Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[randman]

Interesting page there, DD. From your link:

Zimmer's article focuses on vertebrate development. But the case for intelligent design in limb-bud controlling genes gets stronger when one realizes that the same regulatory genes are used to control limb growth in organisms far more diverse than vertebrates: mammals, urochordates, sea urchins, insects, annelid worms, and onycophorans, all use a similar regulatory gene to control limb growth. But they have radically different types of limbs, making this either a case of radically extreme "convergent evolution" or simple common design. (See Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells, "Homology in Biology," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), pg. 316.) As plant geneticist from the Max Plank Institute, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, wrote in Dynamical Genetics, "No theorist in evolutionary biology will ever derive chicken and insects from a winged common ancestor, and yet, clearly related sequences are specifically expressed in wing buds and imaginal disks." Can Zimmer's hypothesis account for such extreme convergence? Or perhaps again, Zimmer knows something most other biologists don't know.

 

[randman]

So what about all the issues of poor design?

For me, could you clarify what ID proposes as an example of design and how it is well done.

As I am sure you know in the retina the blood vessels are in front of the photoreceptors, so rather poor design.

I know you have presented an example of an good design, but I missed it, please present it again.

So-called poor design lends more credence to ID as one would expect after millions, even billions of years, with a process in place to evolve and select for the most pragmatic designs, that we'd see better designs emerge from this process.

It's almost like God put the flaws there just to show us evo models are wrong....

 

[Dancing David]

So-called poor design lends more credence to ID as one would expect after millions, even billions of years, with a process in place to evolve and select for the most pragmatic designs, that we'd see better designs emerge from this process.

It's almost like God put the flaws there just to show us evo models are wrong....

It is almost like you don't know what natural selection is!

It has nothing to do with pragmatism at all, it has to do with rates of reproduction.

Nice dodge by the way "It is a design, but if it was a poor design then that was intentional."

Natural selections says nothing about pragmatism, which si why cholera kills its host.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

As far as leukemia and this new therapy, it's based on intelligent design since the intelligence of the doctor to use genetics to alter a disease is involved. Moreover, it suggests that mechanisms for treatment are embedded and designed within nature, just as one would expect based on Intelligent Design.

Randman, are you hallucinating? The link http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/111101_hla which Wowbagger provided makes no mention of any "new therapy". Or are you unaware that bone marrow transplants have been around for several decades? So how about you go back and actually read the article? I know you don't ordinarily do this, but make an exception just this once.

Even creationists accept human beings evolve. They just think they stay human.

Well, so do evos. Or were you unaware of that as well?

So it's somewhat ridiculous to claim evo theory on a larger level has contributed anything here.

First, as mentioned above, you clearly didn't read the article, so it's also clear that you have no idea what has or has not been contributed.

Second, (for those who have read the article), it points out that HLA compatibility is consistent with the reconstructed spread of humanity from an origin in central Africa. The time scale involved is incompatible with the Old Testament. What predictions have ID'ers made along this line? Please be specific.

 

[ehcks]

So-called poor design lends more credence to ID as one would expect after millions, even billions of years, with a process in place to evolve and select for the most pragmatic designs, that we'd see better designs emerge from this process.

It's almost like God put the flaws there just to show us evo models are wrong....

So now what you're claiming would actually be called Unintelligent Design.

Good to know.

 

[randman]

I was referring to this in the link below since the subject was leukemia in general. The article you mention doesn't really provide any good evidence for macroevolutionary theory being helpful for leukemia.

Human beings evolving into more human beings? Who would have thought?

I mean come on. The idea this involves anything more than human beings evolving just as everyone including creationists, IDers and anyone all account for in their models is absurd.

As far as the OT, if you want to talk about YEC creationism and not ID, then you have to consider the claims of YECers honestly as potentially feasible and those claims are based on different assumptions than evos and the data here is consistent with YEC claims because they don't claim mutational rates have stayed the same and so forth.

But we're talking about evolution versus ID here.

https://proimmune.com/ecommerce/page.php?page=abrahamsen

 

[catsmate]

I agree. Most of his references are from IDoicy sites and the stuff that isn't is cherry picked.

Just Google a few of his sentences and see where they've been copied from.....
Complete with spelling mistakes.

How can you even suggest such a thing! Has he not showed us convincingly over the last year that his understanding of evolutionary science, embryology, palaeontology, taxonomy, phylogenetics, and biology in general is orders of magnitude removed from that of us evos? How can he not have convinced you that the reason that he refuses to substantiate any of his claims is that we wouldn't understand the data if he showed it to us?

That's why we get these dumbed-down replies: we couldn't understand the real, secret, vast amounts of data that randman is referring to when he makes his claims. Sure, it may look buffoonish when his claim that Ludwig Rütimeyer would be considered a creationist by today's standards is based entirely on a wikipedia articles based on a published article that says the reverse, and one line without any context in a letter to Rütimeyer from Darwin, but that's just on the surface. Below this, but kept hidden from lesser minds such as us, there is a cavernous cauldron of evidence in support of randman's claim, which we would surely be permitted to peruse, had we only put our minds to the task of truly, genuinely trying to understand that evolutionary theory predicts that there should be multi-cellular animals evolving into bacteria even as we speak, that half a wing is of no use, and that maybe, just maybe, God did it.

I am shocked, Catsmate and Dinwar, that you would even suggest that randman's part of the discussion does not rest on a solid foundation and a willingness to read through and debate purportedly salient points. Shocked!

ETA: And now kritikker as well! Outrageous!
Well, you know the old front-loading adage: "One person reaching a conclusion means that conclusion is a fact; another person supporting the first person's conclusion is an established fact; but three people agreeing on something means they are lying."

 

[Kotatsu]

My bold: clearly Rutimeyer opposed Haeckel and did not consider Darwin's ideas of natural selection to be sufficient but rather an "innate principle of progressive perfection" which of course dovetails with objection of a materialist view of nature.

People with such views are known as Intelligent Design proponents today, though ID can be a wide camp and have a wide range of views. But specific objections to a materialist view that discounts anything else is not an evolutionist position.

No, religious maniacs are known as ID proponents today. To me, the position Darwin assigns to Rütimeyer seems to be more one of a proponent of orthogenesis. Orthogenesis is not the same as creationism, and you will need to convince me that orthogenesis falls under the "wide range of views" in ID.

Here is a little more context.
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/hopwood/haeckel.pdf

That is the Hopwood article I have been referring to in my last few posts, yes. Please explain how the quoted passage makes Rütimeyer a creationist, remembering that just because someone disagrees with Darwin or darwinists over some mechanism of evolution does not make them creationists or ID proponents. It just makes them critics or opponents of Darwin or darwinism.

I doubt you will be honest and answer questions put to you, but is Behe an evolutionist?

We have a saying in my country, which roughly translated to "In ourselves we see others". You would do well to survey this and the previous threads, paying attention, especially, to who it is that answers whose questions.

To your specific question, I must answer that I don't know. I have not read anything by Behe, never met him, and is acquainted by his work only through second-hand sources. However, based on what I remember from these second-hand sources, I would regard him as an evolutionist who also believes that God is directing evolution. I may misremember his position entirely, in which case you are free to correct me.

Davison whom you mock?

Davison is first of all an ill-educated lunatic. However, the incoherent mess that is his thesis does include a gradual change of organisms over time, so yes, I would say that he is an evolutionist. He does, however, see God at work in the shadows.

If some IDers believe in common descent and even human evolution, but are not darwinists like you aka not evos, why is that?

Because some people are afraid of large numbers and prefer to substitute the comfortable blanket of God in their stead. I assume that tradition, upbringing, and level of education also all have a hand in it.

Rutimeyer objected to Darwinian insistence on a total materialist view of the nature. That makes him an IDer.

No, that doesn't make him an IDer. Not all people who oppose a Darwinist view of the world are IDers. You need to show that this is the case, not just state it.

Note Haeckel's attack of Rutimeyer. Sounds somewhat similar to attacks on IDers today.

1. Again, "somewhat similar" is not the same as "identical".

2. Even if it were, the similarity in the criticism two groups get does not entail that the two groups share other characteristics unless these can also be shown.

Kot, here is a brief overview of the evo argument. I am surprised you haven't heard it before.

I am consciously limiting myself to data you provide, so that I am not accused of referring to someone on something you haven't mentioned yet again.

Are you able to grasp what he is saying? The idea among evos was that or is that, for some, that similar genetic sequences of non-functional DNA can only logical be explained by common descent and mainstream evo theory. Of course, this is erroneous on several levels.

Yes, that article is sufficiently dumbed down so that we both understand it. Pity it is not from a scientific journal, but from a homepage, but I will take what I get.

I assume you read my discussion above, so that the comment below should come as no surprise.

1. The DNA is functional.

This is only a matter of terminology, as I explained above. The person you quote seems to regard functional DNA as strong support for evolutionary theory as well ["It is hard enough to explain (if you don't accept evolution) why some functional pieces of DNA show great similarities"], so moving a certain DNA sequence from the set of all purportedly non-functional DNA sequences to the set of all known functional DNA sequences does not in any way lessen the impact of his argument, nor does it in any way validate the position on ID.

2. Many IDers don't have a problem with common descent and so it's not exclusive to mainstream evo theory if even true, which it isn't (see point 1).

This is largely immaterial. Genuinely non-functional DNA sequences that behave as expected or predicted by evolutionary theory is still evidence for evolutionary theory, as is functional DNA sequenced that behave as expected or predicted from evolutionary theory, whether another theory predicts the same behaviour or not.

If ID makes the same predictions as evolutionary theory in this regard, this means that these same sequences are evidence for both evolutionary theory and the aspect of ID that is identical to evolutionary theory. However, it does not support aspects that are not identical, such as the existence of god in ID. Other tests would be necessary to gain support for that part.

3. Similar patterns would be expected in non-functional DNA based on the other things such as the chemical properties dictating mutations in a certain direction, similar exposure to environmental issues causing mutations, etc,....

Certainly these are all valid possibilities. What is needed to sort out cases where it is any of these factors that have produced the obtained pattern from ones where it isn't is tests that have controlled for these aspects. Before you post a reference to a more specific group of genes than "non-functional DNA", it is impossible for me to assess whether or not these factors you bring up have been properly controlled for.

What a lot of evos aren't thinking about in making the niche argument, that it exists even when it's been wiped out, are essentially making an Intelligent Design argument; that niches exist independent and prior to their emergence of being filled and that's why if dinosaurs don't fill the niche, millions of years later mammals will!

Go back to my crude definition of a niche: "A set of obstacles that separate an organism from nutrients and energy it requires". By this definition, niches may definitely exist independent of if there is an organism at any given time that has the necessary tools to overcome these obstacles, yes. You will have to provide evidence that this is something evos deny, as that is such a self-evident statement that I will otherwise not believe you. If ID claims this as well, that still does not prove the existence of God.

However, it is true only for some niches. The set of obstacles that form a niche are only partially constant over time. Other obstacles, which are dependent on the structure of temporarily limited features are not constant over time, and may very well be lost in a major, or even minor, extinction. It may also be at least potentially possible to create your own niche.

Consider the Nylon-eating bacteria. They represent an organism that developed the tools necessary to overcome a set of obstacles that didn't exist a million years earlier. Conceivably, there are other human-made materials that represent a similar set of obstacles that could, potentially, be overcome by the evolution of a new set of tools in a future population of organisms. However, until that organism has evolved, this is an empty niche that exists independent of if there is an organism to fill it or not. I cannot believe on your word alone that anyone with any knowledge of ecology or evolutionary biology would say otherwise.

Kot, that's pretty weak as the argument is the design of the womb may somehow dictate the hour glass model once a certain size is reached,

I think you will agree that it is usually harder to construct an argument for why a contrafactual claim is true, than to construct one for why a factual claim is true.

but doesn't really show that the womb evolved from a common ancestor. It is an explanation that it doesn't have to inconsistent with evolution but the argument has been that's been a powerful piece of evidence for evolution.

I wrote specifically that if the scenario I outline were to be true, this would suggest common ancestry. I base that only on the scenario I presented, and have not read Haeckel's original argumentation to see how he put it. Nevertheless, while certainly such a volatile person as Haeckel might have claimed vehemently that a single piece of evidence proved beyond all reasonable doubt that a certain argument was correct, I would not rely on a feature such as womb physiology alone to draw any such conclusions. It does suggest a common ancestry with some conserved elements, but it doesn't necessitates it. It might as well be that all life, regardless of its source, are subject to certain restraints at a certain point in its embryology, perhaps due to physics or chemistry, in which case the conserved stage would be irrelevant to questions of common descent. However, in the light of all other data, I would propose that such a stage would, if it existed, be more likely to support common descent.

It looks more like something you have to explain away, as your effort shows, than something that's really supportive of evo theory. In other words, one can try to make a case for it being consistent with evolution but it certainly isn't a predictive piece of data based on evolution.

It also doesn't exist, why any scenario that attempts to reconcile it with a theory based on actual data from the real world is highly likely to be strained. While it is certainly a strength in a theory to be able to account for and explain contrafactual claims, these explanations will almost inescapably be tentative and, perhaps, uninteresting.

It still strikes me as strange that evos presented the hour-glass model as evidence for evolution but by and large as far as I can tell, have not even tried to explain why, as if it's just a given. You at least try here.

You, and above all Davison, would do well to understand that the ideas and arguments used for any science in its infancy are useful and relevant only if they are subsequently carried out by more extensive or more correct data. Scientists of the 19th century and earlier lived under different intellectual climates, where different approaches were made, and different behaviour were accepted. I don't know about the specific case, but perhaps Haeckel, being a professor at a prestigious university in 19th century Germany, was used to be able to put forth a claim with no evidence for it, much as Davison appears to be used to that today. It is unknown to me whether this feature of his behaviour, if it existed, was included in the criticism he received for his books.

The general thrust of this section is that a science is always based on the sum of its knowledge. As in any set of statistical data, the fewer data points you have, the more likely it is that they will not represent the true picture. In the early days of evolutionary science, there were comparatively few data points, which allows its early proponents and opponents a greater leeway in arguing, as larger patterns were still often unknown, and it was easier to extrapolate the conditions in one sample to be valid for all samples, even if contemporary or subsequent data shows this extrapolation to be wrong.

Think of it like this:
Imagine if only five birds were known: a duck, a pigeon, a gull, a crow, and an owl. How could you predict which, if any, of these are anomalous with regards to the behaviour of all birds? Are birds aquatic? Well, two of five are. Are they nocturnal? Well, one of five are. Do they live in cities? Well, at least four of five do. How could you possibly draw any conclusions about what birds in general are like with so few data points? It is likely that most of the conclusions you draw are at least partially wrong.

For the same reason, what people said about evolutionary theory in the 19th century is largely irrelevant, unless it is supported by later, larger data sets, and especially data sets which includes a new type of data compared to the old ones. That's why Davison's insistence in several of his papers on relying on quotations of people who wrote their books and their articles before the advent of molecular studies had even truly begun is so ludicrous. If you sift through all early evolutionary literature, you are likely to come across all kinds of claims, based on all kinds of data. But they will have one thing in common, and that is that they are all based on very limited data, and therefore these claims are likely to be at least partly misguided. It does not automatically serve a purpose, and it certainly does not score you any points for cleverness, to reiterate these things.

Today, scientists simply do not have the same scope of possibilities to explain patterns in the natural world as they did in the 19th century, because the accumulated evolutionary data of 150 years have made impossible some lines of arguments, and invalidate some hypotheses.

Note that the same cannot be said of ID or creationism. The creationists and proponents of ID draw on the same data as scientists. They have also been along much longer than the theory of evolution, and thus their discipline cannot reasonably be said to be in its infancy. Certainly some of its adherents are infantile, but the movement as such is senescent. The same tired arguments as creationists use today were used by their ideological forbears to criticize Darwin, and have not grown more convincing, and, significantly, not more correct with the acquisition of additional and more advanced data.

 

[catsmate]

Following a brief discussion with another member, I looked up the papers of randman's idol Professor Emeritus John A. Davison. He's always a bundle of laughs in the way that he believed that when a critic of Darwin expresses an opinion on something, this is incontestable proof that this something is true, whereas when a non-critic of Darwin expressed an opinion on the same thing, he is blinded by ideology. Also: he believes that English names for morphological structures is a clue to homology and that maybe we should consider that God did it.

Again, I can really recommend reading Davison. He's hilarious.

---
(1) Remarkably for a creat-- critic of mainstream evo practices, he is fully in support of a champion for something called "abiogenesis".

Dinosaurs were "programmed" to disappear:

The dinosaurs, like the giant amphibians, which preceeded them, would have all disapppeared with or without any environmental catastrophe. They were programmed to disappear. Every creature that was ever found in the fossil record was part of the Plan...

His rant against P. Z. Myers, whose name he couldn't manage to spell properly, was particularly good:

.......the most foul mouthed, base degenerate and miserable excuse for a human being that ever hosted a blog. That such a creature should be influencing our youth in or out of the University classroom or any place else should be unthinkable to any objective investigator of the greatest unsolved mystery in all of biological science. This creature is the bottom of the intellectual barrel and has no business representing any university in any capacity whatsoever. I am confident that The University of Minnesota will see to it that he receives his just rewards for his wholesale rejection of every aspect of what intellectual integrity demands. The man is a text book degenerate and a blight upon the face of academe. I am surprised he has been allowed to go as far as he already has. He has violated every aspect of the one thing that matters most of all, the unhindered search for the truth.

He also wants to reduce world population by 99%.

 

[Wowbagger]

As far as leukemia and this new therapy, it's based on intelligent design since the intelligence of the doctor to use genetics to alter a disease is involved. Moreover, it suggests that mechanisms for treatment are embedded and designed within nature, just as one would expect based on Intelligent Design.

What, specifically, can this mentality add to the discussion?!

If we think of treatments as "embedded and designed within nature", how does that help in our fight against disease? Be specific.

And no, "humans are designing the treatments" does not count. We want to know which framework the humans should be working with, in order to maximize productivity in developing their treatments.

I see almost nothing added from the macroevolutionary view on this. Your article shows nothing along those lines either. Even creationists accept human beings evolve. They just think they stay human. So it's somewhat ridiculous to claim evo theory on a larger level has contributed anything here.

What I am claiming with this article is that understanding the mechanisms of Evolution can directly contribute to helping us fight diseases.

(This example even serves to demonstrate how genetic diversity increased, over time. But, that's just a nice bonus.)

I remind you that the patterns of HLA genes fall into nested trees of decendants, as evolution would predict.

The article might not be relevant to macro-evolution, specifically. But, it is relevant to the mechanisms of natural selection and their related aspects.

If Intelligent Design proponents already accept this, then:
* They already accept 95% of evolutionary theory, and its underlying mechanisms. Any arguments against them would be contradictory.
* They are concedeing that Evolution (at least in the micro-sense) is useful, even in very specific ways. And, that their own theory has failed to find these innovations.
* They accept that genetic diversity can increase, over time, through a process of Natural Selection.

If you want to say evolution on a general level has, fine. But that means IDers, creationists and everyone is an evolutionist.

That is EXACTLY what is happening, here! IDers and creationists have no choice but to become temporary evolutionists, when it comes to the lab. They can't, yet, use their own ideology for anything useful, if they hope to obtain productive or innovative results.

Means nothing.

...to someone who isn't a working scientist.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I had not heard of Davidson before so I went to look him up and found this:

I am curious as to how I am regarded by this forum. I have been banished from Uncommon Descent (4 times), Panda's Thumb, After the Bar Closes, EvC, richarddawkins.net, Pharyngula, Biologos, and many oter bastions of bigotry. For my perspective on the only matter which has ever been in question - the MECHANISM of a long ago terminated organic evolution, I refer you to my weblog -

http://jadavison.wordpress.com

John A. Davison

Never heard of you. So I regard you with callous indifference, bordering on scorn because I haven't had coffee and your first edit here is a posting all about yourself. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I too have never heard of you, but from your introduction you appear to wear people's dislike of you as a badge of honour,

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:How_is_Dr._John_A._Davison_regarded_by_rationalwiki?

The bloke seems to have a hilariously overestimated sense of his own importance.

 

[Reality Check]

So can any evolutionist explain how the hour-glass model would, if even true, be evidence for evolution, or are all of you going to continue to dodge the question?

Try reading, randman, e.g.

Originally Posted by Dinwar
Seems this answers your question quite nicely. And it's even simple enough for you to read the whole thing!!

 

[Kotatsu]

I had not heard of Davidson before so I went to look him up and found this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:How_is_Dr._John_A._Davison_regarded_by_rationalwiki?

The bloke seems to have a hilariously overestimated sense of his own importance.

There is no way to overestimate how much I enjoy reading Davison's papers. Randman has linked to them before, but here it is again:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/collected-evolutionary-papers-of-john-a-davison/

Some other, shorter, essays can be found on his blog (in your quote), but not all of them can be obtained as PDFs. I haven't read the ones in New Essays yet, apart from skimming through them (which was when i found the oil example above), but they look more or less like his other work.

Highly recommended reading!

 

[Wowbagger]

Just lost a very long post so this will be short. You are mistaken wowbagger. Here is the old evo argument.

The quote you pulled has nothing to do with functions of "junk DNA", and only describes how it is useful, to scientists, as "probably the most powerful of the homology evidence for common descent".

That is STILL true, even if the DNA had a function. It would likely NOT be true if DNA was designed specifically for each species.

The section states "genetic code that doesn't do anything", but does not actually argue that it does nothing. It assumes it does nothing, then goes on to a completely different sub-topic.

If the article said "genetic code must not do anything, in order for Evo Theory to be true", that would make it an article in your favor. Though, it would also make it a factually inaccurate article.

Here are some more quotes in the article you linked to:

The function of over 95 percent of our DNA is still a mystery. That is, we have spelled out the code, but have discovered that most of it does not code for proteins. Genes can be separated by a vast desert of noncoding DNA, which is sometimes called “junk” DNA. But is it useless? Probably not, because included among noncoding sequences are the crucial promoter regions which control when genes are turned on or off.

(emphasis mine)

Because they appear functionless but take up valuable chromosomal space, these noncoding sequences have been considered useless and have been termed junk DNA or selfish DNA. Recent studies, however, lend strong support to the possibility that the seemingly useless repetitive DNA may actually play a number of important genetic roles...

Evolutionary biologists made these discoveries. Not Intelligent Design proponents.

 

[randman]

The quote you pulled has nothing to do with functions of "junk DNA", and only describes how it is useful, to scientists, as "probably the most powerful of the homology evidence for common descent".

That is STILL true, even if the DNA had a function. It would likely NOT be true if DNA was designed specifically for each species.

Absolutely wrong. What the quote says is that non-functional DNA is stronger evidence for evolution than functional DNA because there is not the alternate explanation of function causing homologous sequences. He's wrong in that there are other explanations but that's the evo argument.

He uses the argument of written records having errors in them which enables copywrighters to know if they've been copied since someone could say they just listed phone numbers too, but why would they list the errors.

Go back and read it.

 

[Lowpro]

Evolutionary biologists made these discoveries. Not Intelligent Design proponents.

Ahem -.-

Molecular Biologists made these discoveries (probably) they're actually not always twin disciplines (Mol. Bio. and Evolutionary Biology), even if they use the ToE.

Only because it interests me, and there's a strokeoff to authority, here's Barbara McClintock's:

With the tools and the knowledge, I could turn a developing snail's egg into an elephant. It is not so much a matter of chemicals because snails and elephants do not differ that much; it is a matter of timing the action of genes.

So does ID say that God directs the timing of genes for all species or at the very least, the first genetic material to exist that evolved to us? Or does ID rely on special creation. I've asked a couple people here, but I'm starting to imagine that ID has tried to rebrand itself a bit; not so much special creation, but evolution as guided by the action of a creator. It's about as useless as Russel's Teapot, but hey, at least we may know where ID stands on the intellectual battlefield now...

 

[randman]

Wowbagger, I really don't have time to correct you again and again. Try to be honest.

Everyone accepts microevolution, period. Young Earth Creationists embrace that. It's not exclusive to evolution, and it's not purely an evolutionist discovery. Wallace for example strongly defended teleological views of evolutionary mechanisms. Darwin was lucky Wallace wrote him that letter which allowed Darwin to rush his ideas to print.

In fact, the idea of evolution is a very old concept and nothing new. All that was new was adding in natural selection as more of a mechanism; then genetics and things like population genetics, etc,....but plenty of great scientists have not been mainstream evolutionists and in fact, totally reject it.

So it's really just a bunch of crap to say every discovery has been made by evos; that if you are an Intelligent Design theorist or creationist or alternative evolutionist, that you are not even a scientist.

Get over it and grow up some, will ya?

 

[Krikkiter]

randman, what evidence is there of a designer?

 

[randman]

randman, what evidence is there of a designer?

everything

What evidence do you have that your perceptions that the world around you are real?

Please provide definitive proof but you cannot use anything in the world around you to do that.

I actually believe there is clear specific evidence for God in details in the universe but suffice for this, you can't prove reality is real without assuming reality. Science STARTS with faith assumptions. So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

 

[randman]

No, that doesn't make him an IDer. Not all people who oppose a Darwinist view of the world are IDers. You need to show that this is the case, not just state it.

He didn't just oppose a Darwinist view of the world. He opposed adopting a mechanistic, materialist assumption and rule in science. That makes him an IDer whether you want to waste time continuing to deny it.