The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[VillagePlank]

That does not prove Darwinist theory that genes and cell mutation contribute to an eventual change in a new species. As you have clearly demonstrated, vast majority of mutations are harmful. Oh....and giving 'nature' the intelligence to know whether a mutation will end up being positive is assuming it has the power of foresight...which of course, it does not innately.

I was not arguing for 'intelligent' genes, nor for intelligent design. I have simply asserted that the mechanisms that Darwin described exist.

Most mutations are harmful which why the vast majority of human fertilised eggs are aborted well before a woman even knows she is pregnant, which leaves us with the notion that pregnancies that carry to full term are more likely to be beneficial or of no consequence.

You have also failed to incorporate the notion of crossover by diploid reproduction which contributes to a far higher mix of genes than the mutation rate which, as a matter of fact, in even the most optimistic models, remains well below 1%.

Technically mutation is a mechanism which stops a genome, by harmful modification of an allelle, becoming stuck on local maxima rather than climbing to optimal peaks.

EDIT: Oh and what I said before still amounts to inductive proof which, of course, leaves you the option of providing evidence that none or any one of the three processes do not exist therefore shattering it thereof.

Edited July 4, 2007 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

PP?

[PersianPaladin]

I was not arguing for 'intelligent' genes, nor for intelligent design. I have simply asserted that the mechanisms that Darwin described exist.

Most mutations are harmful which why the vast majority of human fertilised eggs are aborted well before a woman even knows she is pregnant, which leaves us with the notion that pregnancies that carry to full term are more likely to be beneficial or of no consequence.

You have also failed to incorporate the notion of crossover by diploid reproduction which contributes to a far higher mix of genes than the mutation rate which, as a matter of fact, in even the most optimistic models, remains well below 1%.

Technically mutation is a mechanism which stops a genome, by harmful modification of an allelle, becoming stuck on local maxima rather than climbing to optimal peaks.

EDIT: Oh and what I said before still amounts to inductive proof which, of course, leaves you the option of providing evidence that none or any one of the three processes do not exist therefore shattering it thereof.

I suppose the 'mix of genes' are the result of randomness and chance too? Where did such a rich portfolio of mitochondrial dna\rna, etc arise from to perpetuate itself with such continual species integrity and stability? The dice roll? Lol.

Oh, and mutations are regarded as 'copying errors' which occur apparently at random in our genes. The functions performed by our genes are 'encoded' with nucleotides, described in the letters A, T, G and C, in the genes. The information contained in that code is particularly sensitive. The effects of mutations on this exceedingly sensitive coding system are to a very large extent destructive. Mutations also arise at totally random intervals, and not a single mutation has ever been observed to give one organism an advantage over the other members of its species.

It is flying in the face of the facts to believe that such destructive effects could possibly lead to an increase in both irreducible complexity and harmonious interaction of species in the worlds' biomes.

[Guest Viking141]

Even if you could prove Darwinism was wrong it does not necassarily follow that Intelligent Design must be right. Thats an invalid argument based on a logical fallacy.

[PersianPaladin]

Even if you could prove Darwinism was wrong it does not necassarily follow that Intelligent Design must be right. Thats an invalid argument based on a logical fallacy.

Its not though is it?

I don't think Shakespeare was written by over a dozen monkeys and a pot of tippex over the expanse of a millenia.

Oh....and did the Tate gallery paint itself?

[Chris Knight]

I suppose the 'mix of genes' are the result of randomness and chance too? Where did such a rich portfolio of mitochondrial dna\rna, etc arise from to perpetuate itself with such continual species integrity and stability? The dice roll? Lol.

Oh, and mutations are regarded as 'copying errors' which occur apparently at random in our genes. The functions performed by our genes are 'encoded' with nucleotides, described in the letters A, T, G and C, in the genes. The information contained in that code is particularly sensitive. The effects of mutations on this exceedingly sensitive coding system are to a very large extent destructive. Mutations also arise at totally random intervals, and not a single mutation has ever been observed to give one organism an advantage over the other members of its species.

It is flying in the face of the facts to believe that such destructive effects could possibly lead to an increase in both irreducible complexity and harmonious interaction of species in the worlds' biomes.

Chaotic systems produce stable subsystems - the universe with its distribution of galaxies and other cosmic bodies, the periodic table with some missing (i. e. very short-lived) heavy elements, the predictable half-life of radioactive isotopes, all arise from chance occurrences. At the statistical level they appear to be non-random and occur within normal gaussian distributions in space and time. Just like throwing dice.

In fact, every occurrence is rooted in chance. Biological systems exist within this universe and are subject to random interactions at all dimensions from the subatomic to the gross physical levels. Life has a peculiar property - the necessity to survive, and this mirrors some non-living processes in the universe like the proerties of matter that cause clumping into massive bodies whose gravitational effects attract other massive bodies into systems such as our solar system, binary star systems, galaxies.

"Natural selection" was coined by Darwin to compare the way that species evolve in the wild with the way that domestic species, plant and animal, were selected by man to produce new and improved livestock and crop varieties. He knew nothing about genes, the mechanisms of mutation, or the rules of inheritance that were elucidated by Mendel and improved by numerous others during the 20th century.

He merely understood that there was natural variation for many characteristics within any species, from the humblest plant to his fellow humans. How was this variation important?

Rather than The Origin of Species, I would recommend the account of the young Darwin of the Voyage of the Beagle, where he made his observations of among many other new and interesting people and phenomena, the wildlife of the Galapagos, then untouched by the hand of man, including the tortoises and finches, which he documented in detail. He realised that these groups of animals were related in their origin, isolated by their different island habitats, and their environment and habits were reflected in the characteristics and behavioral patterns.

Darwin proposed a theory that has stood the test of scientific validity - it has not been disproved by any better scientific theory. The theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is a different question altogether, and has many questionable hypotheses, some of them proposing origins on Earth, others proposing extraterrestrial origins. The hypotheses are not any more testable than an intelligent creator, and are thus equally (un)questionable. However, they do not boil down to blind faith, proposing some natural cause rather than an untestable divine source for their origin. To paraphrase Hawking, not only does God play dice, he throws them in places that cannot be observed.

Mutations (L. mutare v. to change) are a complicated group of changes elucidated by geneticists over the 20th century to explain the variations found in individuals within a species. Darwin dealt with populations rather than individuals. Populations are groups of individuals, no doubt with a pool of shared genes, some variations and indeed some mutations. The majority of mutations exist as single nucleotide polymorphisms, which have no effect on the characteristics of the individuals - they are neutral and are represented by the difference between a single nucleotide pair within a gene, or a another region on the chromosome map of the individual that is outside a functional gene, in a non-functional sequence of the DNA, or within a control region. Mutations that have a major effect on the development of an individual, its growth, health etc. are mostly fatal, and the individuals rarely survive to pass on the mutation. When the early 20th century Geneticists learnt how to produce mutations, they chose the survivors from deliberate poisonings with chemicals, radiation etc., to produce their mutants and investigated what changes in the genes produced the different characteristics in their subjects, thus spreading a lot of light on the processes underlying genetic changes.

On the other hand there were studies on populations that existed in the wild where single gene mutations were beneficial and caused species to survive in changed and adverse situations. Well documented is the Peppered Moth which mutated to a melanic (black) form which survived better than its white original counterpart on its resting places on the black polluted tree bark in the suburbs of 1930s Birmingham. This is a direct application of Darwin's theory to a natural phenomenon, and as such is a classical case in support of the theory.

Complexity within biological systems exists, undeniably, and much has been done to show how the basic processes work together to produce the complex interractions between individual members of populations and how their genetic compositions are capable of change over time, on the basis of experiment and observation, with the consensus among methodical scientists over a century and a half, that Darwin's principles are consistent with the real world observations.

On the other hand there are so-called trolls that bring out oft-repeated falsehoods that evolution is under the control of some intelligent process. The existence of such individuals is just another confirmation that Darwin was correct in his observation that variation exists and however compelling the evidence may be there will always be some individuals, that are less likely to survive in the face of ever changing conditions or evidence.

[Admiral_Bobski]

not a single mutation has ever been observed to give one organism an advantage over the other members of its species.

One example that springs to mind is sickle cell anaemia. Generally this is a Bad Thing, but to actually have sickle cell anaemia yourself you need to have genes containing it from both parents. If you are lucky enough to get the sickle cell anaemia gene from just one parent then you do not suffer the adverse effects of the disease, but you do find that you're immune to malaria. Which can be quite handy.

So it is in fact possible to have a mutated gene which gives rise to a beneficial trait.

A couple of other points: Firstly, the phrase "natural selection" does seem to imply a certain foresight on behalf of Mother Nature, but it's nothing of the sort. The "selection" is not a conscious decision on Nature's (or a gene's) part - the idea is that a creature which has suffered a beneficial mutation is more likely to survive than its peers. If it survives, and the others do not, then it can breed and potentially pass that beneficial mutation on to the next generation. There is no decision-making involved, there is no requirement for design or planning, there is simply the likelihood that any particular trait will be passed on to the next generation by virtue of its original owner's longevity.

Secondly, there is this concept of pure randomness being insufficient to account for the evolution of complex life. This concept has arisen largely because of people's incapability of imagining the vast timescales in which life has appeared and thrived. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a single random beneficial mutation happens to a species once every thousand years - not entirely implausible. Well, life's been around in some form or other for about 3.5 billion years. Using some simple maths we can see that in that period there would have been 3.5 million beneficial mutations - quite a few. And if we assume that there's one beneficial mutation every 1000 years in each species then that allows for a heck of a lot of evolution.

That's my bit, for what it's worth.

:o

CB

Edited July 4, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

Chaotic systems produce stable subsystems - the universe with its distribution of galaxies and other cosmic bodies, the periodic table with some missing (i. e. very short-lived) heavy elements, the predictable half-life of radioactive isotopes, all arise from chance occurrences. At the statistical level they appear to be non-random and occur within normal gaussian distributions in space and time. Just like throwing dice.

In fact, every occurrence is rooted in chance. Biological systems exist within this universe and are subject to random interactions at all dimensions from the subatomic to the gross physical levels. Life has a peculiar property - the necessity to survive, and this mirrors some non-living processes in the universe like the proerties of matter that cause clumping into massive bodies whose gravitational effects attract other massive bodies into systems such as our solar system, binary star systems, galaxies.

On the other hand there were studies on populations that existed in the wild where single gene mutations were beneficial and caused species to survive in changed and adverse situations. Well documented is the Peppered Moth which mutated to a melanic (black) form which survived better than its white original counterpart on its resting places on the black polluted tree bark in the suburbs of 1930s Birmingham. This is a direct application of Darwin's theory to a natural phenomenon, and as such is a classical case in support of the theory.

On the other hand there are so-called trolls that bring out oft-repeated falsehoods that evolution is under the control of some intelligent process. The existence of such individuals is just another confirmation that Darwin was correct in his observation that variation exists and however compelling the evidence may be there will always be some individuals, that are less likely to survive in the face of ever changing conditions or evidence.

'Chance' and 'chaos' are merely terms coined by certain ignorant scientists to try and explain mechanisms too complex or beyond our understanding or involving processes\inputs we are yet able to measure.

As for your 'moth' example...it cannot be used as an example for darwinian evolution. Here is a quote from a book titled 'Evolution Deceit' by Harun Yahya: -

In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is possible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:

According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollutionhas killedthe lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened, and now the light-coloured moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-coloured moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.

However, even if we assume these to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation". In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

• Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific".
  
• Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.
  
• As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.14 These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
  My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.<A href="http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter4.php#15">15
  

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another.

One example that springs to mind is sickle cell anaemia. Generally this is a Bad Thing, but to actually have sickle cell anaemia yourself you need to have genes containing it from both parents. If you are lucky enough to get the sickle cell anaemia gene from just one parent then you do not suffer the adverse effects of the disease, but you do find that you're immune to malaria. Which can be quite handy.

So it is in fact possible to have a mutated gene which gives rise to a beneficial trait.

A couple of other points: Firstly, the phrase "natural selection" does seem to imply a certain foresight on behalf of Mother Nature, but it's nothing of the sort. The "selection" is not a conscious decision on Nature's (or a gene's) part - the idea is that a creature which has suffered a beneficial mutation is more likely to survive than its peers. If it survives, and the others do not, then it can breed and potentially pass that beneficial mutation on to the next generation. There is no decision-making involved, there is no requirement for design or planning, there is simply the likelihood that any particular trait will be passed on to the next generation by virtue of its original owner's longevity.

Secondly, there is this concept of pure randomness being insufficient to account for the evolution of complex life. This concept has arisen largely because of people's incapability of imagining the vast timescales in which life has appeared and thrived. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a single random beneficial mutation happens to a species once every thousand years - not entirely implausible. Well, life's been around in some form or other for about 3.5 billion years. Using some simple maths we can see that in that period there would have been 3.5 million beneficial mutations - quite a few. And if we assume that there's one beneficial mutation every 1000 years in each species then that allows for a heck of a lot of evolution.

That's my bit, for what it's worth.

:o

CB

And also add sickle-cell anaemia to the next generation as well? Methinks it is a mixed blessing really...and again, not linked with the concept of genetic advantage as a result of consistent and detectable species evolution.

I have also highlighted the contradictions in your post. Mutations are not beneficial for a species in general....they may protect against certain things, but in terms of the actual context of the dna sequence and the reproductive integrity of the species....they are more of a curse than a blessing.

And as for the 'time' theory...well, for every 3.5 million beneficial 'mutations' there will be simultaneous x million standard harmful ones too...which will eventually get marginalised within the code as the mutations cancel each other out or contribute to a genetic mess. Again...its monkeys and shakespeare mate.

Edited July 4, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Chris Knight]

'Chance' and 'chaos' are merely terms coined by certain ignorant scientists to try and explain mechanisms too complex or beyond our understanding or involving processes\inputs we are yet able to measure.

As are "God" & "Intelligent design" without defining the ? intelligence involved.

[PersianPaladin]

As are "God" & "Intelligent design" without defining the ? intelligence involved.

I'm not speaking from a religious perspective here. I'm just saying that some super-intelligence is guiding or adding consistent stabilising\harmonious inputs to the system...call it Jesus, Mother Nature, Allah, Buddha, Kali, Lesbos, etc...don't matter...It seems to be the unifying principle behind everything. I only need to look at a cell, then pressure systems, solar systems, galaxies, universes, etc and see the micro\macro cosmic linkages. Such unity from the terrestial molecular to the extra-terrestial non-biotic seems to contradict the 'random' principle.

Edited July 4, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

And also add sickle-cell anaemia to the next generation as well? Methinks it is a mixed blessing really...and again, not linked with the concept of genetic advantage as a result of consistent and detectable species evolution.

I have also highlighted the contradictions in your post. Mutations are not beneficial for a species in general....they may protect against certain things, but in terms of the actual context of the dna sequence and the reproductive integrity of the species....they are more of a curse than a blessing.

And as for the 'time' theory...well, for every 3.5 million beneficial 'mutations' there will be simultaneous x million standard harmful ones too...which will eventually get marginalised within the code as the mutations cancel each other out or contribute to a genetic mess. Again...its monkeys and shakespeare mate.

Ah. I see it is pointless trying to counter your criticisms. I'll leave you to it then. Mate.

CB

PS - By the way, my "contradiction" was an intentionally ironic oxymoron.

[Chris Knight]

I'm not speaking from a religious perspective here. I'm just saying that some super-intelligence is guiding or adding consistent stabilising\harmonious inputs to the system...call it Jesus, Mother Nature, Allah, Buddha, Kali, Lesbos, etc...don't matter...It seems to be the unifying principle behind everything. I only need to look at a cell, then pressure systems, solar systems, galaxies, universes, etc and see the micro\macro cosmic linkages. Such unity from the terrestial molecular to the extra-terrestial non-biotic seems to contradict the 'random' principle.

What "unity"? Belief systems are all right, scientific investigation/theory is all wrong? Random effects don't exist, we exist in a lawful universe at all levels - as long as there are faith systems to preserve the status quo - what existed before they existed (in their historical status on this earth)?

call it Jesus, Mother Nature, Allah, Buddha, Kali, Lesbos, etc...don't matter...It seems to be the unifying principle behind everything.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

the opposing arguments

* focus on different concept of time

Darwinians: want to prove natural selection over paeleontological time

IDs: like to disprove natural selection now/over recent history

* reach conclusions from different level of analysis

Darwinians: make physical observations at everyday level to prove evolution theory

IDs: make chemical observations at microscopic level to prove ID

I'm not making this stuff up.

[VillagePlank]

The effects of mutations on this exceedingly sensitive coding system are to a very large extent destructive.

You can say this as much as you want, but it doesn't make it true, and you haven't offered any evidence. If you take this opportunity to reread my last post you will note than mutation is not, generally, the driver of change, crossover is; so why you are fixating on 'destructive' mutation is totally beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it is I that is patently an idiot - I would be certainly happy to accept the mantle.

My recommended reading to you is The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould. A magnus opus by anyone's standards.

'Chance' and 'chaos' are merely terms coined by certain ignorant scientists to try and explain mechanisms too complex or beyond our understanding or involving processes\inputs we are yet able to measure.

I have to ask who do you think you are? Perhaps you'd be happier if we talked of non-linear dynamics, or fractals? (although you did not comment on the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which in terms of Kaufmann physics is right at the top of modern chaos and emergence) I am absolutely certain that great men like Prigogine would disagree with you. And so does the Nobel prize committee.

If I can be so bold, may I respectfully suggest you read his great work 'The End of Certainty'?

I'm not speaking from a religious perspective here. I'm just saying that some super-intelligence is guiding or adding consistent stabilising\harmonious inputs to the system...

No, you are not. You are simply saying that because we do not understand it, it must, therefore, be, by default the work of something of the higher order.

You do not have the luxury of this conclusion unless you fully commit to the notion of belief and faith. Whilst it is foolish for anyone to preclude the existence of a creator if some 'super-intelligence' were involved then you would not be able to imply, nor surmise 'it's' existence primarily because for that to be a reality the intelligence would need to be in a higher dimension to that in which we exist.

It's a bit like 2d man who lives on flat geometric plane talking of sphere's really.

Edited July 5, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Guest Viking141]

Its not though is it?

I don't think Shakespeare was written by over a dozen monkeys and a pot of tippex over the expanse of a millenia.

Oh....and did the Tate gallery paint itself?

None of which addresses my original point that your entire line of reasoning is invalid, based as it is on a logical fallacy.

[crimsone]

I'm not speaking from a religious perspective here. I'm just saying that some super-intelligence is guiding or adding consistent stabilising\harmonious inputs to the system...call it Jesus, Mother Nature, Allah, Buddha, Kali, Lesbos, etc...don't matter...It seems to be the unifying principle behind everything.

While I would personally agree broadly with that statement, I cannot see it as a justification of intelligent design as science.

Evolution is science... it's a theory that despite repeated attempts has not been disproved, and is supported by those scientific "facts" that we know so far. Intelligent design however is not science... Just like the existance of god, it can niether be proved or disproved beyond a certainty of 50% either way, and cannot be either directly supported or detracted from by any current scientific knowledge.

The former is a matter of science, while the latter is a matter of faith and philosophy.

[West is Best]

(Oh....and Richard Dawkins is a complete and utter p*** imo).

You may think so PP, but he's mostly right! And calling someone that doesn't really deal with his arguments, which are pretty strong.

Have you read The God Delusion? Obviously as a born-again Christian you're not going to like it, but it pays being read carefully.

You know...the world where altruism comes after profits...not before.

Dawkins deals with this through memetics. Memes are a key twin-aspect of the genetic theory, but seldom understood.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Psssssst....PP....take a look here. This site seems to agree with lots of what you say almost word for word.

[VillagePlank]

Obviously as a born-again Christian you're not going to like it, but it pays [to] being read carefully.

It confuses me immensely that those who hold such beliefs (and there is nothing wrong per se in and of that) find that evolution is inconsistent therein.

I could understand it if Darwinism described the origin of life (it doesn't) and I could understand it if there were scriptual references to it (I can't find any) In fact if my memory serves me right Genesis (if one doesn't take the chapter literally) actually describes a process of evolution (the gradual complexity of species as the week draws on)

As far as my tiny little mind can figure out, the two are perfectly compatible.

(and I presume that Dawkins, in the book mentioned, only defers the interaction of God within the process of evolution, and not the spark that created life in the first place - whatever that may be)

[West is Best]

the lack of sufficient inter-species links in the fossil record.

Aha. I've been reading back through this thread and knew dear old William Paley would crop up somewhere.

As Hume and Kant observed, the trouble with putting God in the gaps is that as the gaps get smaller ...

Edited July 5, 2007 by West is Best

[West is Best]

(and I presume that Dawkins, in the book mentioned, only defers the interaction of God within the process of evolution, and not the spark that created life in the first place - whatever that may be)

Yes that's exactly right VP.

Edited July 5, 2007 by West is Best

[Roger J Smith]

Just arrived at Gatwick airport, no wonder there is so much resistance to intelligent design in England.

[Admiral_Bobski]

If I may interject a quick parallel into the discussion...

Those who argue against evolution often speak of the unlikelihood of complex organisms arising purely by chance. To rephrase the objection slightly, they are saying that it is highly improbable that such organised organisms (note the two words have the same root) could arise from chaos.

Organisation from chaos...

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us, in a nutshell, that entropy always increases - that is to say that everything becomes more disordered over time - which gives the impression that anything which is disorganised can only get more disorganised.

However, in reality the Law only tells us that the total entropy of a closed system will always increase and, in most all cases, the closed system in question is the entire universe.

The currently accepted theory is that the universe began in a highly ordered state and has been becoming more chaotic ever since. This doesn't mean that isolated events of organisation (reverse entropy, if you like) can not happen, which is lucky because if random ordered events couldn't happen then the universe would be a dull place - it would have the same amount of matter in it that it has now, but it wouldn't have formed any structured bodies like stars, planets and, eventually, people.

Of course the counter to this parallel is to extend ID to the conclusion that the whole universe was created, fully formed, by some intelligent designer too. When it comes to Science versus Faith, debate stagnates...

CB

[jethro]

Just arrived at Gatwick airport, no wonder there is so much resistance to intelligent design in England.

Oh the land that cleanliness forgot, the land of perpetual grumpiness, the little part of England that will be forever grey, stinky and welcome visitors with a great big fat desire to get straight back on the plane from whence they came. We really know how to make folk feel glad to be here eh...enjoy your trip.

[Roger J Smith]

Actually, it isn't that bad, I am supremely jet-lagged and these long line-ups to get into the UK are a stark contrast to many years ago when they just waved you in on the honour system. Ah tempura, ah sushi.

But would it kill them to put up a few clocks?

Anyway, there is an intelligent design here, but it has been overwhelmed by a brave new world that requires everyone to line up for endless hours to make sure that grannies and supermodels are not about to blow up an airplane, I suppose.

Now that raises another question which no doubt has been anticipated with dread -- what about the intelligent designs of the dark side of the universe? They have always been very well organized, in fact, that's their most obvious calling card in most cases.