“There are many. They just don’t use the term Intelligent Design. I have a small list of some of them that I have read on my website. There are several others.”

Just had a quick look at the first abstract listed (im terminally short on time) the title asks the question

“Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life”

As a challenge to natural selection this is an invalid argument, because it is abiogenesis that concerns itslef with where life comes from not Evolution/natural selection.

Many who know of Evolution have no problem with the fact that god came down on a magic cloud and created the first life then guided its rise (or fall) to mankind and the diversity around us. (I think thats the pope’s official view?)

But the brutal fact remains that you cant prove this as it involves supernatural cause. What we can say is that this environmental factor X is likely why this organism evolved to do Y.

“Now that you guys have had your fun with the strawman can you focus on the real issue at hand?”

Of course, the `real issue’ is what we discuss on the majority of threads. I think it’s fair for me to criticise a slightly different point made in this posting—it looked to me like DS genuinely thought there was no testing left for gravity. Hence his `ROFL’ at the idea of it. And not every thread has to be about the same thing

“Well, Dave, perhaps you should make your points more clear in the future”

Agreed!

“Comparing NDE theory and gravity is simply ludicrous and causes one to seriously question the critical thinking ability of anyone that tries to make an equitable comparison”

I don’t think anyone in this thread said or implied they were equally well-tested. (As an aside, gravity is probably not even the best example as e.g. QED is tested to much higher precision, but that’s another story. I wouldn’t describe our knowledge of Newton’s constant as `exquisitely precise’!)

The second comment is about the predictive power of gravity vs. evolution. Gravity is a simple, mathematical and physical theory whereas evolution is a complex, biological and historical one. Their predicitive powers cannot be compared and contrasted on the same quantitative scale; to attempt to do so is nothing but a set-up. At the same time, the theory of gravity doesn’t accurately predict anything if you don’t know all the other conditions surrounding the system; that is, if something as simple as friction weren’t taken into account, the theory of gravity would not accurately predict where the rock will be. Nor does it account for wind, etc. Conversely if you know every single factor contributing to evolution precisely and accurate, you would be able to predict the evolution of the next species.

To the first point – pretty much everything is modified over time. That isn’t the issue. The issue is in the case of living things whether random modifications can by any unintelligent means cause the creation of new cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Organisms really don’t appear to be modified much over time either. The fossil record shows new forms appearing rather quickly and staying pretty much the same before becoming extinct. The modification is abrupt and extensive – genuine evolution appears to proceed through saltation.

The second point is just wrong. The theory of gravity predicts the behavior of objects (in the absence of other forces) with a high degree of precision. The NeoDarwinian theory of evolution can’t predict the path of evolution with any precision at all. It is a just-so narrative that describes an unpredictable, unrepeatable history of evolution. And it doesn’t even match up well with the fossil record. -ds

There are many. They just don’t use the _term_ Intelligent Design. I have a small list of some of them that I have read on my website. There are several others.

We know. I very much doubt that DS or any other ID proponent was attempting to argue this point. I’m not sure why you and all the other ID critics seized on this point. That’s why I said this earlier:

“Now that you guys have had your fun with the strawman can you focus on the real issue at hand?”

And that real issue is this:

“NS is not at all well-tested as a means of producing CSI, and there isn’t enough evidence for it to be convincing”

Kural: ““With gravity you can toss a rock for basic evidence.” So that’s all there is to gravity?”

Of course not. The point is that BASIC evidence can be readily found in one case and not in the other. It’s a contrast. And if you can provide evidence of NS producing CSI go ahead.

All: Speaking of testing theories, I would not be surprised if ID theory has some flaws or that it’s possible more methods can be added to the toolset. As such, I was fairly disappointed when my Devil’s Advocate thread received no response since the only way to find flaws is to critically analyze ID.

Actually my point is that you can toss a rock and the theory of gravity will tell you where it will be at any point in time with exquisitely high reliability and precision. If NeoDarwinian evolution is proceeding, which is debatable but that’s a different debate, then humans are like a projectile along an evolutionary path. Where does NDE predict human evolution will be at any point in time in the future? [sound of crickets chirping] NDE describes an unpredictable, unrepeatable process that happened in the past and, because its grand claims of creating novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans happen so slowly as to be unobservable in non-geological timespans, we can’t confirm that it is even happening today. Gravity is predictable and the predictions have been tested zillions of times to a very high degree of precision. Comparing NDE theory and gravity is simply ludicrous and causes one to seriously question the critical thinking ability of anyone that tries to make an equitable comparison. -ds

There is and the editor that allowed, Richard Sternberg, it was persecuted for it by the defenders of the Darwinian faith. Is that how science works – when a peer reviewed article is published that goes against dogmatically held belief in NeoDarwinian evolution the editor who allowed the heresy to be published is blackballed? Speak right up and tell us if that’s how science works. -ds

Davescot

I wasn’t arguing here that Natural selection is as well-tested as gravity. You are missing my point if you think that I was.

I was pointing out that even very well-tested theories (taking your example of gravity—it was you who initiated the comparison, not me) continue to be tested further. Sometimes these new tests produce further evidence for the original theory, sometimes they tell you that the original theory is wrong and you need something new.

So my point was that new evidence for NS doesn’t a priori mean that NS *can’t* have been well-tested in the first place. This seemed to be what you meant by:

“Do we hear headlines like New Evidence Supports Theory of Gravity? ROFL”

Of course you may argue that NS is not at all well-tested as a means of producing CSI, and there isn’t enough evidence for it to be convincing. Of course, this is the main thrust of ID. But as I tried to point out above, that wasn’t what I was disputing in this thread (though I may do elsewhere). I hope that is clear now, it seems to be to most other contributors!