By the way, I am not distancing myself from Darwin, whom I admire, but defending him. The term “Darwinism” in the context in which you have used it, is an insult to Darwin, a straw-man caricature of his actual ideas made-up by his detractors to disparage his achievements, just as “Bushism” is used by liberals to insult George W, or ancient Romans during the reign of Nero once mocked early Christians with the term “Nazarene.”

Perhaps your ethical standards are different from mine, but I find the use of such terms most distasteful, and unfitting of civil discourse.

The term “Darwinism” was invented by creationists as a strawman to disparage the theory of evolution. It hasn’t been accurate to so label evolutionary theory since Gregor Mendel. Your use of the term suggests that at some time in your intellectual development, you have been influenced by creationist thought.

It is obvious I won’t be convincing you of my position, just as you will not be convincing me of yours. That is fine. Discussing philosophy with you as provided me some insights into your world-view.

There do remain some questions I would like to ask you.

You seem certain that some intelligence was involved in the design of living systems. You and I are intelligent, at least when compared to, say, bacteria, but if we sit down and think, no matter how profound our thoughts, nothing will happen unless we act. So how did the designer act? What tools did it use? What mechanisms did it employ? Do these tools and mechanisms leave behind any signs of their use? How may we identify such signs? How may we distinguish them from purely natural mechanisms? Did the designer do all of this by itself? Was there an intelligent mechanic, who put together the designer’s designs? If so, what tools did it use, and how could we tell?

You stated your conviction that molecular motors must be intelligently designed. It follows then that the intelligent designer could not have possessed any of these molecular motors. Otherwise it, too, would have had to be designed. What then, did the designer have in lieu of molecular motors? How did it function and survive without them? If life is movement, as you say, how did the designer move, without molecular motors?

You equate biological machines with life, and state that such machines must have been designed. It follows then that the intelligent designer could not have been a biological machine itself, for otherwise, it, too, would have had to be designed. So if the intelligent designer was not a biological machine, was it alive? If it was alive, how could it not be a biological machine, if life and biological machines are the same thing? Are there kinds of life out there that are NOT biological machines? If so, are there other entities like the intelligent designer, alive but not biological machines? How did they arise, if not by design?

When a human being designs something, another human being can examine the product of that design and ascertain many of the characteristics of the first human (the designer). To varying degrees, he or she can estimate the level of skill and ability of the designer, the age, size and strength, the intent and purpose, preferences and limitations of the designer, just to name a few examples. Well, the products of the intelligent designer you believe in are all around us. So what does it all say about the properties of the intelligent designer? What does life on earth sat about the intentions, abilities, and limitations of the intelligent designer?

I understand you may not know the answer to all my questions. I understand that some of these questions may not yet have been answered. That’s okay! In fact, that’s good! If all the answers are already known, there would be no science left to do! Just tell me what are the leading hypotheses regarding these topics provided by the Theory of Intelligent Design, and give me a few links or article references to the latest published research regarding the experiments and observations currently being used to investigate these hypotheses.

P.S. If any of these questions are controversial within the science of Intelligent Design, that is, if there is more than one hypothesis being debated, that’s also fine! I love learning about scientific controversies! Just tell me about all the hypotheses involved.

ROFL!

I don’t blame you for trying to distance yourself from Darwin.
McCain has the same problem with GW Bush!

Ok Darwin, under the bus!

I also urge, very strongly, for non-scientists to avoid the term “Darwinism,” even in non-scientific discussion, for it is both confusing and unfair. While Darwin applied the concept of differential survival from competition for limited resources to biology, and is rightly celebrated for this insight, that concept itself did not originate with him. We should give credit where credit is due, and refer to this concept by the name of the man who actually originated it. That man would be Adam Smith. The proper term, in my opinion, should be “Smithism.”

There is a fact of gravity - things fall. There is a law of gravity, which you described quite well. There is also a theory of gravity, which includes said law as well as other details. In its modern formulation it was first developed by Newton, and later modified by Einstein.

There is a fact of evolution - living things have changed over time. There are laws of evolution. I would consider natural selection one of these laws. There is a theory of evolution, which includes random mutations of several classes, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, human artificial selection among its mechanisms. An expert in the field could probably select more.

I agree with your assertion that intelligent design is a potential mechanism for evolutionary change. I can think of two situations where consideration of this mechanism might be useful, or even necessary in understanding a biological phenomenon. One would be, in the near future, in the analysis of the effects if any of the fruits or byproducts of human genetic engineering, up to and including the manufacture of completely artificial organisms, on the rest of the biosphere. A second would be in astrobiology, again in the future, if life on another planet were discovered and evidence was found to suggest that a technological civilization once existed there, but was no longer extant.

Both of my above scenarios have one thing in common: the designer is specified. Intelligent design as a mechanism begins and ends with the designer. Only by considering the possibly abilities, motivations, and limitations of a postulated designer can useful hypotheses be produced.

Intelligent design, in the form that it has currently been proposed, where the designer is unspecified and presumed to be omnipotent, not a scientific theory. There is no evidence of any kind that can distinguish it from any other thing. By definition an omnipotent designer could create things to appear in any way he/she/it pleased. Even if the idea turned out to be true, it could not be used as a guide for research, and is therefore useless as a scientific theory.

I definitely disagree with your assertion that intelligent input is required for the emergence of life, and I dispute your equating of life with biochemical machines. My own understanding of biological processes convince me quite strongly that they are nothing like machines as humans understand that term, and that no intelligence as humans understand that word was necessary in any way for their emergence here on earth.

I do believe based on my knowledge of science, that intelligent input was required for the emergence of biochemical machines (life).

You don’t know science at all, because if you did, you would realize that evolutionary biology (and organic chemistry) has the empirical evidence, and your belief has NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL.

(round and round we go; if it will ever sink in, nobody knows. )

Ignore the last message, I pushed the wrong button!

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. There is empirical evidence that living organisms change over time, that the forms extant today are different from those of the past and that all living things are related and most likely had a common origin.

What is in question is the mechanism of evolution. Both darwinism and intelligent design are proposed mechanisms by which evolution occurred. Neither has strong empirical support.
Scientific laws are nothing more than statistical averages, drawn from a large number of observations. The Law of Gravity is a good example. This law states that every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.
This is a Law because it is supported by a large number of observations over a long time. In addition, no exceptions have been seen. But the mechanism is not well understood. There are many theories of gravity, but none has been universally accepted. So the Law of Gravity is fact and the theory of gravity remains speculative.
Many people mistakingly conflate the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution. The argument is improperly framed since evolution is a fact and darwinism (the idea that random variation and natural selection is the mechanism) is a theory. They ask the question “do you believe in evolution or creationism”, forgetting that evolution is a fact, a process of change over time and creationism (god did it) is a proposed mechanism. Intelligent design is also a mechanism, although the source of this intelligence remains unknown.
I am not a religious creationist but I do believe based on my knowledge of science, that intelligent input was required for the emergence of biochemical machines (life).

Once again I would like to repeat for you: there is NO SUCH THING AS DARWINISM. There is the Theory of Evolution, to which Charles Darwin provided important contributions. If properly taught, it should be taught as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is much, much more important than any mere fact, which by itself is nothing more than useless trivia.

The value of a scientific theory is measured by its usefulness. No theory is 100% accurate. No theory explains everything. A good scientific theory generates hypotheses which allow for the experiments to be designed, thus providing an avenue for us to increase our knowledge. A good scientific theory is self-correcting. It guides our inquiry so that we may discover where and how it might be wrong, and then adjust it to remove those errors.

Ptolemaic Astronomy is a scientific theory that is completely wrong, but it was a good scientific theory because it made testable predictions. Some of those predictions were accurate and allowed for useful applications. Others were inaccurate and the investigation of these inaccuracies allowed us to increase our knowledge of astronomy, ultimately replacing ptolemaic theory with newer, better theories about our universe.

The Theory of Evolution is one of the most useful theories humans have ever conceived of. There has not been a single observation in its entire history, not one, for which the ToE has not been able to provide a reasonably hypothesis for. None of these hypotheses have ever been disproven when investigated. Some have been absolutely and completely confirmed. The rest are generating incredible amounts of useful research avenues that has increased, and is continuing to increase, our knowledge of biology to an enormous degree.

Intelligent Design makes no predictions, proposes no hypotheses, guides no research programs and generates no knew knowledge. As an idea or set of ideas, it is more useless than the concept that the sun revolves around the earth.

There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports intelligent design.

Well, duh. I’m glad you can admit this, at least.

But wait, how do you twist this around? Why, by saying:

It’s a theory, as is darwinism.

NO. NO. NO.

“Intelligent design” is a “theory” only in the weakest colloquial sense; an idea or notion; a whim; an imagined scenario; a fantasy; a pipe-dream; a daydream.

Evolutionary biology is a scientific theory, supported by empirical evidence.

There is no equivalence between them.

However, I believe that my ARGUMENT is stronger than yours.

Your ARGUMENT is not only weak, it fails completely because evolutionary biology has the empirical evidence.

(Sigh… This is like Zeno’s Paradox, only with a crackpot denialist…)

On a different note, Mr. Zimmer’s new book Microcosm has a bit to say about the bacterial flagellum, and that’s not even the most interesting part. I could go on to say more nice things about the book, but people might start to think Carl is paying me.

Agreed.

There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports intelligent design. It’s a theory, as is darwinism. Which is why neither my view or yours should be taught as fact.

However, I believe that my ARGUMENT is stronger than yours.

Thanks for looking at my website…

Look at my website for a more complete explanation:
http://www.charliewagner.com/casefor.htm

No. That’s an argument. That isn’t evidence.