intelligent design

Sniper.

 

I have as much proof as anyone else.

By impetus, I mean that if life was being guided by an intellegent force, then He/It/She would know that short term sacrifices would mean long term gain. A good example is the pelvis shape of female humans. It is needed for birth of a baby with a larger brain, which will be useful down the road (but not in the first generation) - but walking upright is a hinderance to survival. The longer infancy period of humans also falls into this category.

 

.

 

okay, but the questions i posed to vp are also open to you. how did the creator do this? when? was it quick or did it take a long time? did the material come from somewhere or was it also created? how big of a role are you claiming for the creator?

evolution has so much rational, well-thought out science that shapes it. as new discoveries are unearthed, the theory shifts and comes into better focus. yes, there are gaps in our understanding, but that's science is mapping things out to examine.

everything i hear about id is simply "evolution can't explain it all". that's not an alternate theory, that's giving up on the search and saying +/- god. so what i'd like to see is the actual alternative. if id is to be taught as a science let's hear what the theory actually states.

i agree. i think schools should spend more money getting good, up to date text books. there's a bunch of crap in most text books. if the holes are glaring, i think they'll be obvious, don't you? but still, i don't mind acknowledging them. it's just a matter of time and focus of the class.

 

so straighten me out. what is the theory?

 

the long and the short of it

"there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

 

Somebody wake me when this latest Dark Age is coming to a close. Should be right about 2008.

 

but proof of what? we're not talking about the existance of a creator. we're talking about id and how it "fixes" evolution. all i'm really hearing is that you think science doesn't know the answer so you propose that instead, you don't know the answer but it's probably a creator in some way you can't really describe.

okay, but that's a bad example. cephalo-pelvic disproportion (looks like these child birth classes are paying off) is when the baby's head won't fit thru the birth canal. it actually happens a good deal. women used to die in child-birth WAY more frequently than they do today. c-sections are the only remedy for cpd. so are humans transitional species?

but still, your theory is rather vauge. what method is employed to alter biological entities? how many times has it occured? is it the only means? do all mutations spawn from the creator? what about cancer? does god cause cancer?

natural selection has drawn a very detailed map and has some things wrong and some areas are completely blank. so far, all i'm hearing about id makes me think id's map is drawn in crayon on a used napkin. pointing out the inadequacies of natural selection's map is not the same as presenting a competing theory.

 

ID doesn't pretend to replace evolution. It is what it is. Very simple.

 

There is nothing that I reject in evolution other than species just evolved into another by themselves.

Why is it a bad example? If the danger in childbirth is much more for humans than our relatives the ape, then it is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. We regressed in order that we could advance. But the advancement would not be seen for thousands of years, so why would that have been seen as a positive trait?