Order does not always lead to disorder. As a general rule, on the scale of the universe, it does, but it's similar to our "intelligence" example above - not everything has to move in tandem to create a generalized effect.

The easy answer is that the Earth is not a closed system and the Second Law only applies to closed systems.

The slightly more complex answer is that there is no such thing as "complexity" in evolution. We are no more ordered than a chimpanzee, a bacterium, a fish, a whale, a horse, a hippo. We're just different. People see evolution as a giant ladder where we're on top. It's not. Certain things may be older than us, but that doesn't mean they're more complex at all. We are not "evolved" from chimpanzees, there is no linear progression - rather, we have a common ancestor.

And don't get me wrong. I still think that deriving something scientific from the Bible, a book with great stories (New Testament) and not so great ones (Old Testament) written to explain things science of the time couldn't, and of course enforce law and order in a time where law enforcement as such didn't exist, is demented. That doesn't mean that the creation of the universe at a starting point, couldn't have been an intelligent act as such. Of course it could still be the last fortress of human need to explain the unexplainable; to suggest intelligence where there is none, the last refuge so to say of inferring meaning and instilling a sense of importance in creation so as to not seam benign when looking at that marvelous thing of a universe with strings, supernovae, black holes and other tears in the space-time fabric. I can understand that there is a need in humanity to look for a godly being that must have planned out all those intricacies. Just look at all those constants that govern our universe. If just one digit would be different the universe wouldn't exist. So someone must have meddled with those "dials" till he got it right, right? But that is philosophy. And that will conclude my contribution to that subject.

I come from a predominantly Christian family, yet we are unanimous in saying that intelligent design is most definitely not science. I am curious why people think evolution is not proven - their is more evidence for it than almost any other theory in existence. Intelligent design is a reactionary idea coming from the camp that believes that science and religion cannot live side by side. I cannot disagree with this more. There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design, therefore by scientific method it has to be considered 'an unproven theory'. I would encourage people to look at this article from the New Scientist (warning people in advance that the writers of this article are 'evolutionists', in that they are members of the scientific community who agree with me that intelligent design is scientific rubbish, but are less diplomatic than me):

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_pic

My overall opinion is that this debate has nothing to do with science, but with religion. I'm sorry but in a scientific sense saying evolution is wrong is on a par with the supposedly faked moon landings. Almost every single 'proof' that the they were faked has been irrefutably discredited yet still a significant proportion of the population believe that they were faked.

Leaving this aside, what I said about religion versus science is all to do with how strong people's faith is in the word of the Bible. Some people take the Bible at face value, some take it more metaphorically. Hence the former might favour intelligent design while the second might favour evolution. I'm not a theologian so I will not press this further, but I am not a 'fundamentalist' Christian. I don't take the Bible at face value and see no contradiction between it and scientific belief. However I do believe in God. It would be arrogant of me and of anyone to say I am right because I know I am right. But that is my point of view.

There are three main streams of interpretation of the Bible... the Arminianists, the Calvinists and the Universalists.

The Arminianists believe in a god that leaves us up to our own devices and will punish/reward us based on our own choices... Human history can support that that is not a good idea.

The Calvinists believe in a god that pre-destines us to either hell, or heaven... so pretty much you don't have much control in this one. God has decided your eternal destiny, a long time ago... you either burn, or you wander around between streams and trees, pretty much doing nothing for the rest of eternity.

The Universalists believe in a god that has a purpose for *everything* as it is now, the pain, the suffering and *everything* else that happens in the universe... but also the power and the intention to set it right when the plan is complete. Not only that, but no one will be left out, no matter what you believe...

Read the Bible as a Arminianist or a Calvinist and you fight with contradiction after contradiction. But if you don't, the local church might just not accept you, since you don't have enough "faith"...

Read the Bible as a Universalist, and all of a sudden things start making logical sense.

So... where do you think the idea of a death-god came from? Is it the God of the Bible or the god of the church?

Not to make two posts... Onto evolution. I don't really have time to debate this (running a business takes time ), but this is something that I've been studying for a while, so I'm just leaving you with some thoughts... Pull them apart and enjoy it if you need to :

1) Is something that happened in the past provable? Were there any witnesses? Yes, we see adaptation and natural-selection today. It would be stupid to try and put an argument to that. BUT, adaptation and natural-selection does not equal dolphin-to-bird evolution. Why? Evolution is assumed because it seems like a possibility: natural-selection and adaptation are facts which can seem to hint at it. We however, do not witness inter-species evolution today...reindeer look similar to cats in some respects, yet they don't mate - and even if they do, they are not genetically compatible. It is also reasonable to accept that they are similar because they have been design according to a similar "blue-print." In order for it to be proven, someone has to sit and watch it for millions of years - and take some notes.

So, is evolution *really* science like many badly want to make others believe, or is it a theory of origins - just like intelligent design?

2) Can information be information without intelligence ordering it? Data becomes information when it becomes some sort of interpretted message... Not only does it need intelligence to order it, it needs intelligence to define the parameters of interpreting it and intelligence to actually interpret it. And I'm not talking necessarily God here... I'm talking about about a basic if-then statement on your computer, for instance, and the processing that is involved.

DNA can mutate and cause changes, this is true... but looking at the diversity of all the species on the planet, including the plants and animals, mathematically is it reasonable to accept that all of these mutations actually added NEW, intelligent, ordered information to the DNA strands? All of them? Has it been proven?

Let's say a fish grows legs and lungs, and walks out of the water... Why would that happen in the first place? If it does, where does the information come from that specified that legs are better for operating on the land than fins? How long did it take these fish to get their legs working properly, so they can start finding food and not let this possibly benficial mutation die out? How did they know which food to find? How many of these fish got out of the water at the same time to make sure that this mutation actually survived? The odds are just not in favour of that.

3) If everything did happen through natural processes, where did nature come from? Where did the singularity for the Big Bang come from? Why do we have a definition for "nothing" in the first place? Maybe everything isn't as it seems.

4) A last thought: All experiments that have tried to create life from molecules by emulating the natural processes required, have failed... however a few were fairly promising. Scientists have been looking to do this for a long time... if they do, this might just kick Intelligent Design out of the picture completely. There's a slight flaw in that argument however... all of these experiments were set up by intelligent people, and the parameters manipulated - intelligently. Just a thought.

Sorry about the long post, but to be honest, I've got a very big interest in this... I'm obviously on the side of Christian Universalism and Intelligent Design, but I don't want to convince anybody... I just like people to think about and decide their own truth. Use it, or lose it - I believe in the end, everything is going to work out fine anyway.

Also, this will be my last post... sorry if some of these have been mentioned earlier, but time is a bit short and this has taken a bit too much already The ID vs Evolution argument will go on and on and on... None of us can go back and prove it. However both leave some questions to be answered... My personal belief is that evolution's list is growing day-by-day. At the end of the day, there is no proof yet... and there are some things you have to take on faith - faith in Evolution or faith in Intelligent Design.

Later
-Jus

No intelligent design doesn't belong in the school system to be taught as equal to evolution since ID is just a rename of CREATION. ID was also put on trail versus Evolution in Texas quite a few years back and ID lost.

But even thou i don't believe in any main stream religion (I got my own person beliefs) creation isn't all that false. Let me explain.

The only obstacles that make creation break apart and make Evolution stronger is on miner aspect of the religious content and more importantly the interpretation of it.

Such as:
The Earth was created in 7 days. With science we all know that is wrong since we know it toke millions of years. But int he bible it is mention hat to god 1000 years is the same as 1 day. Which would be that to god time is irrelevant and that he probably would be a bad time keeper anyways. Also consider that GOD "an obbnicient(sp) all knowing being" is trying to tell a human how he created the world. Now Take into consideration that this human didn't know shit about history and such. Your 8 year old is probably smarter then him. If god were to use what we today called scientific terms this dude wouldn't understand shit. Not to mention that god had to talk int he dudes language so he could understand him. Which is an old language that isn't as developed as ours and there fore cannot be as precises.

They are many many other points like that that make creation as it is told a lie in how it occurred but not a lie in concept since if you take those Godly interpretations then creation will start resembling evolution.

As for me my view on this ID thing is that did not decide of who man would look. How the world would be sculpted. He simply wrote the rules book. And i am not talking about the 10 commandments and shit here. I am talking about E=MC^2, h_20 (2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom makes water) Those rules which we discover everyday as we evolve what we call science. I believe that anyone studying science is studying the work of god and trying to understand what he thinks.

I'll leave it at that.

@Carbon016

Great posts. I congratulate your stomach to argue with the believers. I never have the stamina to not got angry about them.



Dolphin to bird? Really? You're sure about the order?



The theory of evolution (ToE) is science. And it has nothing to do with origins. ToE says nothing about the origin of life. -> Your point is invalid.



Yes, that one has been proven. No, I won't dig up the papers for you, because you're simply ignorant about modern science. (Especially modern biology.)

Take a look at this site here before you bring up old refuted arguments.

Your just parroting Dembski's refuted specified complexity "theory", which is garbage. Yes, even as a mathematical model it's garbage.

Your points are CI101, CI102, CI113 and CI141 from the above website. (And nearly every other mistake creationists make [ID is a subset of creationism.].)



Oh please, that's so easy to refute, it's not even fun.

Your arguments are CC200, especially CC211 and CC212 from the above mentioned site.



This has nothing to do with ToE. Big Bang is cosmology ie. physics. Or are you arguing now about physics? Good luck with that.



Semantics Schmemantics. You don't really wanna argue with human language against science? Hey, look, we have the word "spaghetti". Why do we have that word in the first place? May, it may be because the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists!

Arguments like that are just absurd.



Again, the ToE has nothing to do with the origin of life. The ToE explains how the different species arose, but it doesn't explain how life began in the first place. (Like the theory of gravitation doesn't explain the beginning of our universe.) So your point is moot anyway.

How do you want to argue against the ToE, if you don't even know it?



Sorry, but you don't have a big interest in this. If you would really have a honest interest in it, you would inform yourself better. Your arguments mostly boil down to arguments from incredulity. If you can't explain something, it must mean it can't happen.

Sorry, science (and reality) doesn't work that way. Your philosophical relativism may be fun as a private philosophy, but it just doesn't work together with reality, I'm afraid. There is nothing like "everybody's own truth". There is just reality.



No. No. No.

You don't need faith for the ToE. The ToE (and all other scientific theories) are grounded in what we call reality. There are based an mountains of evidence, on logic and facts.

You just can't stop believe in gravity, for example, and then jump out of a building expecting not the get hurt. You don't need to believe in gravity for it to exist, because it works whether you believe in it or not. That's why gravity is real.

And the same goes for the ToE. You don't need to believe in it. It works whether you believe in it or not. You don't need faith to do science. In the end, science destroys faith and leaves only reality. That's the true power of science, and that's the reason why we can argue over the internet with computers.

And that's why all those discussions about ID are moot anyway. ID won't survive. Not because of political, cultural or even scientific oppression. But simply, because ID is wrong. You can't align ID with reality and, since reality always wins in the end, ID will lose.

You may teach ID in your schools in the USA and destroy your scientific lead in the world at the same time. Face it, teaching ID means teaching ignorance. And since to most modern biology the ToE is fundamental, you'll make modern biological research impossible.

So, I (and every other informed spectator and scientist) don't worry about the future of the ToE. It will change (dare I say, evolve? ) and become better as it did since Darwin, driven by the scientific method and facts. Yes, maybe some people will chose ID and it may even become more widespread in certain parts of the world. This will hurt primary the children who'll learn nonsense and thus have it harder in the real world to cope (and will be unable to do modern biology as long as they don't learn the ToE). It may hurt science temporary in certain parts of the world.

But in the end, it doesn't make any difference. The ToE will remain. And no amounts of lay discussions will make any difference. (Even if only ID would be taught in schools in the USA forever, it would only mean the downfall of the US educational system and the US biology research. It wouldn't mean any difference to the rest of the world. [Though a lot of researchers would move to other places of the world, to do science.])

So yeah, arguing against ID is a fun pastime, not much more to me. Since I'm not an American, I can't care much when you destroy your own future by teaching garbage in schools. Your loss (and probably our gain in the end ).

There is no such thing as a distinct 'species' - or a lot of scientists would have a lot easier time naming things! The change from a bird to a dolphin (other way around) is not of some large-scale "species change" (whatever that means), but a bunch of gradual changes. And it's not really a change from a bird to a dolphin either, rather the bird branched off an ancestor, and the ancestor kept moving along and after a bunch of crazy branches the dolphin branched off a few million years later.



That's a remarkably human-centric way of thinking about it, and a faulty one at that. If we use your definition, there is no such thing as a non-informative signal: ALL data can be interpreted in some way or another. The point the guy above me made is great: if we define information as DNA, how do we account for how much crap's just sitting around doing nothing?



It's not new information. It's largely existing information. Sure, you have viruses and such introducing new material (look at all our junk DNA), but many closer-related animals have a similar chromosome count.



Over a few million years, fish with mutations, say, making them grow stubby legs end up not getting eaten by sea-borne predators. In fact, at this point in history there was little but plants and bacteria inhabiting land masses, so evolution favoring a more amphibian lifestyle would be even more rapid.



There's no need for extra information. The fish in the water get gobbled up at a faster rate than the ones partially on land. The ones partially on land breed, and poof you get more partially-on-land fish.



Probably a few million years. Remember, it only takes a small sample of those fish to pass the relevant genes on - and your population is going to be absolutely enormous. Look at the rate of birth defects in 50 years, for example, of the world. Now multiply that by 500,000 or more. You're going to see a lot of weird stuff pop up - most of it not useful, but the ones that are will end up surviving.



See above. You have to understand: millions of years is a really, really long time. You are an insignificant speck compared to how long life has been evolving on this planet. The fact that a moth can develop a widespread trait in less than fifty years is an example of how quickly selection and change can affect a population.



Outside the scope of this discussion.



I see where you're coming from, but again we don't have the luxury of time to work with. I don't think it matters what happens on the scientific front: ID is all well and laughed at there, the real battle is in public opinion.

Now Leger's post:



The problem is in definition of complexity. A E. Coli bacterium has a flagellum with a motor system on the molecular scale rivaling anything invented by Ford, powered by a proton pump similar to the ones we're now developing for hydrogen fuel cells. Photosynthesis is an amazingly "complex" system, something we can't hope to mimic, and a recent study on the flight of birds shows that they may use quantum effects to guide their navigation! I see what you are trying to assert though - it's easy to think a bacterium or a amoeba or even a larger organism like a rat is less complex than us. However, it's just not the case by any definition of the word.

As for the entropy deal, it's best to let it go as the 2nd law really wasn't meant to go there in the first place. It's like economics - we can assume a perfect system, but in reality those ideal systems are few and far between. No system, other than the universe itself, is a closed system. The Second Law is useful for some applications, because some things tend to follow it, but there's really no way to say one way or the other here. Your example was well thought out, but it's fundamentally a confusion of "disorder" with "entropy", two terms that can occasionally be interchangeable but certainly not here. I admit, that's mostly my fault, I didn't clear it up beforehand: it's more a question of how energy is wasted, or how energy diffuses into a system.

You also have to consider that energy can't be classified as ordered or non-ordered - it's just energy. If we arbitrarily assign it properties like that, we're anthropomorphizing it, and we're falling for the same silly human-oriented trap we defined earlier. Clever example though

Yeah, you can't also prove gravity 100%, or did you let fall everything all the time?

No, I don't think so.

We don't "prove" things in science. We only hypothesize, then experiment and finally theorize.

No proving in there.



Ok, you have failed biology now.

This website.

Read: CB901, CB902 and CB904.



No, what is not surprising is not that we have the same amino acids. (Though that wouldn't be necessary either.)

What is interesting is that we have the same gen sequences! The same followings of base pairs. Which means we have the same proteins as very distant organisms. Sequences thousands of base pairs are the same between your DNA and the DNA of a horse. Now how probably is that?

Your mitochondria is almost the same as the mitochondria in fish.



Horse manure.

No self respectable mathematician or physicists takes the "Matrix" scenario as real. It's a nice though experiment, nothing more. If you disagree, some sources would be nice.

Even the famed "Boltzmann's Brain" isn't seen as real, but only as a thought experiment.

And no, intelligent design comes out of creationism, has creationist support and has the same goal as creationism. Sneaking god in science, where he doesn't belong.



You know, science did that, found all other hypothesis lacking and discarded them.



Will take a look.

actually you do prove or rather disprove. Since proving would indeed mean to try everything, you rather search for hints to disprove a certain assumption. Let me just say. Water flows upstream. Instead of showing you every river that flows upstream, you would just have to point me to one that flows downstream. Therefore disproving my theory.

One thing I've noticed on this thread is the common creationist/IDist tactic in which they try to poke some holes in evolution and get a big debate going where people pile on to tell them why they are wrong. Then they just have to sit back and say, "look at all the controversy; there is no way evolution is accepted as true." Throughout the whole process they never provide any positive evidence for their own idea.

My point is that negative evidence for evolution (should such a thing exist) would never positive evidence for creationism/ID. Negative evidence for one thing is never positive evidence for some other thing, ever, in any circumstance. It is always possible that there is some third option out there, which neither side has considered, and that thing is the truth.

So I'd like to ask the ID proponents to please provide some positive evidence for ID, not negative evidence for evolution.

In order for evolution to NOT be true, you must have a population that does not undergo evolution.

The population must NOT:
-Have crossing over during meiosis
-Have genetic mutations (no mismatches, frameshifts, etc)
-Have genetic variance
-Have random mating
-Have environmental pressures

There exists no such population in the entire world. Therefore, evolution must occur. Seriously, if anyone understands the mechanics of evolution then they must know this to be true...you WILL have evolution if you have ANY of these above things.

Deathbane,

Your post is full of logical fallacies. You say that you cannot conceive of a way for new forms to arise or for small changes to compound over time into large changes. This is simply an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't think of a way for these things to happen doesn't mean that someone else hasn't.

Secondly, the Matrix idea. Just because some respected person believes this doesn't somehow make it true. This is the appeal to authority logical fallacy. What makes things true is evidence. There is evidence for evolution. You may dismiss it because you don't understand it, but that doesn't disqualify it as evidence.

I don't think intelligent design should be taught in the schools. However, darwinist evolutionary theories should be taught as theories, not facts, holes in the theory should be pointed out, and it should not be taught as proof that there is no creator. When you start teaching it as proof of a Godless universe, you are teaching a religious viewpoint, and supposedly that is not allowed in public schools.