Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Jose Fly]

I could do the same and support the ACP and ID with articles on the internet. Instead, I take the time and summarize the arguments. Please do the same and summarize the arguments of the opposition so we can have a discussion at the same level.

They have been summarized over and over in this thread. You've just been waving them away ("other scientists disagree", "you haven't read the books", etc.).

You don't seem to be very interested in actually having a discussion, but seem more interested in making assertions, claiming "these scientists agree", and doing whatever it takes to avoid directly addressing rebuttals.

Here are a few questions you probably need to consider....

1) How do you know it's even possible for the universal constants to ever have been different? If it's impossible for them to even be anything else, the fact that they are what they are is due to necessity, not "design".

2) Are you aware that some constants are dependent on other constants?

3) Why are you assuming that H. sapiens is the "purpose" for which the universe was designed? And more importantly, on what is that assumption based?

 

[Autodidact]

The thing about these constants is that they cannot and could not be anything other than what they are, because they are a measure of "what is".

as camintix explained so well.

 

[painted wolf]

OK, whatever you say.

Not me... the entire scientific system is built this way. You generally learn that in a basic "intro to scientific thought" or "intro to science" class.

That's the problem with ID ... it's always wanting to cheat and cut in line. They want special treatment for their ideas.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

One book.. however cleverly written does not a scientific argument make.

You can lament my "prejudice" all you want, but science didn't stop in the 1980's and pop-sci is never going to be justification for sweeping change in science.

Even "the Origin" wasn't allowed to get away with that. (and for good reason)
If you can not come up with something of more scientific substance and merit then you are not arguing science.... you are arguing philosophy.

wa:do

Science did not stop in 1859 either. I studied The Origin of Species in college; study The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and then we can have an educated discussion.

 

[sandor606]

They have been summarized over and over in this thread. You've just been waving them away ("other scientists disagree", "you haven't read the books", etc.).

You don't seem to be very interested in actually having a discussion, but seem more interested in making assertions, claiming "these scientists agree", and doing whatever it takes to avoid directly addressing rebuttals.

Here are a few questions you probably need to consider....

1) How do you know it's even possible for the universal constants to ever have been different? If it's impossible for them to even be anything else, the fact that they are what they are is due to necessity, not "design".

2) Are you aware that some constants are dependent on other constants?

3) Why are you assuming that H. sapiens is the "purpose" for which the universe was designed? And more importantly, on what is that assumption based?

I am not assuming anything. I reported, time and again, on what some scientists have discovered, what they have written in scientific books, and what they have concluded. I studied the material, I found it well researched, well presented and credible, and I am presenting it on this forum as a possible answer to the thread's question.

This is NOT about me, as much as you would like to make it, it's about scientific evidence supporting ID. Argue the evidence and leave ME out of it.

 

[sandor606]

That's the problem with ID ... it's always wanting to cheat and cut in line. They want special treatment for their ideas.

wa:do

OK! Whatever you say.

 

[sandor606]

They have been summarized over and over in this thread. You've just been waving them away ("other scientists disagree", "you haven't read the books", etc.).

You don't seem to be very interested in actually having a discussion, but seem more interested in making assertions, claiming "these scientists agree", and doing whatever it takes to avoid directly addressing rebuttals.

Here are a few questions you probably need to consider....

1) How do you know it's even possible for the universal constants to ever have been different? If it's impossible for them to even be anything else, the fact that they are what they are is due to necessity, not "design".

2) Are you aware that some constants are dependent on other constants?

3) Why are you assuming that H. sapiens is the "purpose" for which the universe was designed? And more importantly, on what is that assumption based?

I don't know anything other than what some scientists are reporting, and neither do you or anyone else unless they made the discoveries themselves.

Question 1 was answered. Some scientists claim it was by design; I share that view based on the evidence presented.

Question 2: Yes, I do. Yet, in the Constants of Physics (op.cit) seven "fundamental" constants are given from which, they assert, the others depend. This can be food for discussion but it does not invalidate their claim, i.e., that they must have been designed.

Question 3 was already answered several times.

 

[Autodidact]

Science did not stop in 1859 either. I studied The Origin of Species in college; study The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and then we can have an educated discussion.

The authors of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, in that book, state the both the strong and weak Anthropic Principle are "quite speculative." Further, they appear to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The authors of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, in that book, state the both the strong and weak Anthropic Principle are "quite speculative." Further, they appear to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

Ah, therefore not scientific.

It is clear that this thread is for scientific evidence supporting intelligent design - no?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Intelligent Design Cannot Have Any Scientific Evidence What So Ever. I do not know how many times I have to say this. The level of reality which we would need to study to have empirical evidence one way or another is COMPLETELY beyond us.

With that said the best we can do in the mean time is speculate. This means that the best evidence we can have is probabilistic or intuitive. Inductive reasoning is the rule of the day. The best we can do for the time being is say whether or not it is likely that intelligent design occurred.

MTF

 

[painted wolf]

Science did not stop in 1859 either. I studied The Origin of Species in college; study The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and then we can have an educated discussion.

I never said it did... In fact if you look I said that "the Origin" doesn't count as 'scientific evidence' any more than your pop-sci does.

What evolution does have, is the next 150 years of empirical testing and experimentation. (and counting... http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html )

ID has yet to produce any empirical testing or experimentation. Certainly none of it has been published in a scientific journal describing any.
Where is the research? We have plenty of opinion... it's time for some science.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

I never said it did... In fact if you look I said that "the Origin" doesn't count as 'scientific evidence' any more than your pop-sci does.

What evolution does have, is the next 150 years of empirical testing and experimentation. (and counting... http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html )

ID has yet to produce any empirical testing or experimentation. Certainly none of it has been published in a scientific journal describing any.
Where is the research? We have plenty of opinion... it's time for some science.

wa:do

I will not read from links.

OK, The Origin of Species is not a science book, then it must be pop-sci. Whatever the case, while there is no supporting evidence of that kind for ID, to my knowledge there is also no testing and experimentation that supports Darwinian evolution either. Please provide a summary of the testing and experimentation that supports your position since you are making the claim.

 

[Storm]

I will not read from links.

While there is no supporting evidence of that kind for ID, to my knowledge there is also no testing and experimentation that supports Darwinian evolution either. Please provide a summary of the testing and experimentation that supports your position since you are making the claim.

You demand evidence, and refuse to read the links providing it? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Yerda]

While there is no supporting evidence of that kind for ID, to my knowledge there is also no testing and experimentation that supports Darwinian evolution either.

Are you saying that you don't know anything about either?

 

[sandor606]

The authors of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, in that book, state the both the strong and weak Anthropic Principle are "quite speculative." Further, they appear to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

Of course it is speculative but so is Darwinism and the hypothesis of self-organization. Until testing and experimentation have been carried out, AP and the other theories will remain speculative. The point is, however, that ID based on SAP is the most likely to be correct given the nature of the new discoveries.

 

[sandor606]

Are you saying that you don't know anything about either?

I am saying that to my knowledge there is no testing or experimentation that has provided supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution. Since you are requiring this standard, please provide such evidence that supports your position.

 

[Yerda]

I am saying that to my knowledge there is no testing or experimentation that has provided supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution. Since you are requiring this standard, please provide such evidence that supports your position.

I see.

What do you have in mind when you talk of testing or experimentation?

 

[painted wolf]

OK, The Origin of Species is not a science book, then it must be pop-sci. Whatever the case, while there is no supporting evidence of that kind for ID, to my knowledge there is also no testing and experimentation that supports Darwinian evolution either. Please provide a summary of the testing and experimentation that supports your position since you are making the claim.

LOL!!!!!! :biglaugh:

Have you ever actually read a scientific journal?
This weeks issue of Science:
Targeted Retrieval and Analysis of Five Neandertal mtDNA Genomes -- Briggs et al. 325 (5938): 318 -- Science
Tiger Moth Jams Bat Sonar -- Corcoran et al. 325 (5938): 325 -- Science
Genome-Wide RNAi Screen Identifies Genes Involved in Intestinal Pathogenic Bacterial Infection -- Cronin et al. 325 (5938): 340 -- Science

This weeks issue of Nature:
The : Schistosoma japonicum: genome reveals features of host-parasite interplay : Abstract : Nature
The genome of the blood fluke : Schistosoma mansoni : Abstract : Nature
The active form of DNA polymerase V is UmuD[prime]: 2: C-RecA-ATP : Abstract : Nature
Access : Global patterns of speciation and diversity : Nature
Access : Evolution of a malaria resistance gene in wild primates : Nature

From this weeks PLoS one (they had 83 articles just this week so here are just a few highlights from the past two days):
PLoS ONE: The Special Neuraminidase Stalk-Motif Responsible for Increased Virulence and Pathogenesis of H5N1 Influenza A Virus
PLoS ONE: Social and Emotional Values of Sounds Influence Human (Homo sapiens) and Non-Human Primate (Cercopithecus campbelli) Auditory Laterality
PLoS ONE: Guanine Nucleotides in the Meiotic Maturation of Starfish Oocytes: Regulation of the Actin Cytoskeleton and of Ca2+ Signaling
PLoS ONE: Impact of Alien Plant Invaders on Pollination Networks in Two Archipelagos

I could naturally cite more from the dozens of other scientific journals dealing specifically with biology, ecology, evolutionary development and on and on and on... :yes:

If you want more you can also check out this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html
That one may be easier... as I only post to news stories about primary research rather than the primary research itself. It's almost like pop-sci, but it actually leads to the research done.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

You demand evidence, and refuse to read the links providing it? Why am I not surprised?

I could overwhelm you with evidence from links on ID but that is no way to proceed in a discussion. In a discussion, I learned in graduate school, (a professor and 10-12 sudents around a table) each participant comes with a description of her/his position, supporting evidence from credible sources, and pertinent quotes, if applicable. In this discussion, I did just that from the beginning and throughout; I presented my position, provided credible evidence (presently the bone of contention) as well as quotes. I don't think is too much to ask for the same.

 

[painted wolf]

Your evidence in a scientific debate should be primary research... not opinion pieces.
That is the only credible source in a scientific debate.

I would like to see some primary research on ID....

wa:do