This thread is for those who wish to discuss and debate the science behind “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID). I would like to remind those, wishing to participate, that this is a science forum and although ID has been linked to religious creation allegories this thread is strictly for the discussion and debate of the science.

I would encourage those interested to ask questions, particularly since the science behind ID has taken a more modern approach with its concepts rooted in some intriguing science methodologies.

I would also encourage discussion and debate of the philosophies of science and how those philosophies could affect our reasoning behind ID, and of what may constitute constructive considerations to scientific reasoning especially in this modern political environment.

I am no expert! But, I am an expert in curiosity. I believe this exploration will reveal some exciting and surprising observations. Thank You for participating.

As a precursor to this discussion I would like to introduce Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). A contemporary of Charles Darwin, Wallace had a different perception of causal origins from Darwin. A self proclaimed agnostic, I would like to offer the following quotes from Russel so as to set the tone for ID theory;

Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists are too apt to imagine, when they cannot discover, a use for everything in nature: they are not even content to let "beauty" be a sufficient use, but hunt after some purpose to which even that can be applied by the animal itself, as if one of the noblest and most refining parts of man's nature, the love of beauty for its own sake, would not be perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator. The separate species of which the organic world consists being parts of a whole, we must suppose some dependence of each upon all; some general design which has determined the details, quite independently of individual necessities. We look upon the anomalies, the eccentricities, the exaggerated or diminished development of certain parts, as indications of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..."

Wallace (1870)-"The inference I would draw from this class of phenomena is, that a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and vegetable forms. The laws [note plural "laws"!] of evolution alone would, perhaps, never have produced a grain so well adapted to man's use as wheat and maize; such traits as the seedless banana and bread-fruit; or such animals as the Guernsey milch cow, or the London dray-horse. Yet these so closely resemble the unaided productions of nature, that we may well imagine a being who had mustered the laws of development of organic forms through past ages, refusing to believe that any new power had been concerned in the production, and scornfully rejecting the theory (as my theory will be rejected by many who agree with me on other points), that in these few cases a controlling intelligence had directed the action of the laws of variation, multiplication, and survival, for his own purposes. We know, however, that this has been done; and we must therefore admit the possibility that, if we are not the highest intelligences in the universe, some higher intelligence may have directed the process by which the human race was developed, by means of more subtle agencies than we are acquainted with. At the same time I must confess, that this theory has the disadvantage of requiring the intervention of some distinct individual intelligence, to aid in the production of what we can hardly avoid considering as the ultimate aim and outcome of all organized existence--intellectual, ever-advancing, spiritual man. It therefore implies, that the great laws which govern the material universe were insufficient for his production, unless [my italics] we consider (as we may fairly do) that the controlling action of such higher intelligences is a necessary part of those laws, just as the action of all surrounding organisms is one of the agencies in organic development."

As we can see ID is not a recent concept developed to contradict Darwinism but has its roots in Darwin's time, and although not as progressed as Darwinism, Russel also offered the same observations as Darwin offered for the gaps in his theory that should be discovered with time and technological improvements.

Russel made sure that much of his observations were strictly rooted in objective observation and was not prone to fanciful stories to explain unknown variables inherent to Darwinism, as Darwin and other contemporaries injected into the theory with time even to include the present.

A brief exploration of Russel's biography will show him to be pragmatic, not prone to imaginations, and a staunch supporter of individual liberty.

No fair Alun you are rushing ahead, I am really not ready to discuss complexity issues. I do not wish for this thread to be a personal debate between the two of us. I know that a deliberate, progressed approach will afford others the opportunity to understand the science of ID. I will stick to my outline in this respect, as such your questions may just be answerable, on your own, by knowing more of the facts.

Alun, bananas are cultivated/domesticated from the wild, they have a natural origin. The problem with bananas, noticed by Russel, is that they have no seeds and reproduce asexually, each plant is identical to the parent plant. Russel's observation was directed to the fact that banana's don't have seeds but have several different varieties without any evidence of their evolution or speciation, whether observed or theorized.

Russel remarks on the Dray horse since that is a breed of horse which tended to be atypically larger than other horses of the day without having been bred that way. While other horses were bred with larger horses of the same species to facilitate the weight of knights and other accouterments of war, the dray horse was naturally large. The Dray horse was antithetical to what is known of the evolution of the horse.

The same goes for the milch cow, having attained attributes that other cow breeds required breding in order to achieve what the milch cow naturally achieved. The thing about the cow which is why Russel mentions it in context to his comment is that the cow is a total food machine for humans, from birth through life. And despite preference the whole cow is edible, the marrow even has nutrients that one could survive from indefinitely. Plus the cow is stupid, it will continue to produce milk as long as someone milks her.

Please read IAW the overall theme of the post, answering every question may become tedious. While I do understand the limitations of research I will do my best to provide worthwhile answers, but I would much rather stay on points.

Understanding Russel one gets the purpose of the objective of design. As I have stated this is not a religion inspired thread. What is the purpose of space, of life, of consciousness? Topics best not discussed in this thread unless a full objective concept of ID can promote further inquiries into those philosophic realms.

I have introduced Alfred Russel Wallace into this discussion in order to show that ID theory is not predicated upon a challenge to Darwinism to favor a religious origins perspective. There have been many reputable scientist who have found flaws with Darwin's theory which have become more prevalent as technology and matters of human thought have progressed.

The following definition of Intelligent Design is the most prevalent used, and I offer it as such;

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

Intelligent Design incorperates "scientific method" in order to determine its theory.

Four steps of scientific method;

1. observation
2. hypothesis
3. experiments
4. conclusions

I have to point out that inherited traits is a completely different concept from natural selection. As I have suggested Darwin never attempted to define where or how traits came from or developed. Instead Darwin just took for granted that "created" or evident traits would either be beneficial or detrimental to an organism depending on environmental conditions.

Natural Selection is the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

"Origin of Species" intro.-It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation. At the commencement of my observations it seemed to me probable that a careful study of domesticated animals and of cultivated plants would offer the best chance of making out this obscure problem. Nor have I been disappointed; in this and in all other perplexing cases I have invariably found that our knowledge, imperfect though it be, of variation under domestication, afforded the best and safest clue. I may venture to express my conviction of the high value of such studies, although they have been very commonly neglected by naturalists.

Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.

You see Darwin expected, through the science of the day, an explanation for natural selection in that he believed that through domestication of plants and animals that certain desirable traits would become dominate and as such organisms would then eventually reproduce without the need of human interference. Today we know this not to be the case. Like domesticated pigs who are returned to the wild who then become feral, returning to their wild state and so forth through their offspring.

Of course Darwin left room for his theory to be expanded and modified but for now let's concentrate on "natural selection".

Alun-Bananas don't have seeds, none, nada, zip nonexistent. And I used no anecdotes.

You indicated that bananas are "bred", they are not but were domesticated and cultivated as early as 600 BC by Mesopotamians, or around 40 BC by Romans depending on who you want to believe. As I indicated there are over 200 types of bananas with no evolutionary connection, and they are asexual, very important, since it would be that much easier to detect a evolutionary branch if they differentiated from eachother through Darwin's theory. The exiting thing about bananas is, which westerners don't have an opportunity to experience, is that the entire plant has a use. The leaves can be used as ovens, in some plants the inside is sweeter than the fruits themselves. Some bananas are as sweet as mangoes. Apparently for no other use than that which provides itself for the betterment of man. Quite interesting in a Garden of Eve kind of way if one were capable and inclined towards that kind of romanticism.

(Anecdote alert)-There is a fruit which grows in the rain forest on the very top of a tall tree. The tree bears fruit once a year. There are very few of these trees that grows in only special areas. The fruit is like a grape with no seeds. The fruit tastes like sugar and tamarind. I forget what its called but that wouldn't matter anyway since very few people outside of the country in which it grows has ever tasted it and like wise for those who live in the city even in the country. Might be metaphysical or even supernatural but there truly are natural things in this world which the first thinking men would have been inspired by to know there is a God.

Any way I plan on adding a piece to the thread daily besides answering posts, and I have to prepare for the next installment.

Wanabe-Good observation, but there is a national debate on whether or not ID theory is science or at least based on scientific method. I believe there is a lot of misconception about what ID is so would like to dispel some of the misconceptions and in the long run discredit Darwinism since that is full of contradictions and false premises.

I believe we need a different name or approach to origins and the ascent of man. Something that the materialist approach cannot provide. But first the science.

If you ever get the itch or would really like to explore the wonders of nature may I suggest some of the lands around the Amazon or any of the tributary rivers which flow into it. I think people who look at life in the city as the be all there is miss something about life and nature which dulls the spirit. There are places on this earth in which a person could walk into alone with just a knife and survive for quite some time within a small perimeter.

Anyway I believe Darwinism is on the outs so we may as well get a head start here.

Please, bananas have no seeds. Bananas grow from "cormels" or "cormlets" alongside the parent plant. These cormels can be removed, planted and cultivated. This has the effect of a genetically identical plant to the parent plant. As I stated banana plants are asexual.

As I have stated, it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

In this context Darwinism can be perceived as a "hasty generalization" or "logical fallacy" and it is my intent to argue that.

I believe that the State vs Scopes, Scopes vs State (Tenn, 1926) (Scopes Monkey Trial) did a disservice to scientific inquiry, initiated by religious fervor, for future generations as it paved the way for a particular level of scientific dogma, pertaining to origins, to prevail over reasoning and logic. I do not believe that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe than the classic thinkers were, except for better and more in depth methods of observation. As far as extrapolating any conclusions, well its "all" just theory.

Nick-I would like to, (from my part), have a directed approach to the discussion. As I have stated most people "think" they have an understanding of the "science" of evolution/Darwinism. As such, due to the dogmatism ascribed to evolution, people are not aware of the "gaps" and misconceptions of Darwinism. So while I will answer questions, as best I can, as I go along, I would like to stick, as much as possible, to my process.

The stated quote is an answer to the question of what is ID, and it answers that ID is based on scientific method. But, for me, one of the questions which needs to be addressed is if ID is any different in its process of methodology from Darwinism. In essence, from my perspective, the conclusions of both are either equally valid or invalid based on the science, observations and conclusions. If ID is based on an imaginary standard then, as I will argue, so is Darwinism. Think if it as a "teachable moment".

Nick-My Brother! You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink. We need to change the world, but does the back of fallacy have to break before we realize the foundation was weaker?

Belinda-It is dogma when it is, and it is, taken as an absolute, based on incomplete and misconstrued observations whereby a portion of the science industry pedal it in such a manner with the intent to keep the ignorant from exploring or reasoning other principles for themselves.

Did gram negative Neisseria Gonorrhoeae (gonorrhea), the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease in the US, suddenly become gram positive, no it became penicillin, tetracycline, vancomycin, trobicin resistant. The ability to resist inherent in it's biochemical information database. But, it is still gonorrhea!

As I have stated microbiology/micro-biomechanics is complicated but simply put there have been organisms found and are being studied which have a natural resistance to broad spectrum and wide ranging antibiotics. It is not that an organism develops resistance but that the organism has an inherent ability to resist which is triggered by external flux. Not a mutation but directed coded instruction of an enzyme or polymerase. More a sign of directed interference than a random causal mutation. What this means is that resistance predates drug therapies development.

As I have stated the problem is not the science but the immediate dogmatic inclination to ascribe evolution theories before the facts are fully explored.

Go ahead wanabe and order yourself up some banana seeds, good luck. After that I'll sell you the winning lottery ticket! CHEAP!

http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/banana.html

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 54/381/309

Yes I have a bias, so let's go bias for bias to see which bias is more bias, instead of discussing facts. While your gathering your bias, seeing that you have a wealth of fervor, I'll continue to present facts.

We have to be able to understand Darwin's version of "natural selection" in order to have an understanding of how the theory has morphed to conform to modern science.

Darwin viewed natural selection as the most powerful force directing evolution, but, as he describes it, it only selects from existing populations. Darwin did not view natural selection as a transition from microevolution to macroevolution. He couldn't, since the fossil record did not bare this out. Darwin knew that there were no transitional fossils in the record of his day which showed, for instance, a fin turning into an leg, or any of the minute transitional structures one would expect in such phased growth.

Darwin "Origin of Species", chap iii-Again, it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of species, which constitute what are called distinct genera, and which differ from each other more than do the species of the same genus, arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow inevitably from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art.


We can surmise by the above selection from Origin of Species that due to Darwin not having any knowledge of mutations and genetics makes the determination that an existing beneficial trait, fully formed, could be passed on to an offspring. Today we know this not to be true, so the questions becomes how do scientists of today still adhere to this faulty premise and how have they adjusted modern biology to fit into the theory of natural selection?

Also notice that Darwin compares a supposed natural determinate to mans abilities to bred desired traits in domesticated animals. Today we know that this is a wrong analogy. Notice that he calls natural selection " a power ready for action"

Alun-I didn't see your post with the picture in it, and while I will "temporarily" concede to the possibility that is a banana (since it wasn't sourced in WIKI)(notice no picture of an actual "large seed", I don't even really see any seeds under enlargement). It has piqued my interest so I will research further when I get to the library again and let you know what I find. There are really very few books written strictly on bananas I just have to know for myself now, so I don't go bananas.

I found this which talks about a seed but also seems to indicate a misidentification. It also states that the color is of the fruit is "bright red".

http://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/cont ... 31-09.html

I also found this interesting article from 2006 which has a picture of a bunch of wild bananas showing them as red which is what I thought wild bananas were colored.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/200 ... index.html

I had to start talking about Darwin so as to put forth points on natural selection which Darwin expressed, and so that an idea of observation for scientific method can be introduced. Didn't mean to rain on your parade.

I think you are misinterpreting what is meant by information which includes the entire process and data encryption. To far ahead for right now.

As I have presented a quick and limited rebuttal of classical Darwinism let me put it in simple perspective.

Why do I need to rebut Darwin? Darwin presented a theory which was placed under scientific scrutiny from the time it was first presented. That scrutiny did lead to pointing out many inherent faults of the theory, but the theory was a necessary one for some philosophers in that it allowed for the reasoning of moral and ethical issues from another perspective which made God unnecessary. Many scientist of the day felt that an explanation of life could not preclude the idea of designed creation. Darwin himself was plagued by the reality of that prospect and as a result wrote and revised several editions of Origins to compete with the inconsistencies prevalent in his theory.

The one thing that Darwin never explained or couldn't explain was how life originated, more to his point he didn't explain how species originated. He presented a theory of how species became better (fitter) but he never attempted to explain how different species emerged from previous or ancestor species. Neither does evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

If Darwin never explained how natural selection causes speciation how did he or did he explain evolution? Darwin believed that external forces caused certain species to be better able to survive than other species who were ill equipped to handle a changing environment or competition for resources within a changing environment.

Working on the assumption that better science makes better theories in that the availability of newer more advanced technologies may require refinement and even repudiation of certain theories then Darwin definitely falls in that category being that his original precepts have been refined by advanced science and that many, of his day, also believed that since his theory lacked some critical information and observations then I can include ID into that category of scientific observations as does all observations used to strengthen Darwin's original faulty definitions and assumptions concerning natural selection and evolution.

The "New Synthesis"
For review and further discussion-R.A. Fisher, Julian Huxley, and E.B Ford were members of a small clique British and American scholars who were the driving forces behind the "New Synthesis", the refinement and spread of Darwin's theory of evolution during the 1930's and 40's.

If only Darwinist and climatologist would adhere to some strict interpretation of the "scientific method" which is propounded upon intelligent design scientist. A wonder at all that we have a scientific method which serves only to support materialist objectivity. The only good science is materialist science. The scientific method is an authoritarian process of scientific discrimination. If the goal of the scientific method is to hijack truth for a materialistic cause then it has become discriminatory and no longer ideologically neutral. A sixth grader today knows more about science than Karl Popper could ever have dreamed of. Not only in science proper but in philosophy too.

Can anyone, who supports Darwinism, say that they are scientifically neutral when it is obvious that they "SEARCH" for a materialistic cause?

SETI is multimillion search for "extraterrestrial intelligence". I hear its carrying a sample of Whitley Strieber's DNA to prove its serious.

The seminal event of human meaning and its origin reduced to theory, hypothesis, unjustifiable, unproven political and legal material mysticism.

Consider the fallacy of material scientific reasoning; "The fact that there are instances in biological construction which appear designed are only an illusion of design."

It is not by chance that 85% of members in Academy of Science reject God.

Evolution allows the atheist to be "intellectually" fulfilled.

Intelligent design is rooted in scientific methodology allowing for the "shoe fits" theory to guide resources, objectivity and observations.