any scientific discipline that is not based on philosophical principles.
+Steve Koschella that's true. But there is no discipline here. Just philosophy.
+Steve Koschella science is a practice, a method, it's not an idea. It's a methodology that produces data upon which conclusions are based. Yogi Berra said it best "in theory there is no difference between practice and theory, in practice there is."
+James Pellitteri Science is governed by philosophical principles That's why doctoral degrees are all PhD's (Doctor in Philosophy). Without philosophy there could be no science.
+James Pellitteri Actually you are using philosophy when you make your statements ☺
People who try to debunk the concept of intelligent design because they believe it has something to do with religion or a God have no problems believing extraterrestrial life could just as well have come to earth and seeded life - and if not on this planet, on some other.
+SnoopyDoo Why wouldn't they? We could do that right now if we found a planet with liquid water. Why do you have no problem believing in a magic space wizard but you can't fathom life happening in more than one place in the universe.
jib1000 "you can't fathom life happening in more than one place in the universe." - Where did you read anything in my post about not fathoming? You read stuff that isn't even there.
SnoopyDoo
You acted like believing in aliens was somehow not based in fact, or at least is just based on faith. It isn't. We have no reason to believe in a god, we have every reason to believe life exists somewhere else in the universe. Don't try and make scientists look as irrational as religious people.
jib1000 Believing in alien life IS belief. There is no fact that aliens exist. Period.
SnoopyDoo
It's not a belief based in faith. It's based in fact. It is rational to believe that aliens exist. It is not rational to believe in god. We know life exists, god not so much. We know what elements you need to make life, god not so much. We know that all the things you need to make life are abundant in the universe, god not so much. We understand so much about how life works, god not so much.
To address your original point again, the only reason anyone tries to "debunk" ID is because it isn't science, and people keep trying to say it is. There's no theory, no experiments, no data, no nothing. ID has contributed nothing to the scientific community, has provided zero benefit for mankind.
What does intelligent design prove?
+Jesus Christ That people would rather know than think.
Waltham1892
That's an interesting response, but not sure I understand it. Could you expand on what you are trying to say here?
+Jesus Christ Intelligent Design is, as theories go, very simple; "a deity did it." That all there is to it. Nothing to learn, nothing to understand. Blind agreement gets you a PhD in the study of Intelligent Design.
Evolution is much more complex. There is a lot of science to understand (biology, paleontology, archaeology, sociology, geology and psychology,) that's a lot of "ologies".
Why adopt a theory that is so difficult (and holds you in such low regard) as evolution when Intelligent Design answers all your questions and makes you the star and end product of the show!
Waltham1892 Does it do anything else other than just sit there like a turd and be worthless?
Jesus Christ You are going to have to clarify that for me.
I'm not sure what the "it" you are referring to is.
and we're still waiting for evolutionists to show the video of 'scientists' observing living matter bringing itself into existence from non-living matter
You may have to wait a long time. Not as long as waiting to see god. In the next 100 years abiogenesis will occur in the laboratory. How many thousands of years has god been missing in action? He can hide a bit can your lad.
beatiful and "racional" arguments! Excellent video!
Rational. I've got a foreskin! Yaaaay.
That's a nice list of leading scientists you have there. How many of them are even biologists? I saw many 3, out of how many peer reviewed BIOLOGISTS that actually exist worldwide?
"I have absolutely no expertise in the field of evolutionary biology - but I just know that it's wrong"
That pretty much sums up this video
@Folk Aart how very droll and old fashioned. A god indeed. My, you must be a jolly fellow. Say something else that is funny. You are a card.
@Folk Aart Now that is just clumsy and inelegant. Witless, by which I mean lacking in wit, not dull stupidity. I thought you a man of humour, not humours.
I've got a foreskin. Yaaaay!
I love how they constantly mention he has a PhD...
That's because he does. You don't get a PhD from Cambridge without having some smarts. That doesn't mean necessarily that his theory is automatically correct but it should warrant that people take him seriously.
Yes, and yet, they constantly rail against the modern secular educational system as being rife with corruption, dishonesty and overpowering bias in favor of Evolution, and yet, guys like Meyer willingly attended those institutions, passed with flying colors, and somehow isn't a model of indoctrination like he suggests all of his classmates are. Hmm....could it be that there's no correlation whatsoever?
Maybe he's not so bright. But my money is on him being a fraud.
He has studied the history and philosophy of science, not biology or genetics or any field related directly to evolution. If you look at his scholarly focus it is build around being able to argue against evolution, not to study biology.
Tim3shark "Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science".
Your comment only reveals your ignorance. Stephen Meyer is eminently qualified to make the assessment that many aspects of evolutionary science, especially abiogenesis are poor science based on many commonly agreed definitions of scientific theory. The main ones being observability and repeatability.
ID on the other hand is based on a well established principle of functional complexity always originating from an intelligent agent.
+Steve Koschella Your definition of philosophy of science shows why he isn't qualified, he doesn't know the actual science. He also routinely redefines the definitions of theories, hypothesis, and evidence in order to fit his ideas. If nothing else his preconceptions are what makes him unqualified to talk about evolution, his entire purpose in studying science was to find a way to tear down evolution and raise up creationism in its place. He spends very little time actually talking about the 'science' of ID and all his time trying to tear down evolution or twist definitions to correspond with his view. Its funny how someone who studies what makes science, science spends so much time trying to redefine scientific terms and ideas, its almost like he has an agenda.
Abiogenesis is the least understood 'part' of evolution, though it is a slightly different field than the rest of evolution. Getting to the first cell is the biggest gap in knowledge that we have left in evolution, the rest of it is very solid. Since you brought up observability and repeatability I think it only fair to point out that nothing in the established ID "theory" is either. I use quotation marks because there is no actual ID theory, it is little more than an undetailed idea that people try to use as a scientific version of creation.
Show me where the principle of functional complexity always originating from an intelligent source is well established. It is another "god of the gaps" style argument... things are complicated so it must be designed, why?... because we design complicated things so it must be the same everywhere. It is an assumption at best, and it does as much to disprove ID as support it because it does nothing to tell us where/how the original designer (who I assume is complex) came to be, unless you use the "God exists outside of space-time so he did it" copout argument (which is the same as saying he doesn't exist, because how can something exist outside of reality and still be real?) Using functional complexity as a core causes an infinite loop of what came first and how questions. Holding up such arguments as proof shows how little actual evidence there is for a designer.
Evolution is based on a mountain of evidence that is observable, repeatable, predictive and useful including; fossil evidence, genetic evidence, the use of selective breeding in livestock, ect. Where ID is supported by leaps of logic based around putting a designer into any gaps in knowledge, and crediting the designer with any complexity without real evidence.
Darwin was wrong about gradualism in the fossil record. We know that, thanks. the Cambrian Period is when the major PHYLA showed up, not complex animals.
With ancestry in the Ediacaran
777THUTH777
Crawl back into your cave.
yeah only 80 million years of development!
You show up often, 777THUTH777. Greetings. I smile at the idea that Phyla are not complicated. I would disagree. The lack of gradualism in the fossil record is a kill shot. It would verify that the rate of genetic evolution (mutation) is wildly non-linear.
She's everywhere showing her ignorance 😂😂 lock her up
Haha. "God created our minds to be rational" I've never heard a statement more hilariously paradoxical as that
I did..."evolution is a fact" that's a funny statement!
It's an intelligibility argument. A circular justification. Aka 'only god could have created logic, so therefore if logic exists, god exists'.
All atheist claims turned to be wrong but you people are insisting on it don't you
How does something non material contain intelligence?
I was looking for a video on software design and this guy tells me god's signature
And I can still work out that self creation of life is impossible.
+walkergarya I'm all ears. Point me to any research anywhere that demonstrates the mechanism for creating any significant process of biology by purely natural means.
There is a wealth of research that tries to show how some biological processes could possibly occur, but all involve either huge intervention by the researchers to help the processes along, or minor achievements are used to extrapolate in totally incredulous ways theories of abiogenesis totally unjustified from the research.
We should aspire to be correct even if by being corrected. We know only one way more chickens come into existence. It’s simple math. A male and female pair are the only possible beginning stage adequate for reproducing life. The coding is designed to mix the a compatible DNA having the components to only produce more (male or female) chickens. However what is not simple is the vast amount of information/ programming that exists in the sequential digital coding of DNA, chemistry, mathematics, artistic design, mechanics, and engineering which amount to a level of science far greater than our own. To think it could exist without being purposely designed Is worse than arguing an observable science with a theory (it’s arguing that at some time other mechanisms were responsible for producing or reproducing chickens than the components & requirements we know to result in the reproduction of chickens). The only other way than the reproduction process to make chickens is the way the 1st couple got here (being designed them from “scratch”)
the Cambrian explosion." He nevertheless accepts a 10-million-year duration of the explosion itself, in keeping with the common judgment of numerous Cambrian experts about the length of time in which the vast majority of new phyla and classes arose" this is itself in stark contrast to Darwinian gradualism.
The true meaning of M.A.N. - Me And Nothing else. What an arrogance entwined with such an ego, that which leads to I-gnorance.
Namasté, to Our Youniverse for We Are the Youniverse Itself, the Breath of Eternal Life Entwined Perfectly With Pure Unconditional Love.
L.O.V.E. - Life Over Violence for Eternity
H.A.T.E. - Hell At The End waiting
Choose and decide wisely, rather blindly.
love is better than hate - hands down, but this is true without injecting them with connotations of supernatural justice.
A problem that I have with the idea of 'Intelligent design' by a god is that so much of human design is second rate. The eye is built with parts reversed, such that the optic nerves are in front of the receptors, and is far poorer than the eye of so called inferior animals. Why is the urinary pipework in women so badly routed that it causes all sorts of problems, (ask you wife about it) . Who would 'design' an airway and the throat to be in the same pipeway. Why does man have an appendice that so often kills?
Or did god get it wrong?
"...there's strong evidence that a designing intelligence acted in the history of life. And someone comes back and says it's not science.That's kind of an odd response. What they aught to say is no that's not true. the evidence points in other direction."
This is a quote from the 11:00 minute mark. Its a very odd comment and one that makes me question his scientific credentials. I'm specifically referring to the "what they aught to say...." part of his comment. No. That's not what a scientist aught to have said. What a scientist aught to have said is "lets see the evidence". In fact that is exactly what scientists do say. If he's a real scientist it's very odd that he would make that kind of mistake.
"....I self consciously used the same method of scientific reasoning that Charles Darwin used...."
He then continues and says that if ID is unscientific then Darwin's theory must also be unscientific. Again, that is a very odd comment, because there is a whole lot more to a scientific theory than just proposing some hypothesis. Anyone can do that, and apparently does. The scientific methodology includes includes some key elements such as independently verifiable evidence and making predictions that are subsequently verified. Again, I have to question this guy's credentials if he's making that kind of mistake.
"Multiple competing hypothesis"??? Does he mean the one developed by the CIA?????
"testing" So his definition of testing a theoretical analysis of cause and effect? C'mon man... That's not scientific testing. What exactly is his degree in again? Philosophy of Science??? Oh that's starting to make sense. He's not a real scientist.
"intelligent design is again based on scientific evidence". Still waiting for him to produce that evidence. Just one piece. Saying the evidence exists doesn't actually mean it exists. Oh wait, he's christian. That is what it means.
Phd in the philosophy of science does not make anyone able to disprove evolution or other scientific theory. The question is how many biologists are rejecting evolution, not how many scientists.
I dont have a PhD and i can disprove evolution as well
John wAnkerberg Show
Why do these people keep claiming that ID is science and yet they still can't even state the theory of ID?
ID theory is simple. A source of super intelligence capable of manipulating matter at an atomic level is a better explanation of the existence of life than any other available.
+Steve Koschella That isn't a theory. I want to know the THEORY of ID.
+jib1000 Read the literature by ID proponents. Read Stephen Meier's book Signature in the Cell. You will be surprised by the integrity and power of the case for ID.
Steve Koschella
When ID proponents can state the theory of ID I will read what they have to say. There can be no case without a theory. No theory, no science.
+jib1000 Silly and predictable response. Read the book and then come back with your arguments.
i counted 4 outright lies in the opening 50 seconds.
And they are?
+Steve Koschella *Darwin's theory is presented as a theory, not a fact. The fact of evolution is presented as fact.*
"Many _LEADING_ scientists are rejecting Darwin's theory"
*No, they are not. The only one's rejecting it are creationists.*
*The Cambrian explosion was **_10's of MILLIONS_** of years! There was nothing **_sudden_** about it.*
*"No prior ancestors before them."
*Yes, there were.*
*That was 43 seconds into this idiotic video.*
+asix Would Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project qualify as a leading scientist? What were the ancestors of the creatures in the Cambrian explosion? Where are the fossils? If there are billions of Cambrian fossils, there should be just as many pre-Cambrian fossils, shouldn't there? Where are they? I beg to differ that Darwinian evolution is only presented as a theory. Yes, the language might include the word theory, but usually includes statements like "scientists now accept" and "science has shown" etc. That would seem to me to be saying that the "theory"is acually a fact. Evolution is not presented in biology text books as a tentative theory as yet unproven. It is always presented as a proven theory with a few unanswered questions.
Steve Koschella *Francis Collins does not disagree with Darwin's theory. All scientists disagree with numerous parts of his theory but, not the theory itself. Collins believes in theistic evolution, not young Earth **_"Abracadabra!!"_*
"What were the ancestors of the creatures in the Cambrian explosion?"
*All of the organisms that didn't die from the asteroid that killed 99% of life.*
"Where are the fossils?"
*in museums, colleges etc....*
"If there are billions of Cambrian fossils, there should be just as many pre-Cambrian fossils, shouldn't there?"
*No. The further back in time we go, the fewer fossils we should expect to survive. Not to mention, the existence of **_ANY_** pre-Cambrian fossils destroys your argument.*
"Where are they?"
*I've already answered this.*
"Yes, the language might include the word theory, but usually includes statements like "scientists now accept" and "science has shown" etc."
*So? Scientists **_DO_** accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Science **_HAS_** shown the theory of evolution as the best model of how life became so diverse.*
"That would seem to me to be saying that the "theory"is acually a fact."
*Do you understand that theories are explanations of facts? Again, biological evolution is a fact. The TOE is an explanation of that fact.*
"Evolution is not presented in biology text books as a tentative theory"
*Nor should it be. Evolutionary theory should be & is.*
"as yet unproven"
*Theories don't get **_"PROVEN"_**. Except for being "proven" to be the best _current_explanation of an observed fact. Which, evolutionary theory has achieved.*
"It is always presented as a proven theory with a few unanswered questions."
*So? It HAS been **_proven_** to be the best explanation.*
*_"ABRACADABRA"_** has zero credible evidence. Sorry Steve but, that's not an explanation.*
+asix Theistic evolution is belief that the divine creator was involved in the evolutionary process. This does not conflict with Stephen Meyer's theories.
In fact is is the only logical conclusion to come to when looking at the facts.
It should be named as "My doubt: PhD".
I have a challenge for any people who want to prove Intelligent Design. I want you to describe scientific evidence of Intelligent design in a post.
Rules:
1. Don't state reasons that other ideas are wrong, focus on evidence that supports ID.
2. Explain all evidence for ID in a clear way.
3. Do not quote scripture.
4. You should be prepared to defend your evidence in scientific debate.
5. Do not hurl insults or personal attacks at anyone.
6. I'm looking for scientific evidence not philosophical.
Thank you, and good luck.
Stephen Meyer has written a 600 page book presenting the case for ID, and you want someone to prove ID in a post to save you the trouble of reading the case for ID for yourself. I don't think you are being serious.
I was actually trying to start a discussion, but it seems no one is interested.
Actually both of his books are pretty much just direct assaults on Evolution. They have never published a plain objective argument for Intelligent Design.
+David Butler Read Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" for a very thorough presentation of the ID hypothesis.
This is in my opinion the most complete and scholarly presentation of the subject. If you want to argue intelligently against ID, at least get a good understanding of the basis for it. Very few opponents of ID actually deal with the arguments in it's favor, they mostly argue from ignorance.
Its rare that I find true arguments for ID. Mostly I hear things like "its too complicated to not be designed" or "look at ___, people designed that, so life must have been designed too". I also tend to get a lot of eye-rolls and crude jokes twisting my arguments instead of a straight scientific debate when I try to discuss it.
When someone introduces an unknown intelligence of unknown origin, unknown intent and most of all of unknown limitations to explain his proposition; he is introducing a bigger mystery than the mystery he is trying to solve.
Not to mention that the whole foundation ID lies upon fallacies of various kinds and misinterpretation of science.
Yes, as Darwin himself wrote at least 600 times, "We may well assume ...." Unknown factor X plus UFX plus UFX ...... Or in the fairy tale, Princess kisses frog = prince. Darwinian tale: Chance plus billions of years = prince.
design has to be i,d, or it wont work a cars parts have to be i,d, they have to be assembled i,d, and driven i,d, or you have a theory tail, tale,told,by,a,teller,fortune,less.
Theories only get to become theories after they are shown to repeatably provide accurate predictions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory "A *scientific theory* is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a *scientific theory* is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a *scientific theory* may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
*Scientific theories* are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. *Scientific theories* are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."
I'm almost feeling sorry these days for poor MrAtheist! Science is revealing evolution to be nothing more than a faith based religion:(
It's funny to hear this coming from a believer. Maybe one day you'll lose your faith, and you'll read this sentence from you, and you'll cringe so bad you might die from it
I've been meaning to watch a video on Intelligent Design for a while now to see what the other side of the argument was. I have to say this was pretty awkward to watch, I actually started watching it yesterday but I had to stop it every now and again to go back and make sure he actually said what I thought he said. What he proposed as Intelligent Design Theory (14:30) is at best a basic hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. Saying evolution is a materialist view of science is absurd. Science does not deal with the metaphysical, it is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Sadly you are unlikely to find any real info about the "theory" of Intelligent design. The reason is that there is no actual structured scientific theory. ID is little more than a way to try to make creation sound scientific. If you look for info on ID all you will find is people trying to poke holes in the evolutionary theory.
However there are plenty proofs that show you came from apes. Are there? I mean real proofs,not fake ones. You are blinded
1:27 No, many scientists are NOT rejecting evolution. A few kooks are.
Not in the slightest. The 'textbook version' is the only version I am relating to by the use of the word. The reason the announcer is doing this is because they're perpetuating Meyer's bullshit 'teach the controversy' strategy, by basically attempting to nitpick small or controversial issues in the current model and pointing to kooks as saying the whole thing is in tatters. So they point to guys like James Shapiro and do a lot of god of the gaps arguments to suggest 'Neo Darwinism' has problems, which is about as far from the truth as the Moon is from Earth.
My goodness indeed.
Of course, whatever their arguments are in the rest of the video are bunk, because they've got the idiocy to bring in Meyer himself, a total fraud who has dozens if not hundreds of blatant quote mines, lies, misrepresentations in his recent books. I researched several of them myself quite by accident. Meyer is nothing but a fraud.
//The preliminary remarks in the video were merely and overview of
what was happening within the scientific community//
Oh please. What Pigliucci says and what Meyer is asserting are as different as night and day.
Oh, btw...you should read this part of Pigliucci's statement...
"Now, intelligent design as a philosophical idea had already been famously demolished by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), but Hume could only provide a plausible criticism of intelligent design, not an alternative explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. That job was Darwin’s chief contribution to humanity - and this alternative explanation truly was a paradigm shift, whose effects still reverberate in the modern creation-evolution ‘controversy’. To abandon a supernaturalist view of life on earth in favor of explanations based on natural causes does create an incommensurability - one that finally moved biology from the realm of natural theology and mythology to that of serious science. Charles Darwin will justly be celebrated this year for this momentous achievement in the history of thought."
Whoops.
***** Your clear defense of Meyer is noted as being support for ID. He 'is' the movement effectively. Everyone knows this. Anyone who's taken a few hours to peruse his videos or books and is knowledgeable about the subject of evolution knows what this guy is all about: A creationist attack on evolution using pseudoscientific arguments. The same old SHIT.
The 'whoops' was a simple statement that Pigliucci's comments aren't your friend like you think they are. Not exactly a quote mine on your part, but it's noteworthy you didn't seem to care about the rest of what he said in your link.
There are NO differences in ID and Creationism, other than some loosely held definitions meant to placate the dimwitted. Kitzmiller vs. Dover settled that 10 years ago. Done and sealed. Sorry buddy. I do love these games where you guys insist there's a difference, but there simply isn't. It's just a collection of blatant creationists, most of them YECs, who like to hide behind the pseudobullshit of ID in order to further their arguments.
You guys need to understand that if you're ever going to win this debate, you need to start being HONEST. This means no lawyer arguments for creationism, but real science, honest methods, convincing evidence, and corroborating results. ID proponents like Meyer seem to think this is a tension filled alimony hearing or something where a few clever phrases or misrepresentations is a proper approach.
Presupposing gene regulatory networks is the same "magic" as presupposing God as an intelligent designer. So materialistic scientists commit the same "sin" as they point the fingers at ID scientists.
a creationist scientist is like an atheist christian , an oxymoron
In the past 20th century to now, the majority of Nobel laureates have identified themselves as Christians. If you'll do the research from their own writings, many will say point-plank that they hold the view of creation by God.
I don't think creationism deserves so much as criticism. I respect dead ideas.
"Intelligent Design" never described how species form, never explained how any physical process worked or what methods were involved in a logical, step-by-step way. It was nothing but a critique of evolution. Now "ID" is dead, especially since Creationists lost so decisively in the 2005 Dover PA case.
Yeah so decisively, when one judge shot down Intelligent Design (that's really decisive - the opinions of one man).
The Creationists never appealed the case because they knew they'd lose in every court in the nation. The judge in the Dover PA case heard testimony from many scientists who volunteered to lend their expertise-- all of them for evolution, NONE of them for "Intelligent Design." The judge scolded the Creationists for lying under oath and then dismissed their lawsuit.
The Dover PA ruling against "Intelligent Design" happened in 2005-- over a decade ago. If the advocates of "ID" thought they had a legal case why didn't they appeal the ruling to a higher court, or try the same tactic with some other school district? Because they know they'd lose, that's why. So the just went back to peddling books to religious fundamentalists and abandoned their scheme to invade public schools.
Every scientist in the world agrees that Intelligent Design is fake science-- that's over half a million experts. The minority of scientific professionals that supports ID is so tiny it is negligible.
The Creationists could have appealed to a higher court, but they knew they would always lose. Every single school board member who promoted "Intelligent Design in that school district was subsequently voted out of office by the public. Americans don't want Creationism in their schools.
"Evolution is a fact! Evolution is a fact! Evolution is a fact!" Maybe if I keep saying it enough, people will stop believing evolution is just a theory.....
His argument for ID seems to be a God of the gaps argument. We don't know, therefore God.
Nobelist George Wald said earlier in his career there were only two possibilities for origin of life. One, by spontaneous generation (chance inanimate matter > life) or Two, Special Creation by an Intellect. "Spontaneous generation is impossible, but the alternative, Special Creation, isn't acceptable. Therefore, I choose SG." In other words, he would rather go with the impossible. However, years later, his viewpoint changed closer to deism.
Whether Mother Nature or Infinite Intellect, both causes require 'X factors' we can only imagine. Mother Nature must have either Infinite Intellect/Power or is just blind luck. If the former, then she has the traits of deity.
Curious,cause Dawkins favourite sentence is "we still don't know".
and they always need money, god is all powerfull ,
all knowing, but he can't handle money,
quote, George Carlin, the greatest
What a muddy conversation. Using half logic to argue science. It is just my opinion though.
Wow pseudo science at it's best