As pointed out above, early man often attributed very natural things to "Gods". Lightning was the "Arrows of the Gods" and thunder was the sound of "Thor's Hammer"; earthquakes were caused by the movement of the Great Tortoise or Great Elephant that supported the world; the planets were carried about by Gods Chariots.

ID is not much different. It seems to be driven by two purposes, a priesthood that grows wealthy and powerful by promoting it, and a group of followers who are either simply ignorant or all too often willfully ignorant of the actual methods and causes and that like easy and comforting answers. It seems to be another example of assigning unknowns to some God as a matter of personal comfort.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

It is very common for an informally used non-technical expression to become technical jargon.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Very well said jar... and the same can and has been said, of the great nature God in whom you believe (i.e. mother nature) and the priests who worship her.

I know you think that this line of reasoning is only a one-way street, but I agree with Phillip Johnson on this point. Perhaps it remains to be seen on an individual basis which one of us is right, but as with Dawkins and his invocation of alien authorship to exlain the complexity of life, you need only listen... to yourself.

(Phillip Johnson / 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' Q&A section / Q- 'What is Evolution')

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Except of course, Philip Johnson is simply mistaken or more likely, since his errors have been pointed out many times, lying. In addition, I do not propose and have not proposed any nature god nor do I worship such a critter as I have also pointed out to you in the past.

The TOE does not say that all that is real is nature, does not say that there is no God.

But it does show what I pointed out above, that he simply assigns that which he is ignorant about to God.

He also misdirects the audience and tries the old carny palm the pea trick by introducing the term "Darwinian Evolution".

Johnson simply tries to create a false dichotomy.

His position is not just bad from a reason, scientific or rational point of view, it is terrible theology.

First, the Theory of Evolution has changed and evolved since Darwin was writing. Even today, the Theory of Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence; or involvement or non-involvement of some God or Tooth Fairy. For all we know, descent with modification may well be the method some God chose and a system that God designed. The point is that the TOE is an explanation of the model, of HOW things happened.

Nor does the Theory of Evolution have anything to do with the origin of life. Even inserting the idea that life on earth began by alien building blocks tells us nothing about how life began. Panspermia simply broadens the possible conditions that might have led to the beginning of life. It also does not mean that life only began once. It is entirely possible that we may someday find life forms that began and developed under an entire different model.

Yet folk like Johnson continue to make the allegations that you posted above.

When one is trying to understand how things happen, inserting "Goddidit" tells us nothing. It is an assertion that has no more meaning than "Toothfairydidit" or "bhsdtiudfjkgdidit". It also reduces god to the level of backyard tinker and a pretty incompetent tinker at that.

The ID movement is one that is totally content free and that cannot possibly increase human knowledge and understanding until ID can present the model showing HOW the imagined designer did it. The reason that the TOE is valuable and ID worthless is that the TOE supplies a model and a model that can be shown in action and that explains what is seen. Id on the other hand explains nothing.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Is it an explanation of HOW things happenned, or WHAT WE SEE? As I quote below, you said later that it explains WHAT WE SEE. You can't have it both ways...



Really? Then it doesn't explain 'HOW THINGS HAPPENNED', which is one of the points Intelligent design advocates make.
If the TOE has nothing to do with origin, is that why Darwin called his history altering book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" which was the original title. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species )

It appears that we agree on the latter part of that title, and that the first part is invalid, yet that is the later title and the idea that most people know the book by "The Origin of Species".



And that is because a large body of scientists are admittedly materialists. It doesn't mean that all of them are. As I have said, I think the idea that aliens had somthing to do with it, or some higher intelligence (not akin to the divine) is highly reasonable.

It will be interesting to know precisely what context Dawkins used when invoking alien life as 'Expelled' comes out on Friday. I won't go out on a limb and say that I 'know' that I understood Rush Limbaugh correctly, but I advise you do not assume Dawkins was referring to panspermia either. If the context is panspermia... it sounded more like 'Directed Panspermia' to me. Anyway... it's just Dawkins' opinion. He doesn't speak for everyone. But he does speak for a large and vocal body of atheists and materialists.

Perhaps yours is not, but Dawkins' philosophy is a form of spiritual naturalism. His 'nature did it' belief is no more reasonable than a 'God did it' faith.



Exactly!



You are confuting things again...

The TOE cannot itself show HOW, it only explains (as you say in the last line) what we see.

And that is the part Intelligent Design agrees with! Creatures are adapting to a changing environment, and natural selection explains that very well. But it isn't evolution from single cells to human beings. It is better understood as crazed adaptation to survive the dying nature that life is confined in.

I am pleased that the TOE has evolved. It still has some evolving to do.

No naturalist or TOE can tell us how, yet you still consider it scientific, In the same way, design advocates are not claiming to tell us how life began. We are only saying that there is abundant evidence that points strongly to design and not a mere 'nature did it' explanation.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Huh?

The title is On Origin of Species, that has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.

Let's get that one little thing settled and then we can move on.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

An explanation of how things happen will usually be considered to explain what did happen. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "origin of life" and "origin of species".

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

So we see natural selection (evolution) and that will tell us how life appeared in terms of origin?

Didn't you just made the case that evolution explains origins.



I first start with the premise that species are living.

I then operate here by 'The Law of Biogenesis', unless you can inform me as to a logical alternative.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis )

So as we see, to rescue the TOE from the law of biogenesis and claim that it has no relevance to origin, you must invoke creation of a simpler life form or mere molecular abiogenesis that then evolves into more complex forms.
I don't have to educate the two of you on circular reasoning. You're still stuck with a theory of origins. One posits a designer which creates life that then changes, and the onther posits a chemical evolutionary process from less to greater complexity.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

The difference is that we can study the chemical processes. We can't study the "designer".

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

The theory of evolution says nothing about how life appeared. It is silent on that question.

No. I suggest you learn to read more carefully.

That's an off-topic side issue.

The TOE is entirely consistent with biogenesis, and does not need rescuing. TOE does not call for abiogenesis. Quite simply, TOE is not about the origin of life.

The only thing circular here is you going around in circles making the same mistake over and over.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Then why do you say below that the TOE is consistent with biogenesis? It's an important point that we needed to agree on. As you will see, we do!

The TOE is entirely consistent with biogenesis, and does not need rescuing. TOE does not call for abiogenesis. Quite simply, TOE is not about the origin of life.[/quote]

I agree with you that species beget species. Life comes from life. So the TOE is consistent with biogenesis, and the TOE has nothing to do with origins, and cannot explain it.

I think science would be better served calling what you mean (as the TOE) 'natural selection' or 'devolution' since by definition the term 'evolution' implies a particular direction. But between you and I, as long as we agree what is meant by 'the TOE' (life from life), there is no problem as far as our discussion.

As an intelligent design asdvocate I am pleased we can come to agreement on an individual basis.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

So, as seen above, the primary forces driving Creationism and ID are ignorance and profit. But there is another factor that may be even more important to those who are supporters of ID or Creationism, and that is the idea that they are special or somehow a "higher order" and that evolving somehow involves increased complexity.

Let me try to address the idea of evolving complexity first. Today when we look at life we find a spectrum from very simple single celled organisms to very complex ones with many millions of cells. We also find that there was a time on earth where there was no life and that over time life appeared.

If life started as very simple single celled organisms, there is only one direction possible at that time but that is true only at that time. Once something more complex evolves there are two possible direction, towards greater complexity and towards lesser complexity.

If life began as more complex then there is the certainty that evolution worked in two directions, towards greater complexity and lesser complexity.

In either case, except when limited, biological evolution is directionless.

The second issue is that of being "more evolved". Pretty much all life is equally evolved. The chimp and the human are equally evolved from their most recent common ancestor. The chimp and the human are equally evolved from the first living thing.

One reason some people have trouble with that is it removes the uniqueness of MAN; humans are just another animal.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Why not? That just says (correctly) that ToE does not in any way contradict biogenesis.

I would not agree with that wording. If you remove the "and cannot explain it" or even change "cannot" to "does not", then it would be okay. But to say "cannot" is to say more than we currently know.

That's your mistake. Evolution is more than natural selection, and "devolution" is quite wrong. Incidentally, "evolution" does not imply any particular direction.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

There is nothing simple about 'known' single celled life. This clip from 'Expelled' makes the point well: ( http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778 )



So you do believe that evolution (at one time) took this course?



Why do we assume that it did? And where is the evidence of the elusive 'First simple Life form'?



Is there evidence that natural selection ever trends toward greater complexity? There is observable evidence that life does not: ( http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778 )



Certainty?

We have evidence that natural selection trends toward lesser complexity (and usually unique but equal complexity), but not the other: ( http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778 )



So humanity did not evolve from our closest relative? Doesn't that make the gap and the number of missing supposed links even larger?

This whole subject fits into the topic of 'Junk DNA' quite nicely...

A polulation of organisms has the genetic diversity already to adapt to various pressures. The pressures do not produce the mutation, but allow those individuals which have already expressed the traits more likely to aid survival in that environment to live, while exterminating those that do not.

The point is that the genetic diversity is pre-existing. But genetic information cannot have evolved itself, since you need genetic information before evolution can occur: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPBHPqUIn7I )

I don't think you are really applying yourself to the issue.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Huh?

I believe that I laid out several possible scenarios.

Life could well have begun simple or more complex. Today there are simple forms and more complex forms. If life began as the most simple form possible, then the only direction life could evolve at that time was towards increasing complexity. However, once there were more complex forms it is then possible for them to evolve into less complex forms.

If life began as a more complex life form than the simplest possible, then at that time it was possible for life to evolve towards both more complex and less complex forms.

But still none of that has any relevance to the topic which is why a mythos like ID is attractive to anyone?

ID is a vacuous concept. It has no information content. It teaches us nothing about how life evolved. For ID to have any worth or meaning, it must explain "how things happened." Simply inserting a designer is worthless unless we can also show the model used.

To make ID useful we need to know how the Designer worked. When we compare the genome of the chimp and man we can see certain differences, for example we can see where two pieces in the chimp genome got fused together in the human genome. We can also see how that could be done, through copy errors. Further we can see a model for how that got selected and kept, through the filtering of Natural Selection.

What we end up with is a model based on copy errors, mutations and natural selection.

No designer need apply.

So, since the ID concept is information free, adds nothing, why do people embrace it?

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950