"Mike Marlow" writes:

I've heard ID proponents claim that the eye is too complex to have
"evolved." This is not the pool of goo you mention.

I'm sure, but you're missing the point. I've heard BS stuff from
evolutionists too. There's all types in both camps. I stated that in a
couple of different ways in my reply. ID does not strictly imply what you
heard an ID believer state.

It seems to be the commonly understood model, AFAIK.

And it's also easy to prove the accuracy of evolution by its
predictive model. It works.

No, again you're missing it Bruce. A great deal of evolution rests on the
predictive or assumption that the "author" feels is justified by past or
related observations. That's fine - I don't have a problem with that as a
working model, but to suggest that all who subscribe to evolution only, are
honest in their science and don't jump to the conclusions that they want the
data to support is naive. Certainly you've heard about the misuse of data?


Sure. But peer review will and additional evidence will eventually
disprove misuse of data. This is common in science, and expected.
Every once in a while some new theory shakes up paleontology, such as
birds evolving from dinosaurs. If a better model predicts values
better, it will be accepted.


That does not exist strictly in the ID camp.

Because it's not predictive in nature.
Because it can never be tested, or disproven.


However, ID can never be "disproved" because it provides no predictive
capabilities. It's like claiming ESP and UFO's exists. Disprove one
example, and we can claim it still exists, since it hasn't been disproved.

So what? In what way does that discredit ID?

As I said - it's a theory, and not really science, because it can't be
tested. ID can be caused by God, by a superior alien race, or by my
invisible Uncle Harry.

You can't disprove any of them.

You are confusing entropy with order/chaos.

Order can be created out of chaos. There are many examples. Brownian
motion will mix chaotic dispersions into a more orderly mises. Pour
milk into coffee, and it will "decay" into a uniform color. Wind
turbluence and weather are examples of chaotic systems that are very
difficult to simulate, but as we gain experience, we gain
understanding.

That's not order is it Bruce? Isn't that still chaos?

No. The distribution of milk to coffee is more consistant that it was
in the beginning.

Can you build a rule
out of the milk mixture with the coffeed? Don't get me wrong - I am not
prepared to tackle a debate on this, but isn't there a difference between a
mixture and order?

Read up on emergent systems.

As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

Now you have.

Don't take this as an insult because I just don't have the ammunition in
this field to cast an insult, but you haven't convince me yet.

Have you studied the science? Have you looked into the results of
people like Richard Dawkins? I think he was the one who uses computer
simulation to do millions of evolutionary steps, and found out many
cases of sudden leaps of brilliant mechanisms that cause systems to
evolve faster, and reproduce and survive better, where random events
did a better job than experts in designing survivable systems. (I was
reading about the results of his experiments in National Geographic,
AIR). If relatively simple computer models can do this, then more
complex biological systems can certainly have more complex solutions.

Order does come out of chaos.

Anyway - my only point originally was that ID does not necessarily deny
evolution. It can very well embrace evolution but it does put bounds on it
to some degree, and of course, it does presume a creation.

"Bounds" sounds like it says evolution is wrong in how it predicts
things. We wait for evidence of this.

I don't disagree with some of the things ID suggests. As I said -
nanotubes is a wonderful example.

But ID is not really science. It's metaphysics and philosophy, because
it's not a model of behavior. It a model for lack of evidence.

I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. Scientists do this all the time.
But the test of time is how accurately does the model predict events.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

Well, perhaps it does, if you accept the facts that the universe DOES
exist in a wonderful way. But that's as far as the model goes.

The univese does exist. That proves ID. I agree.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.