conclusive proof in Intelligent Design? The advance of a new theory?
Posted by James on May 14, 2014 · 12 Comments
Question by Sly Fox [King of Fools]: conclusive proof in Intelligent Design? The advance of a new theory?
Is the appendix conclusive proof that the theory of intelligent design is fallible?
And if so can we now reconsider it as being more a form of roughly intelligent design with a certain error rate?
And should school be teaching the greater complexities of roughly Intelligent design, and the error rate which occurs within it?
Just for greater understanding.
Some people are talking about this!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
That’s the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School,
The press report is simplistic. but read the paper and you will see that it is where gems live and not a place which produces them!
No difference you may think, but there is a world of difference!
The Appendix exist in other animals and serve a purpose just as the stomach. but if you remove the appendix people don’t have health problems, however it would be very difficult to live without a stomach.
And as for talking about it, if it wasn’t there????
Best answer:
Answer by tylertxan
Nope, the courts have already decided that creationism and I>D. are religion in disguise and can not be taught in public school science classes. If you want kids taught ID or creationism enroll them in the religious school of your choice. A private school may teach anything it wishes.
Add your own answer in the comments!
The ID theory is flawed as it begs the question, “Who or what created the creator?”
It has been proven that the Giant Squid has more highly advanced (sophisticated) eyes than humans. It must have been made last.
I’ve heard that the appendix actually has something to do with the immune system, and isn’t as useless as previously thought.
Anyways, public school should be teaching about all belief systems and then allow the students to choose which one they wish to follow. It just makes the most sense.
EDIT: I had hoped to avoid a paragraphs-long reply, but some things need to be clarified. First off, the theory of macro-evolution is not scientific. It is a belief. There is no fossil evidence to show that one organism evolved into all organisms. There is obviously a bit of evolution due to natural selection, but to jump to the conclusion that all species evolved from one without any scientific evidence is inherently unscientific.
As for the “who created the creator” question, it is commonly known among theists that a God would have to exist outside of the physical realm in order to make it. To go a bit more in depth, the physical world has a beginning and an end. This is an inherent trait of physical things. On the other hand, a God would exist infinitely because it would not be bound by physical laws (i.e. it wouldn’t have a beginning and an end). Therefore, it wouldn’t need a creator. It would have no beginning or end.
This is why FSM submits the theory of unintelligent design.
What is this proof?
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, but a suggestion that things are so complex, they MUST have been created.
It is unmeasurable, untestable, and unfalsifiable, so it is NOT a theory.
A lot of things prove intelligent design as fallible. The appendix is just another one of these things that prove I.D. to be false. The appendix doesn’t do anything in the human body, but in other species it helps digest seeds and other hard vegetation.
Obviously humans diets don’t consists of seeds and so the human appendix has slowly been rendered obsolete. Evolution is very real.
Edit To txteclipse: You can’t believe in Micro evolution without believing in Macro Evolution. They are the same thing, do more research on evolution. (and stay out of the creationist sites) You said “all species evolved from one” Again do more research no where in the theory of evolution does it say all species evolved from one animal.
Your last paragraph is a contradiction of the first. In your first paragraph you state “all species evolved from one without any scientific evidence is inherently unscientific”. If you care about something being scientific. Then where is the evidence that god exist outside of the physical realm, like you believe he does. Have you seen outside the physical realm? Your theory on god is inherently unscientific.
Now you see why I.D. or I should say creationism is fallible. You have no proof, all you have are theories which aren’t based on evidence. Instead they’re based on the belief that god exist. The creationist entire method of proving god is extremely unscientific.
Instead of making your theories based on what you’ve observed in the universe. You already have a theory and are picking and choosing from science the things that make your theory true. Which of course is extremely unscientific.
Everybody is born with an appendix. When it starts to disappear in new born babies, then your question may have a tiny bit of credibility.
Studies are showing that the appendix is not a useless organ. The human body can do without many organs and limbs and that doesn’t mean the body is evolving.
ID is still more valid than evolution. You can at least see intelligence in creation.
—-
Yes, the Duke study was one of several. There are organs that are vital. Many are not. The appendix falls into the non-vital category. No big deal. It is a part of the body and when it is infected, you know it. Vestigial organs are a very lame argument in favor of evolution and everyone knows it.
Intelligent design is not a theory, but the hypothesis that there never will be a theory. ID explains nothing, has no evidence behind it, relies on ignorance, and makes no predictions. What would it mean to have an “error” rate under these conditions?
All man-made ideas are fallible, so the appendix isn’t adding anything new in that regard. At best, it makes a case for ID being *falsified* if, by ID, the intelligence refers to the design rather than the designer.
But being proved wrong does not qualify an idea as a theory. Should we teach school kids the disproved flat Earth “theory”?
are you saying the appendix doesnt fit in with irreducible complexity
im totally lost
to the guy above me who says theres no proof of macro evolution in the fossil record cause we don’t see a species becoming another species – wouldn’t each individual creature be an individual creature, part of a species, and not in transition – but the end of the line for itself? if it had children, or offspring, was there any variation in that generation, or future generations?
I didn’t read your report yet, King Sly, but the appendix is not useless though we can live without it. My uncle, now dead, was one doctor that claimed, in the 70s, that we shouldn’t routinely surgically remove the appendix.
As it turns out the appendix produces or provides a place for good bacteria to grow which a necessary for proper food digestion.
I will read your link at a later date.
Bye-the-bye, there’s no proof what-so-ever of intelligent design as it is meant in R & A.
First of all, there are so many people these days who are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. “Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence” (Dr. William Dembski). That’s it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every “creation” story, even aliens seeding life on this planet (directed panspermia). The God of the Bible is just one possible candidate. Some creationists (like those at Answers In Genesis) don’t like the ID movement because they say it divorces the Creator from the creation.
Take a look at this and scroll down to “Bad Design” (ARN seems to be down for the moment, so try again later): http://www.arn.org/docs/Redeeming%20Darwin%20Reference%20Guide%20Excerpts.pdf
I find this to be an interesting argument; evolutionists using the loss of something as evidence that humans had bacteria ancestors (coming about by the undirected process of random mutations and natural selection). Tell us how to get an ear, teeth, a spine, skin and a nose in the first place before picking at little bits to call useless.
And why has evolution been so slow at getting rid of useless structures in our case? Why isn’t evolution more effective at getting rid of vestigial structures if humans have been around for 300,000 years?
And who says they are useless, anyway? Evolutionists told us the appendix, the pineal gland, the pituatary gland, and a hundred other things were vestigial, only to have science find out they had a function after all. Many people were exposed to increased infections during the tonsillectomy craze of the 1960s. How do we know that they are not wrong now about these other items they are claiming?
If something is deformed in today’s physiology due to a congenital defect that became established in the population, but was once well adapted, is it valid to call that vestigial? Mutational load is causing all kinds of problems, but that doesn’t mean the original wasn’t brilliantly designed.
Just because you can live without the appendix, doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed; you can live fine with only one eye, ear, leg, arm, etc., but that doesn’t mean it’s optimal to do so. http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
Again, I find it interesting that people often give examples of de-evolution and say it is evidence of evolution in action.
======================
What about teaching it in school? Whatever you may think of George Bush, he was right in this: “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.
As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”
And as the Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
Most Christians I know don’t want biblical creationism taught in science classes (they would butcher it). What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.