Intelligent Design VS. Evolution (Be Convinced of the Truth)

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Wikipedia

i hope that you all have seen the documentary film, and i hope you think about what those scientists say.

see if what they say is true or false, and if it is scientifically makes sense.

and i will be glad to see your scientific critisism of this video because after all we are here to learn and seek the right knowledge. RIGHT ??

note that some of those scientists used to support the evolution theory,but now they know they were wrong.





wish to you a nice watching.

Try this one.

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Miller is a Catholic, BTW.


I'd also recommend a book, Francis Collins' The Language of God (subtitled 'A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief'). I don't agree with Collins on everything but its well worth reading in that it shows a good case be made for theism without accepting ID (which he dismisses). Without pseudo-scientific drivel like ID, it's actually a far stronger case. Something for the theists to think about.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

May Allah reward you, Brother. This was an amazing video. For those with an inclination to believe in a Higher Power every additional bit of knowledge about our universe increases his faith. For the one inclined to disbelieve, no amount of proof is ever enough. I think Purest Ambrosia's signature says as much.

may Allah reward you too brother

and i agree with what you said.

format_quote Originally Posted by MeMama

Peace to you.

But there are many people who believe (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) and also believe that evolution is correct. They believe that evolution was God's way of creation -- His choice in how to create the world and its people. I don't see why one has to choose between evolution and the Qur'an, because they can coexist quite easily.

Sharing 97% of your DNA with an Ape, 70% with a mouse or 50% with a banana hardly denotes you share a common ancestor or were manifest from the same glob of goo -- least of which if the only claim to fame is some fossil in a display case ( who is to say they aren't of species gone extinct with assertion?)... All the above percentages are actually true... (do you believe there is a good chance you have evolved from a banana?) --
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...t-bananas.html

There is a very specific way the Amino Acids form to make different genetic information. The genetic code is degenerate, more than one codon may code for the same amino acid, it is commaless, nonoverlapping, it is UNIVERSAL with the exceptions in mitochondria, mycoplasma and some yeasts... It isn't a matter of putting it in a centrifuge and seeing what comes out from beneath your supernatant-- wow we have some sugar, some phosphate, some, Adenine, Thymine, Uracil, Guanine, Cytosine, Purine, and Pyrimidine--formed in all of us creatures up to an including beetles thus we all share a common ancestor?-
please don't mistake commonalities to mean that we share a common ancestor. Even one or two amino acid differences, is enough to induce the most violent reaction by your immune system if it were to be introduced to your body.

Further with all the genetic engineering and expression vectors we have got at our disposal, it would be very easy for instance to introduce a plasmid into a bacteria thus enabling it to express something like insulin as opposed to growing it in the tissues of dead animals like pigs or cows or subsequently killing humans and extracting Insulin from their pancreas (you can see where that would be unethical) in spite of our similarities with these pigs and cows, Insulin grown in their tissue would still be rejected by your body in spite of the overwhelming similarities...

Imagine inducing human insulin to be expressed in bacteria? ( by the way this is actually how Insulin is manufactured in bacteria through the use of plasmids)... How difficult then would it be to play around with the genetic code and cause an entire population of apes to differentiate into humans? we can't use plasmids in humans of course but we can certainly use viruses, specifically retro-viruses manipulated with the DNA of interest or we can even use liposomes to bring the vectors of interest inside the cells...so why not? we do it to manufacture Insulin, we do it to be rid ourselves of deadly genetic DZ such as SCID, we can even make lab diamonds, don't we? something that takes ages in nature, can be made with ease in the lab-- Diamonds by the way can go back to graphite, which takes millions of years under inert atmosphere--if we were to apply the same scientific laws to humans could possibly mean at some point we too will degenerate back to the previous primordial soup from which we came---there is really no reason to progress forward as some suggest a better product from further evolution.. ask any chemist of this... I have minored in chemistry in my under graduate ages ago, and that was something very striking to me ( a diamond really isn't forever)
C(diamond) → C(graphite). it will satisfy the laws of thermodynamics by not becoming a more brilliant diamond but by becoming graphite--
if we were to apply the same laws of nature to us as a specie (humans) we'll devolve with the passage of time, not become a better specie-- (perhaps that is where atheism plays a role?) but I digress!
If it were just a matter of common ancestry that split and morphed, why with all this technology and I have demonstrated the ease of use albeit it in simple terms, that we can very much alter gene expression-- so why not, why are we not able to reproduce these evolutionary findings in the laboratory thus putting all doubt to rest?

let's talk about collagen a little see how many varieties can be from one general heading! the most abundant protein in the human body, it functions to organize and strengthen the matrix, basically connective tissue made from protein, no different than the protein you eat in a stake, in its making , from collagen Alpha chains translation on the rough endoplasmic reticulum, in the specific polypeptide of Gly-X-Y,( X, Y) being proline, hydroxyproline, and hydroxlysine, on to ER hydroxylation which occurs for specific residues, then on to the Golgi, for glycosylation of the pro-alpha chain, to the formation of procollagen, which are then exocytosed because they are too large to be worked on further inside the cell, think about it, it makes perfect sense... this couldn't make itself-- then specific peptidases cleave only the terminal regions, forming insoluble tropocolagen, which are then reinforced by covalent lysine-hydroxylysine cross linking to make these collagen fibrils, and from then we have multitudes of different types of this general heading, similar yet very distinct... no different than creation... (same component, different varieties) -- Type one in bone, tendon and fascia, type II, in cartilage, the virteous body, type III in blood vessels, type IV in basement membrane, type V in epiphyseal plate, and understand that any mal-function in any specific type would cause a completely different type of problem for instance a Type III malfunction would give you Ehlers-Danlos syndrome whereas a type IV gives you Alport's syndrome.

If you'd concede to the fact that every nucleated cell in the body has the capability of doing this process over and over, yet for some reason only fibroblasts are programmed to make collagen while say something like a beta cell though carries the entire genetic information-- codes for Insulin by a process not very un-similar to the collagen synthesis in its details and complexity, and if you'd like though it would be a complete waste of my time but I can go in its details if you'd like... I don't think anyone needs it really to appreciate the virtuoso, the engineer, the chemist , the aesthete, the anatomist, the physiologist that designed it all -- This isn't a matter of I am going to eat protein from an egg, and bam energy will transform it into 19 different types of collagen across all vertebrates

.. If evolution were the answer we'd all be having very successful Xenograft, (tissue from Apes) in fact they are the fastest rejected-- we don't match on HLA-DP , HLA-DQ. and HLA-DR and their numerous subclasses... if it were as easy as sharing some basic components, there would be no long lists awaiting a liver, or a kidney or a corneal transplant ....There would no reason on the simplest level for blood typing even amongst us as a specie.

I am not into using obscure terms, I have no interest in impressing you with confounders, or quoting you Herodes Atticus or talk above you in display of what I know that you don't, or even assume through my conclusions that my knowledge is superior to yours or that you are not my equal... those weren't the Qualities of prophet Mohammed PBUH --

whereas I agree with you that there is nothing in the Quran to argue against evolution, save the creation of man--I'll argue that these are simply the building blocks of our universe.. no different than your usage of 26 consonants to make a seemingly endless number of meaningful words.... I have used all 26 consonants in here and repeatedly, but hope that this composition makes sense to you in the end?--- Why would an engineer use a different formula to create another creature, when one works perfectly? already in the Quran it states [24. Surah An-Nur : Ayah 45]

"And Allah has created from water every living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things." w/out going into too much detail of the verse, you can see we have in common.

An engineer will use concrete, brick , mortar, cement, and metal for a small hut as he would the tallest building-- but they don't magically make themselves. Energy doesn't create a building and then suddenly tons of little houses bud off its side and take different forms.

In closure--I really promised myself that I wouldn't be baited back into these sorts of debates as it has been discussed here AD nauseam under evolution/ under Atheism/ under creationist dealt a blow.. and frankly I don't enjoy the mannerism of some of the members here.

At the end of the day, it is nothing more than a sophisticated belief-- -- I am not impressed with a huge congregation upholding a summit to enforce a theory, admittedly I haven't watched the last video, but have a general idea what it would encompass-- and it can unravel with a few un-answered questions--

believing in evolution doesn't preclude the existence of an engineer to have set it all in motion.. Even though I have very strong doubt that evolution is how it happened, unless we wish to put a spin on adaptation to mean evolution.. seems like a simplistic conclusion to a very complex formula. it is merely a swap for some who think they can substitute a handy me down outfit from the salvation army for a fancy Salvatore Ferragamo, (if it doesn't look good, on you or fit you all that well, then it wouldn't matter who the label maker) even if it is an initiation right into the illuminati club, you won't feel comfortable in it!

It has nothing to do with being programmed to think a certain way, it has to do with what is in your heart, what is a symbiotic part of you, your innate need to find your reason for being.. the purpose of life, and why are you here, what are you for... life's long questions are a personal quest...its glory lies in its details and the trip one takes to get there... and it is incumbent upon each self to make that search, not to have it enforced by people who believe the use of sophisticated terminology can hide under lying fluff.
I wish you well on your quest...

peace and goodbye for a while...

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

But the immediate point is - do you or anyone else want to refute the video?

Watch the video I linked to. It presents the other side of the story, and might at least explain why for some "no amount of proof is ever enough". 'Proof' is the wrong word, as usual, but the simple reason is that there is far too much evidence the other way.

On the subject of theories I tracked down one of the articles referred in the video; it's rather fun. Michael Behe is perhaps the most famous scientific proponent of Intelligent Design, and first formulated the ideas on 'irreducable complexity'.

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

New Scientist

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

It has nothing to do with being programmed to think a certain way, it has to do with what is in your heart, what is a symbiotic part of you, your innate need to find your reason for being.. the purpose of life, and why are you here, what are you for... life's long questions are a personal quest...its glory lies in its details and the trip one takes to get there... and it is incumbent upon each self to make that search, not to have it enforced by people who believe the use of sophisticated terminology can hide under lying fluff.

Well said.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You make a good point that the theory of evolution without ID is a belief system. They seem to rely upon science and reject any theological explanation as some kind of anti-science.

Of course they do! There is nothing wrong with a theological explanation, as long as it is accepted that that is what is, and that it is not peddled as science. Nobody (well, not many people) object to ID and even creationism being taught as long as it is in theology/philosophy/religious studies classes and not science classes. Evolution without ID is NOT a 'belief system' it is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it is open to dispute, and even being junked should a better one come along. But ID is not it; it is NOT a scientific theory unless (as you can see in the quote I gave earlier) you redefine science to include it. That's fine, as long as you accept the consequences, those being that astrology (and spiritualism, and mysticism, etc, etc) are included as well, and hence that they have a 'right' to being taught as science as well.

Funny thing is that I have heard no good explanation by non-ID evolutionists about how all of this managed to happen like the bacterial flagellum in the video.

Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum

Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella

The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption

"Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex" (read it)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.

As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution.

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8- 20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). None of this research or thinking involves ID. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.”