I readily admit that there is a chance that I might be wrong. Maybe Q'uq'umatz and Tepeu really did create humanity; maybe lightning is cast by Zeus and maybe Jesus was both god and the son of god. But it goes both ways:

If you were honest, you would at least admit there was a chance you were wrong. Is it pride that stops you? Fear in your god?

I would also apply it to atheism. Stalin did a lot of evil in the name of atheism. It does not mean that atheism in general is evil, but evil can be cause in its name.

I would generalise that as saying that ideologies (whether religious or not) can easily lead to evil if you do not temper them with a healthy dose of tolerance for other ideologies (though there are limits as WWII would have been much less bloody if there had been less tolerance of nazism in Europe in the 30's).

For example, we clearly have many people with very different idologies here. But while we disagree and argue, I think most here are tolerant of others and do not wish to see harm come to them because of their belief (they may believe that their religion says harm will come to them, e.g. hell, but not wish it).

The former two alone make information creation possible and the latter makes it easier.

Former two:

If you alter an expressed gene, the likelihood is the alteration will be detrimental (cause cancer, sickle cell anemia, color blindness...) and is likely to be bred out by (or at least not to contribute positively to) natural selection. However, even that alone is enough to provethat information can be added as the new expression of the gene, even though likely detrimental in most cases, is still different information than the former expression of the gene; that is it is information that wasn't present before and was added. Whether an alteration is positive or negative is determined by natural selection as a change in a given environment might be a positive change but the same change in a different environment might be neutral or negative (that change also need to happen in the gonads to be inherited in sexually reproducing species).

If you simply copy a gene then you do not have more information directly but you have redundant information. However, the duplication allows both genes to evolve differently as while the original gene might be resistant to change over time due to natural selection (for the same reason as the preceding paragraph, because most such change will be negative and bred out) the second would not be as resistant as its function is fulfilled by the preceding gene and thus can accumulate a number of changes that might not be expressed for a long time. You would argue that such changes, as they are not expressed, are not information, but if a cumulation of changes ends up in a slighly different gene being expressed in a new positive way then while each individual step is not information adding, the whole process is.

For example. A lot of animals are dichromats. They have cones that perceive short wavelengths of light (s-cones) and cones that perceive at medium wavelength of light (m-cones). If the gene coding the m-cones was to be duplicated you might have two identical types of cones (m-cones) coming from two different gene and thus no new information. But if one of those two genes then had a slight mutation changing the wavelength of light it perceives then you would have three types of cones perceiving three different wavelength. You would have new information due to both transposition and mutation and you would have a new characteristic: trichromacy.

Incidentally the reason I chose this example is that it is basically how our eyes work. We have three types of cones: s-cones, m-cones and l-cones.

The genes coding m-cones and l-cones are both found on the x chromosome, close to each other. And they are very similar on a genetic level though slightly different.

I also said the latter makes it easier. That is because if you have unexpressed DNA ("junk DNA") you can have many mutations in there that do not cause havoc. If after many such mutations there happen to be a gene that gets copied in such a way that it is expressed and is a positive change for that organism then they got all the potentially harmful change done in a place where it doesn't matter (due to not being expressed) and only got the upside final change, thus making gene modification and creation easier.

From another post:

Your argument seems to be taht evolution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics. The problem with that argument is that it applies to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, it is receiving energy from that big ball of nuclear fire we orbit. This means that while natural phenomena on earth that result in more order (less entropy) like life, evolution and snowflakes seem to contradict the second law it is because you are forgetting the energy input coming from the sun and the corresponding increase in entropy in it.

It would be more correct to say that species took millions of years to get to their present forms but a new species can happen in a short time.

How? First a definition: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring" (from wikipedia)

So humans of any colors are part of the same species as we can interbreed and have fertile offspring (e.g. Barack Obama) but Horses and Donkeys are different species given that, while they can interbreed, their offspring are infertile (mule and hinny).

Things are a bit more complicated as, for example, wolves and dogs can interbreed but are considered different species (but the same genus, the level above species) but unless we want to go into taxonomy it will be good enough to make my point.

Now, let us consider ring species. A ring species is a species where a group A can interbreed with group B, group B can interbreed with group C, group C can interbreed with group D... but both end of the group (A and D here) cannot interbreed succesfully. Because there is a link between all the groups it is the same species, but if one of the ring was to die out so that the linkage is broken then you would have two species (note that of B dies out but A and C can interbreed you would not have a new species; if they cannot you would, so it might take more than one subspecies to die out to create a new species). And as your article points out, it is quite frequent for species (and subspecies) to die out.

The problem is that a lot of religious people want science to give a stamp of approval to their belief and start from the conclusion they want to get and try to justify it. That is, at  best, bad science as science should start from what we observe and try to explain it in the simplest way (of course as more facts get known, what is the simplest way to explain something gets more complicated). If religion wants to play in science's playground it needs to play by science's rules otherwise it is not science anymore.

It would be like if I went to an Gridiron Football match and insisted that we play by Association Football rules. Even if I was successfull it wouldn't be Gridiron Football anymore.

Besides, when I google "Recapitulation Theory Discredited" I get the wikipedia article you link, and when I read it, I see: "Since around the start of the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.^[7]" Which links to http://9e.devbio.com/article.php?id=219

So from the original google click I am 3 clicks away (1 to wikipedia, 1 to the footnote and 1 to the article) from an article explaining both the subjects and the reasons for its dicreditation.

Well, you said that you have to believe to see. If a kid was raised in the Sahara desert and never saw snow and then was flown by plane to Antartica would he not see the snow because he did not believe in it? It does seem to be at least counterintuitive.

From another post:

Tell that to Diagoras of Melos. Though I doubt that it was as widespread as today.

Like I said, I do not wish to do all the research and I also feel I have overstated my case there but for the second part I disagree:

"At the time, however, Rousseau's strong endorsement of religious toleration, as expounded by the Savoyard vicar in Émile, was interpreted as advocating indifferentism, a heresy, and led to the condemnation of the book in both Calvinist Geneva and Catholic Paris." (from wikipedia's article on Rousseau)

Even saying that religious toleration was good was scandalous. It might not have been illegal but homosexuality is not illegal today and yet a lot of prominent people hide theirs because it is not politically acceptable.

I disagree. They can cohabit and if they go against each other you can choose side but there are ways in which they go against each others. Specifically, when religions describe the world in a way that is different than what science understand it to be. If religion says the earth is at the center of the universe and science says otherwise then they go against each other (galileo). If religion changes its tack to say the same as science then they stop going againgst each other. And vice versa, if a prevailing scientific theory changes from an eternal universe to a universe with a beginning then they stop going against each other ion that point (though maybe not in the details).

Bolded: or both, they are not mutually exclusive and the latter makes the former more likely.

First, faith is irrational by definition. if it is not irrational then it is not faith but knowledge. If you know that god exists then you do not have faith that he exists. I do not have faith that the chair I sit on exists. I know by virtue of not having my ass hitting the floor.

Second, you start your line of logic with believe to see. If you start with belief then it is faith, not reason, and thus by definition irrational. 

As for faith leading to knowledge, I would argue that it definitely can lead to the appearance of knowledge but if it could lead to real kowledge then the best scientists would be clerics. Also, if faith by itself can lead to knowledge then every religion would lead to knowledge equally as they all have faith. 

Lastly, one question: Let's say you have to take a plane and you have two choices. One is a plane designed by aeronautical engineers applying scientific principles of lift and the other is designed by clerics of your religion who got the knowledge of how to design it strictly through application of their faith. Which plane would you take?

I must say I find it rather surprising as I find the theory of evolution harder to explain than the theory of the big bang as the big bang has got the universe's expansion and the cosmic background to support it while evolution is either circumstantial evidence (fossil record) or complicated genetics.

The cause of the big bang on the other hand, I would agree has yet to be properly explained.

Fair enough. I think that is the most important (on both sides) as if someobdy can admit they may be wrong they are less likely to commit atrocity in the name of their beliefs. 

I hold exactly the opposite view as for me saying that there is an omnipotent being means that it is possible for him to make it so that 1=0. If he can't change the world so that it is so then he is not omnipotent.

Again, adding another variable simply pushes the problem back one level. Where did the energy come from? From god. Where did god's energy come from? metagod. Where did metagod's energy come from...

How does that contradict the big bang theory though? The big bang is the origin of the universe but by definition it means that whatever caused the big bang to happen came from outside our universe and may be obeying different laws.

You don't rally need to. I was simply trying to explain things as best I could (and there are probably errors on my part as the world is complicated and thus so are theories explaining it and do not fully understand them myself) because a lot of criticism of scientific theories consist of straw men, that is arguing that a theory claims something it does not then show how ridiculous it is. Sometimes people do it due to their lack of understanding and sometimes maliciously but if you read their argument and don't know better you can be hoodwinked.

Also, your answer could simply be faith. It takes more faith to believe in god in a world that may have come into being without a god as we view it today than in a world that cannot possibly have existed without a god as we have viewed it for most of humanity.

I know of Expelled but I haven't seen it yet.

Why did Duke Nukem get bad ratings, if it weren't for the CallOf Dutytionists controlling the media?

From the trailer: "There are people out htere who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch god."

I freely admit to be one of those. The little box I want to keep science in is the material universe. There may be other material universes than our own and who knows, if they do exist maybe one day we will be able to study them from this universe. But outside of the material universe, the spiritual realm, science has no grasp and cannot even say whether it exists, let alone explain it. To expand science to cover it you would have to change it so it is not science anymore, so let me propose a name for this new discipline: religion.

"We cannot accept to treat ID as an alternative scientific theory" (said by a scientist)

At face value it would seem to support your thesis that Id is being repressed, but the important part is scientific theory.

This remind me of the Isaac Asimov quote: [Creationists] make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

From this link: 'The National Academy of Sciences defines a scientific theory as a “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses”.  A theory can lead to new testable hypotheses and predictions. A theory must include the following criteria:

It must be tested by experimentation and observation of the natural world.

It must be falsifiable (i.e. experiments must conceivably exist that could prove it false).

It cannot be proven, only confirmed or disconfirmed.

It is subject to revision and change.

Intelligent design does not meet these criteria (i.e. it cannot be tested by observation and experimentation in the natural world, and the existence of an “intelligent” agent in the origin of life can not be tested nor is it falsifiable.) '

That is why ID is not accepted as a scientific theory, because it isn't one. It is a religious belief doing its best to look like a scientific theory.

One thing I like about ID is that it helps science improve by pointing out weaknesses in its explanation and like they say, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

If I do I will but I found this that might interest you: http://www.expelledexposed.com

I haven't read much of the website so I am not claiming that it is a good rebuttal or anything but given that you seems interested in seeing an opposing view on it I thought you might be interested.

Here's a question for the wannabe smartypants creationists:

If the universe HAD to have come from somewhere, and HAD to have a creator, who created God? if something as vast and mysterious as the universe could not exist without some prior creator, then by all logic didn't that creator also need a creator? It's a logical fallacy, and the issue is that it somehow needs to stop somewhere, the scientific mind rationally stops at the most logical point (not appointing a creator) and the irrational take it a step further because that's what they want to believe or they were indoctrinated to think it was logical when it was not.

Also, the very concept of 'god' is flawed. what god? what version? what religion? what evidence is there t hat one god is more rational than another? if there was a god, or a divine creator, what holy text most accurately depicts him, her, or it? The issue with 'god' is that there are so very many of them out there that it's completely irrational to believe in any one over another and it's especially irrational to use any one version of 'God' in a scientific environment because the world can't even agree that there is one, let alone what version of it is right.

can we at least agree that if we're going to discuss the philisophical implications of the creation of the universe that we don't call it 'God'? that just gives it so many negative connotations and it's really hard to argue with people of faith because as I said earlier, faith is belief without evidence and that's really pointless to argue with.

What matters is not on which fronts they battle but what tools they use. Evolution uses scientific tools, ID doesn't.

It would be like saying "I don't understand how the French army is more French than the British army. The battle(d) on the same fronts." (ok, not true since l'Entente Cordiale but you get the idea).

I would say that it is not less legitimate as a religious belief. But as a scientific theory the introduction of an unnecessary and undisprovable component makes it not a less legitimate theory but not a scientific theory at all. 

The problem is not with people wanting to believe in intelligent design but with people trying to pass of their belief as being scientific.

First, material ex-nihilo would be the big bang theory, not evolution. The evolution theory applies to living things (and even then, only to how they changed over time, not how they originated; that would be abiogenesis), not to where the material they are made of comes from.

Second, there are plenty of things that evolution explains with natural processes that intelligent designs invokes a higher power to explain. An example would be in one of my former posts where I explained how information can be created by natural means. ID would say trichromacy was designed by an intelligent agent whereas evolution shows that the evolution between bichromacy and trichromacy can be done with a simple gene copy coupled with a gene mutation.

Now I am not saying that the theory of evolution explains everything yet (or that it ever will, it might not be the only mechanism) but it is the theory that best explains the things it undertakes to explain so far. The vast majority of scientists concurs with me on that.

WHy try and think about it? You'll only hurt your head ..

Thanks!

I don't claim anything to be outside our universe.

Some theories of the big bang include time being created then as well as matter, which makes the question "what was before the big bang" meaningless.

Other theories say that there might have been a universe that contracted into a big crunch until it reexpanded into the big bang, which might be true but would only push back the question to what created that universe in a similar way that positing a god only implies the question of its origin. 

Note that I would not claim that that later theory is not true just because it pushes the question back; whether that theory gets accepted as the leading theory or not should be on the basis of whether the evidences experiments give us support it or disprove it.

That is a religious question, not a scientific one. The scientific question would be, given the evidence we have, what is the most likely explanation. If it turns out that evidence points out to time originating during the big bang then it would be self-sufficient. If it turns out that the evidence points out to a former universe then it would not be self-sufficient as that former universe would need explaining as to its origin too but doing so would likely be impossible as we cannot study it.

The question is not "is it self-sufficient" but "is it what the evidence we have point to". 

A police detective who built his case on its internal consistency regardless of evidence would be a poor policeman; a scientist doing the same would be a poor scientist too.

First, the question of what caused it to be would also apply to the spiritual realm so your position would give you better grounds.

Second, if the leading theory at a given point is not self-sufficient then that would be because the evidence point that way. What objective evidence points toward a spiritual realm?

Simply claiming that the puzzle doesn't apply to your god of choice does not mean he escapes it, it just means you are copping out.

Actually it is not for the big bang claims no such thing. Einstein, in his famous equation E=mc² does. And we routinely do the opposite, get energy from matter, in nuclear reactors.

Again, you show that you do not understand what scientific theories are. That galaxies are moving away from each others is a fact (observed by Hubble). The big bang is a theory that explain that fact (amongst others) but is not a fact in itself. Scientific theories are not facts, they use facts as a basis for their explanations but they are not facts themselves.

As for observing it, did you know that the speed of light in a vacuum is finite? This means that the light emitted by the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach Earth (due to the speed of light and the distance between the Sun and Earth). Which means that if you look at the Sun you are looking at 8 minutes into the past. Same thing with stars. You are looking at stars the way they looked like hundreds or thousand or more years ago. Look far enough and you will see what the universe looked like in its infancy.

We can't look at the big bang itself, but we can look back in time far enough to have evidence that supports (and was predicted by) the big bang theory.

The big bang theory predicted the cosmic background radiation and its discovery was in large part why it is so accepted today. If it had been found out that there was no cosmic background radiation then we would have a different theory, maybe we still would have a steady state theory.

ID does not stand the same because it does not predict anything not known at the time of prediction that was later found out to be true. 

Read my earlier posts again and you will see that the partial answer is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution concerns what happened after life appeared, abiogenesis concerns how life appeared.

We do not have a very good understanding of it yet so feel free to claim it could only have happened by an intelligent entity so you can believe in your god of the gaps (but it still would only be a belief, not a scientific theory).

From that article:

"nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them"

Wrong. More than 98% of DNA in humans is non-coding DNA. It means that changes in that portion does not change genes themselves so that nearly all mutations are neutral to the organisms which experience them.

"No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial"

We can see ways that beneficial mutation can easily occur using observed mechanisms but AFAIK we have not observed beneficial mutations directly (but detrimental ones frequently). However, the biggest reason is because to do so you need a before and after picture of the genome. Genome mapping is still in its infancy and not nearly fast or cost effective enough to allow us to routinely map the genome of test animals. 

However, not only does the lack of direct observation (at least to my knowledge) not disprove evolution any more than the lack of direct observation of Neptune (whose existence was predicted by Newtonian mechanics) between when it was predicted to exist and when it was first observed (others had seen it but mistook it for a star) mean that Neptune did not exist.

Incidentally, Lake Victoria's Cichlids  might well provide such direct observation in the next decades or hundred years (too late for us if the latter is the case) as after having their diversity and numbers drasitcally reduced they are starting to adapt to their new environment (note that a free registration is required to read this article).

"A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system."

Nowhere does evolution state that all components must be functioning at the same time. Like with non-coding DNA you can have DNA components that are present and not functioning (as they are not expressed) but aren't detrimental. Even today we have human with genetic defects (like sickle cell anaemia) that can live and reproduce so the assumption that all components must be working perfectly (and the unspoken assumption that there can be no component with no function) is faulty.

"Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires,at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely."

No, a 200 functional components organism (that might have some more components that do not add it ist function but do not impede it either) needs 200 positive mutations and can have an arbitrary number of neutral mutations (and as shown earlier, neutral mutations are more likely). The neutral mutations can themselves be steps in a beneficial series of mutations.

A negative mutation can also be a step in a beneficial series of mutations if it is not negative enough to cause it to be bred out and is followed at some point later in time by another mutation, the combination of which is positive. For example if there was to be a mutation of the gene causing sicke cell anaemia in humans which caused it to create an improved haemoglobin, the original mutation from normal haemoglobin to sickle cell would be negative but the combination of both mutations would be positive.

So their statistical analysis is based on the belief that evolution being right is the equivalent of calling heads or tails 200 times in a row (in their example). Evolution says no such things as not only is it more like rolling a d3000000000 (a 3 billion sided dice, the size of the human genome), most of which do nothing immediately and even when they are negative they are not necessarily lethal.

It might be higly improbable to call heads 200 times in a row (especially when getting tails results in death) but calling heads 200 times is not that hard when it is not in a row.

Understand that I am not disputing their math, I am disputing the claim that their math are even a remote mathematical representation of the claims of evolution. They are not, so their whole reasoning is a straw man and no more valid than if I said christianity is bunk because you cannot transform orange juice into wine; the bible doesn't claim that so by saying it I would not be refuting anything that the bible claim.

From your link: "“Goo-to-you”evolution is impossible and this lecture shows why. The laws of real chemistry prevent non-living chemicals from arranging themselves into living cells." 

They don't even know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis so I seriously doubt that it is very good scientifically speaking. I bet is is very good religious propaganda though.

No, in my example they are the same because neither of their theories are scientific theories and neither of them understands why scientists do not take them seriously.

In other word, they start from the conclusion they want (underlined words) and try to justify it, which is the exact opposite of the scientific process that starts with known facts and try to explain them as completely and as simply as possible.

The other difference is that science did not start with the idea of random mutations in the genetic code causing changes in species (indeed, DNA and genetics themselves did not exist when the original theory of evolution was formulated) but observed the differences in the species and how, even though different, they had apparent relations to each other and formulated a theory to explain it, which is called evolution (well, a family of theories nowadays).

Mendel's work that led to the foundation of genetics could have refuted evolution but it turned out to support it by theorising a mechanism by which traits could be inherited from parents to children.

The discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick also supported evolution in that it gave a mechanism by which change in inherited traits was possible.

This is the exact opposite of the ID approach to posit the existence of intelligence design and look for things that are complicated and not explained yet. it is also unscientific in another way in that a scientist, when confronted with an unexplained phenomena will not say "a wizard did it" and call it a day but actually tries to explain it.

I haven't yet (so many books/games and movies, so little time) but given that you seem to use it to support a point that I do not refute I won't feel compelled to read it right now.

What about you, Have you read it? more importantly, have you understood it? (this very conversation seems to indicate that you did not understand it as you do not seem to understand evolution 101).

This rejoins what I said earlier about what I like about ID: it looks for what science hasn't explained yet (and sometime what it already has explained as with the eye) and thus helps science see where it might be wrong. So far they have found nothing to cause a fundamental shift in evolutionary theory, thus only strengthening it.

It also reminds me of another fallacy of ID, the one that states "if we can disprove evolution we will have proven ID" (paraphrased) which is not true as disproving evolution would not make ID a scientific theory and it forgets the possibility that there might be another explanation (and a scientific one at that or it wouldn't count anymore than ID) that explains the new known facts that disprove evolution.

There is also the possibility that random changes might not be the only pathway to evolution so that even if we found something that could not be explained by random changes but could be explained by other means (or could be explained by random changes but could be better explained by those other means) it still wouldn't invalidate evolution as having a second path available does not negate the existence of the first path. It would however, profoundly change evolutionary theories.

That is not the way science work, that is the way ID work ("Oh, that was just intelligently designed"). The way science work would be to look among the facts we know if any of them (or combination of them) explains the phenomena. If yes, then no change to the theory is necessary. If not, then a number of theories are likely to emerge and further study and experimentations will give us more fact to tell us which one(s) are most likely.

Until such time, there will be no leading theory but a number of competing ones (like is the case in the field of abiogenesis); and after we have more facts we can prune the disproved theories (like geocentrism) and abandon the less likely ones (like recapitulation theory) and have a broader consensus.

Does ID do any of that or does it look at something complicated and say "it must have been done by something intelligent".

Are you refering to the math based article from your earlier post? If so I already answered that in another post that I posted after the post I am currently answering to. 

I read the following quote somewhere: "It is difficult to make some people understand a certain thing when their financial interest is dependent on their not understanding it"

I would rephrase it for this debate as: "It is difficult to make some people understand a certain thing when their religious interest is dependent on their not understanding it"

It is not that proper answers were not given, it is that creationists are doing their best to find ways not to accept them. It is not only a river in Egypt you know.

Good thing ID is not repressed then, just horrible at supporting its belief. I think a good title for an Expelled-like film from the other side of the issue would be:

"Flunked: No Intelligence Found"

From another post:

Why stop at one turtle though*? It seems more logical that there either would be no turtle at all or an infinite number of turtles. Stopping at one turtle is arbitrary.

* see my previous post including turtle all the way.

Faith is not based on reason so it is by definition irrational. As for indoctrination, its literal meaning is "teaching doctrine" and the definition of doctrine is "a set of beliefs" so that indoctrination means teaching someone a set of belief. How is religious education not indoctrination? 

Whatever came before the big bang (if anything) would need to be determined (if determinable) based upon physical evidence, not upon the ipse dixit of a book.

I agree, it is not the multitude of supposed eity that make the belief in one irrational but the fact that belief in one is not based on reason but on faith.

There are polytheistic religions you know. Now I suppose you meant that it is irrational to believe in more than one religion when the religions you believe in are incompatible (not all religions are incompatible, for example hinduism and buddhism) but while I agree that it is irrational because the belief in any religion (or lack thereof like atheism) is not based on reason but on faith, I would not agree that believing in two incompatible religions is necessarily more irrational than believing in only one (or many compatible ones). Why? Because one can believe in a religion without believing all of its assertions are literal truths. For an example of that see the Baha'i faith teaching of the unity of religion.