Anyone who isn't blinded by their faith would recognize ID for what it is: crackpot religious beliefs masquerading as real science. It has no scientific basis, no scientific evidence, does not conform to the scientific method, makes no scientifically testable predictions, and bears no scientific fruits. This video is just another propaganda device for their "Wedge Strategy."
-----
Opera - The Fastest Browser on Earth
http://www.opera.com/download/
[QUOTE}Anyone who isn't blinded by their faith would recognize ID for what it is: crackpot religious beliefs masquerading as real science. It has no scientific basis, no scientific evidence, does not conform to the scientific method, makes no scientifically testable predictions, and bears no scientific fruits. This video is just another propaganda device for their "Wedge Strategy." [/QUOTE}True story.
███
I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY. Who cares about the video?
shareABOUT FAITH ...
there is a lot that science cant explain but says exists... should we abandon science 'cus of that? Let the people who found peace in ID be allowed to have their faith ...
Get informed!
I'd say dannyboy's "arguments" are fruit of an intense adversity against something he thinks to be crackpotology. If he has watched the film, he has seen some solid arguments which need a bit more than a mere attack without basis. He states, "does not conform to scientific method". That is quite the opposite. Even though someone may not be in accordance with ID, one must aknowledge that the film mainly gave scientific explanations (i.e. molecular machines, flagellum, etc). Note also that the film seldom referred to religion, it merely laid out scientific facts from which a natural conclusion can be decided.
Here's a web page with some documentation about the matter.
http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm
PS Please excuse any grammar mistakes you may see.
A Catalan
evolution itself cannot be proven or disproven
it is a theory, a highly plausible one, but still only a theory
it can make no solid testable predictions, and it cannot be reproduced in a enclosed controlled environment on a serious scale.
[deleted]
I am strongly against ID and the very idea of devine beings. My argument against ID is based on one of the points often used against science; That we cannot activly observe evolution or the change of species. The answer to this is that we quite definatly can. We can see many species, but it is those that we cannot see that we can observe in the act of evolution quite easily. The changes we can see happening are mostly those in micro-organisms, changes which we as humans have brought about.
Take 'flu epidemics. Every year, a new "flu jab" is released to combat new strains of the virus. These strains are descentants of the few mutant cultures of last year's strain that were different enough to not match the same antibodies that worked against the rest of the virus. The same is true of rat poison: Each time a new poison is released, it lowers the rat population for some time. However some rats will, through random mutations, be able to metabolise the poison. The rats with resistance will be more likely to survive. The percentage of rats who survive to breeding age drops among the unresistant rats, until all of the population carries the resistance gene. The rats have evolved and a new poison is needed.
Rats and micro-organisms have short lifespans and breed constantly, meaning that if it taskes 100 generations for a change to be visable, it is far less time among species which reach this number in so little time. I often try to explain this if I come across the debate, but have nearly given up.
I am reminded of the theological debates regarding the number of devils that could dance on the head of a pin. Surely the answer is that both sides are correct, up to a point. The evolutionists who deny the existance of the designer do not even have an inteligent theory to explain the inception of life - they have dificulty in even defining it, while the designerists tend to post their starting point too high up the tree.
I suggest that the designer had meerly to allow the concept of life, and then sit back to watch what evolved in the chemical soup in his planetry petri dish under changing conditions. Furthermore, I suggest that this relationship with the results would be similar to that between a scientist and that which grows in his petri dish. To think otherwise is no more than wishful thinking and to think that evolution is completed by the emergance of homo-sapiens is hubris of a high order. We may yet be due a nasty shock!
I'm by no definition of the term a scientist. But I've read some about ID and this is my conclusion which I hope placates both sides. If I've made any factual errors then please correct me, but *beep* off over spelling mistakes, I'm dyslexic.
p.s. I'm quite proud of this post.
www.toptenmovielist.com Alias Atticus.
well done poppet
========
I fix the robots
Never in the case of flu epidemics though does new information simply spring to life from nothing. Never does the DNA simply makes itself far more complex, nor the flu virus evolve into AIDS or into a Venus' Fly Trap or anything of the sort on the macro scale necessary for a goo-to-you transition to occur.
In the event of most flus, the few that do get more complex do so from stealing and rearranging data they steal from other cells. That's not true evolution, but clever theft.
A few change by losing information, but most simply recombine their information just enough to change their protein coats just enough to trick the body. This, once again, does not make evolution a plausible explanation for life creating itself. It merely suggests environmental adaptation of a species within its means.
Now, before the Bible-bashers come at me in full force, I'd like to make another point, one that is implied though not specifically stated in the Bible that better explains the variety of what we have in the world today:
Genesis talks of creatures "according to their kinds." Modern taxonomy didn't exist in the time Moses wrote those words. We today would describe "kinds" as being either a family or genus.
We've already seen demonstrated that it was through man forcefully DEvolving dogs that we have the variety of sub-species we see today. So why can't nature apply forces of balance by working BACKWARDS of evolution?
For anyone who has seen this video, natural selection does not add, but only recombines and/or destroys information that does not allow a creature to favorably survive a particular set of living conditions. Nothing ever stops being what it is, but its children become inferior forms catered to specific conditions.
This is perfectly consistent with the law of entropy, and allows ID/creation and natural selection to fit together far better. Transition forms of lesser to superior beings has only been observed in forced conditions, such as ligers being forced by careful breeding of lions with tigers in a controlled zoo.
This, of course, required intelligence and interference by human breeders, as under normal conditions, it would be highly rare that a lion and tiger would even dream of having children together.
But in nature, the devolving of a species is all-too-frequently observed. Along with this, the shortening of life-spans rather than the general lengthening is common.
Throughout the centuries, the average life span of the human race has taken a major dive, with life expectancies only beginning to climb as of the early 20th century due to lifestyle changes and better medicines. This is perfectly consistent with creationist/ID/religious views that in a "post-Noahic" world, increased radiation in the atmosphere would help trigger the gradual deterioration of life. The books of Genesis-2 Samuel spell this out by showing how each successful patriarch to die of old age was younger than the one before, right up to King David living 899 fewer years than Methuselah.
These books more than coincidentally point to things we DO observe, not mythical examples of toxic slime turning into fish, the typical evolutionary dogma.
You don't have to believe that a man who lived 2006 years ago and was killed by Pilate is your savior to understand that the universe, even at the sub-atomic level, operates like an overly-complex, multi-layered software program; a "matrix," if you will. (I'm not intending to defend the Matrix movies, however.) And any idiot knows a matrix where anything in it has any real value had to have a designer.
Miracles, therefore, are just interruptions in the normal program code; imbalances in the equations deliberately placed to produce results that might not otherwise happen.
At any rate, the movie should not frighten evolutionary dogmatists as much as it does. As Answers in Genesis frequently points out, ID is far more vague than Creation. Creation points to a specific God, a specific creator, and a specific purpose.
ID could mean aliens, Buddha, any number of Hindu gods, a strange demon, George Lucas' Force, or the 18th-century Deist "benevolent clockwinder."
Therefore, Deism is a far more honest humanist alternative to Christianity than Darwinism. Yet, no myth can be twisted or altered more effectively than evolution to support any philosophical position that is convenient at the given moment for the given individual and their given agenda. So I don't expect to see Deism become popular ever again, as it cannot bear the same philosophical courage as Darwinism to dismiss moral reasoning and replace it with self-centered pragma.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wish to reply to "danny-11" and to "boulderfish18".
-I am an atheist.
-I HAVE seen the full 65 minute video.
-Therefore, I have a certain standing to comment which you, who have not seen the video, do not have.
***
Charles Darwin's original classic theory was officially summarized as, "Descent with modification."
(Do you disagree with this assertion? If you do, then you have never taken a biology course. See any good encyclopedia under "Darwinism" for a refresher course.)
What does that imply? -- The classic original theory asserts that changes are SMALL; that changes ACCRUE OVER TIME; that EACH CHANGE has a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.
(Do you disagree with this assertion? If you do, then you have never taken a biology course. See the PBS/WGBH video, "EVOLUTION: DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA" for a refresher course in the original classic Darwinian theory.)
That is the model.
The video offers at least two examples where that model does not fit.
(1.) Flagellum.
(2.) DNA/mRNA.
One model is the flagellum of cells. (The "flagellum" is a whip-like tail-rudder of a single cell.) The individual pieces of a cell's flagellum match closely to an ordinary boat's mechanical outboard motor.
There are (per the video) 40 components to the flagellum. If any component is missing, then the flagellum will fail to perform as flagellums perform.
Thus, the video asserts there is "irreduceable complexity."
If there were 39 parts, in any combination, such a unit cannot work as flagellum. It takes a full complement of 40 components.
Thus, if the classic Darwinian theory is applied to flagellum, then there must be (a.) small changes; (b.) over time; (c.) with a built-in survival advantage; (d.) to each component of the 40 components.
Yet, due to "irreduceable complexity", there isn't any "survival advantage" to having 10 or 20 or 30 pieces of the 40-piece puzzle. A cell with 95% of the parts in place has nothing in "survival advantage" over those cells with 0%-to-90% parts-in-place.
Therefore, since the steps #a, #b, #c, #d of the original classic theory do not fit the evolution of flagellum, then the classic Darwinian theory does not apply to flagellum.
If the original Darwinian theory does not apply, then a new model (a new theory) must be found which is a BETTER FIT than the flawed theory/model.
(That is just plain old science: A theory is assumed; a theory is tested; the theory fails; the theory is discarded or modified; the new improved theory is submitted to the same cyclic test.)
That is the argument of the video.
The second example in the video is DNA/mRNA.
Messenger RNA (mRNA) works together with DNA. But we don't find in nature the prototype proteins which aides in building up DNA or mRNA. The pair work together with no intermediary proteins.
It "all or nothing."
Having small incremental changes (which "Psychology 101" would label as "successive approximations") in DNA or in mRNA back 500 million years ago leads to no evolutionary advantage per each individual "change over time."
That is, having 10%, or 20%, or 50%, or 90% of the proteins in place, by random chance, leads to no more "survival advantage" than those proteins with 0% or 5% of the proteins in place.
Yet Charles Darwin asserted that each change must bring about some kind of evolutionary "advantage" over similar "competing" animals who have no such "small advantage".
Yet there is no survival advantage between the two protein strings.
Since there is NO advantage, then the theory does NOT fit.
If the theory does not fit, then a NEWER, BETTER theory must be theorized.
That is the argument of the video.
I recommend viewing the video, for BOTH "camps," since it lays out nicely the arguments against classic Darwinist "Descent with modification."
And better, the video does NOT mention the word "God" nor "Divine" nor "Adam and Eve" nor "Garden of Eden" nor "Creationism" nor "Divine Intervention".
No, I do not believe in "Intelligent Design." nor in "Creationism."
You don't have to be religious to see that "Descent with modification" does not apply to multi-part units which have no function below their "critical mass" (minimum number of components, in place).
The God of Gaps......
If you dont understand you give it a God connotation
And irreducible complexity has never been proved.....it never will be.
This video is creationism in sheeps clothing. Take it seriously and your an idiot.
P.S......the last poster is no atheist. If he is, he should feel ashamed of himself. I bet its actually Michael Behe.
[deleted]
As the video points out, Darwin's theory was based on the assumption that life is made up of just two components, matter and energy. Science now knows that there is a third component, the information which is stored in the DNA. The DNA/RNA replication system is irreducibly complex. Many proteins are required to read/maintain the DNA, but the DNA is required to build those proteins. Thus, the whole system could not have evolved gradually. Darwin had no idea how complex a single celled organism is when he proposed his theory.
The video also points out that the exact feedback mechanisms that control the construction of the flagellum have yet to be understood. The irreducible complexity is more than just the motor itself, but the genetic coding for its construction and all the associated feedback mechanisms which add multiple layers to the complexity. The probability that it arose by natural causes is astronomically small, effectively zero. No amount of time could explain its origin by natural causes.
Darwin wrote that if any organ or biological system can be found that cannot be the result of gradual minute changes, his theory would be broken. This video shows that his theory is indeed broken by the irreducibly complex machines found in the simplest single celled organisms.
Thank you for stating so succinctly regarding one of my beefs with biases.
I wanted you to know that I personally agreed with the assertions you made.
Further Intelligent Design info can be found in "The Privileged Planet,"
"The Case for a Creator," and "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution" (3 DVD set) ( http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Creatures-That-Defy-Evolution/dp/B000I2J6D2/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_1/103-8092385-9966204 ) in case you can't find them on IMDb. I've rented each using Netflix.
Anyway, I wanted to let you know you're not alone.
Different people will choose different things to believe, but one must respect their right to believe it, should he not? It is only when people cross the line for what they believe - violence inspired by fundamentalist religions, particularly - that there is a need to take a stand and expose a belief in God/Vishnu/Jehovah/Jesus/Mohammed/Allah/Satan/Whatever as a detriment to peace, security and human advancement. Each religious faction in the world, whether they be Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Seventh Day Aventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Cathoics, etc. etc. believes only they are right, only they represent the interests of (an often jealous, vengeful and somehow loving) god and only they will achieve eternal life while all the other billions of people on earth will perish forever. But not everyone can be right. Everyone, however, can be wrong, and that's my point.
People choose to believe in what others cannot. It is impossible for a creationist to conceive of a talking snake in a wonderful garden habitated by two perfect human beings, one made from the rib of the other 6000 years ago as anything but what actually happened. It is equally impossible for a rational mind to conceive of it as anything but a bronze-age story that has survived two millenia. There is no middle ground, so trying to make one is tilting at windmills. Evolution cannot be digested by a mind unwilling to consider it at all, any more than a rational mind can digest the concept of an eternal god. Religion is a balm, a confort and a source of hope in a hopeless world. I sometimes wish fervently that I could be a believer, but it is usually when I am being beaten down by the realities of life. The balm I choose instead is a sense of controlling my own existence rather than think it is being influenced by forces outside of me. I recognise and accept that lack of religion is a luxury for those who can afford it and who have the ability to digest it. Not all do. It is just the way it is.
What does it matter? Just live and let live, fellow travellers. Just don't blow me up if I disagree with you, and we can be friends.
You said "ID" but you described evolution. In fact, everything you said is exactly and precisely true about evolution and you CANNOT illustrate ONE point you made that isn't true about evolution.
So, who's pushing propaganda here?