Evolution vs. Intelligent Design live debate on Islamonline.net

[The_Other_Admin]

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate: http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...GuestID=QYL0zb

[MF]

Fun to read, but its a "gebed zonder end" (means endless discussion)

At one point Avery asks Mustafa Akyol "In your previous comment you stated you supported ID because you "think it is supported by the scientific evidence"... Do you 'know' of any evidence that supports ID, or just 'think' that it is out there somewhere to be found? "

And we never get an answer instead he comes with "Show me that life can originate from a prebiotic soup" but I was really interested in his scientific evidence

[The_Other_Admin]

This one:

Question:
Mustafa Akyol: In your previous comment you stated you supported ID because you "think it is supported by the scientific evidence"... Do you 'know' of any evidence that supports ID, or just 'think' that it is out there somewhere to be found?

And "don't think that the origin of life and the origin of complex biological systems can be explained by the natural processes..." Some amount of evidence has convinced you of what you would call 'micro-evolution'...How many explanations or how many steps of the natural processes would it take to make you 'think' that it might be possible?

Answer:
The steps I would need to be convinced are the ones that Darwin himself described.
"Numerous, successive slight modifications."
Show me that life can originate from a prebiotic soup, and I will retreat from Intelligent Design. Or show me a natural process that produces rock formations like the Stonehenge, I will stop thinking that it was designed by intelligent beings.
Actually everybody accepts that life on Earth seems to have been designed. Richard Dawkins says that in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. But he says this is apparent design and actually there are natural mechanisms creating these complex being. Well, OK, then show us those mechanisms.. But instead, the Darwinians take it granted that such mechanisms exist and impose this faith of theirs as an integral part of science. No, science does not have such a commitment.

According to our last discussion, I guess, in your opinion, predictions and empirically-based observations like fossil record, DNA, and hierarchy of species would serve as evidence. Following links talks about this regarding ID theory: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ils.php/id/846

[MF]

This one:

Yes that one, and I see the answer.. but its not an answer to the question!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats what I've been trying to say.

According to our last discussion, I guess, in your opinion, predictions and empirically-based observations like fossil record, DNA, and hierarchy of species would serve as evidence.

erm.. yes but I was interested in scientific support fot ID, why change the subject?

Following links talks about this regarding ID theory: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ils.php/id/846

Thanks I'll check it out.

[The_Other_Admin]

erm.. yes but I was interested in scientific support fot ID, why change the subject?

You broke the sentence, I'm talking about scientific support based on what was considered evidence in our last discussion as I said "following link talks about this regarding ID theory".

[MF]

Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing
(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.9, 31
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.10
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).
(Please note numbering of the aspects of intelligent as they will be used in this article to then discuss predictions and the evidence relevant to their testing)

Interesting, point 4 suggests that the blind cave fish has an eye for a function we dont realize?
And in point 2 it seems that creationism does support morphological changes.. isnt that a bit weird?