I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything. This is my personal question about the “proof” that’s in museums (BTW: Favorite indoor place? Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Card-carying member, too!): Here is early bone set A. There is later bone set B. That proves nothing to me except that A and B existed. Where are all the necessary iterations between those points? Maybe I can’t expect complete lines for every living thing but I would expect the gaps to be quite rare not the lines. Saltation everywhere I look. A and B are facts. That A became B is not observable therefore, an assumption. Not a lie or an error necessarily, but an assumption. At such a point I get to decide for myself what I choose to believe. If every other person on earth agrees with me it is then a popular assumption yet not a fact.

Further, you are quoting a man who firmly believed in the theory of evolution. So, are you saying that he was admitting that he believed evolution was false? He screwed up, let the cat out of the bag, and now the truth is out?

Again, we have nitpicking. “I found a hole in evolution, therefore it is ALL false.” Nonsense, and I’ve already explained why.

I’ve come to the conclusion that talking with ID’ers and creationists about evolution is like talking to liberals about the war in Iraq. Instead of supporting their own view with facts, they attempt to destroy other points of view in the hopes that people will accept theirs when it is the only one left. It is irrational and does absolutely nothing to prove they are correct. ID will never be a valid scientific fact until it provides EVIDENCE of a designer(s). And when that happens, I’ll change my mind about a lot of things (as will a lot of scientists).

“…the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favorite account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Steven J. Gould, Natural History, May 1977 p.14.

The article says “The mystical connotations of Bohm’s ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain ‘could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two — matter and spirit — is an abstraction.’” The operative word being “could.” He is not saying “yes it is consciousness.” This is his opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

All Bohm managed to do was show that there are things science cannot explain. This is not new. Scientists do not claim to know everything, even in regards to evolution. Scientists regularly update their theories based on new information. Just because there are things science has yet to explain does not automatically mean that ID is involved. All it means is that we don’t know. God or aliens or whatever may be involved, but we can’t assume that until we have proof (of which there is none outside of conjecture). Show me an alien fossil that is dated back to the time of single celled life forms and then we can talk ID.

I’ve discussed this in other forums as well and each argument comes down to this: science cannot explain absolutely all aspects of evolution, thus it is not valid. I said this already, but this to follow this logic is to say all scientific theories are invalid.

It is human nature to want to understand things. If there is no proof, it is our tendency to insert our own explanations. But lack of proof does not mean proof is lacking. The answer is there even though we can’t see it, but we don’t assume one thing is true–be it evolution or ID–unless we have the evidence, and we have museums full of proof of evolution (to fed ex it would cost a whole hell of a lot of cash).

When we see a situation we cannot explain, we simply say “I don’t know.” There is nothing wrong with not understanding something. There is something wrong with insisting that a particular answer is correct when there is no concrete evidence to support it.

One other thing. The site on which this is article is posted says the following (you have to go to the main page of the site): “Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern.” They admit they have a bias toward religion. It was originally printed in theosophy magazine (Sunrise).

For reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theosophy for a definition of theosophy (you guys probably already know this, but just in case…).

All of this brings the whole article into question in the first place. Without having read Bohm’s work, how do I know it is in the correct context? I could quote you stuff from the Democratic Underground and from the Daily Kos that Bush lied about the war on terror. Given the source, you would question that so-called evidence. The same thing applies here.

Read the article, you might change your minds about intelligent design. If you don’t have the technical expertise to understand the article, find a technically literate friend to explain it to you. As for me, the very big hole in Darwin, is the belief that complex life can come from pure chance. No way!!

Second, it is an obvious attempt to bring religion into the classroom. I’m starting to think is born of insecurity, and certainly ignorance. Science and religion aren’t competitors (the Catholic Church agrees with that statement). There doesn’t have to be this conflict, that’s one of the infuriating aspects of all this.

Anyhow, things might be ok in PA, but in Kansas they’ve just redefined science.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/

He also said “As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it.”

Ya know, we mere human beings are not the big Gods we believe ourselves to be and we would be wise to recognize this scientific, intellectually-designed fact.

Funny, there was a time when man believed the world is flat. Today, it seems that man still believes the world is flat. After 400 years of scientific research, one would think that science could offer more than just theories.

Your right about the science statement. I misspoke. Science regularly corrects itself, to be sure. My point is that it is based on tangible evidence. That evidence upholds theories which we accept ast true until new evidence proves otherwise.

The concept of a directed universe is not based on tangible evidence. Yes, there are patterns in nature, but a pattern does not dictate that it was directed by an intelligent force. I think this is where the argument is based. One side believes that the universe cannot possibly be random, therefore there is a supreme being(s) that directed it. The other side believes that it can happen randomly, that it does not need a supreme being(s) to operate, and thus God is tossed out the window ala Occam’s Razor. Both arguments are based on one thing: faith. One has faith it was directed, the other has faith it was not. Neither can prove it scientifically.

“And ID is NOT necessarily or primarily about faith. It is primarily a discussion of the scientific evidence for and against the premise of random or undirected changes in life forms.”

I’ve never heard ID used as an argument for undirected changes in life forms. The name “intelligent design” indicates that it was designed intelligently, not randomly (the argument for life without design is called “evolution”). Given that, an argument against the “undirected changes in life forms” implies that it was directed (by God or aliens or whatever). Since there is no evidence of this outside of coinicidence (which would never hold up in court, much less in science), it requires a measure of faith. A belief in a supreme being is the domain of religion. Like it or not, faith plays a very significant role in ID, as it requires one to accept the reality of something that cannot be proven (like God). Nothing wrong with that at all (I believe myself), but it is important to keep science and religion separate

On the other hand, the belief that there is no God and everything is random (the old Occam’s Razor argument) requires one to believe that because things can be simple they must be simple. It assumes that Occam’s Razor (the idea that the best conclusion is the simplest) is a fact, when it is just a philosophy–a sort of guiding rule. It is not absolute. So, one side says, “My religion trumps your philosophy” while the other says “my philosophy trumps your religion.” Maybe ID people and athiests should go bowling together. They have a lot in common.

“There are agnostic and atheist biologists who have no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing that the currently dominant theories have more holes than substance, and could be completely wrong.”

This is a very general statement. If it were truly had “more holes than substance” then scientists would reject it outright. The arguments against evolution that I have seen involve nitpicking. “This detail is wrong,” or, “that detail is wrong,” thus the whole theory is wrong. Of course the current theories have holes. So does theoretical physics (quantum mechanics and relativity have different views of gravity, for example). Just about every theory has holes in it. Even the law of gravity is not perfect (when you get close to the speed of light, it falls apart). We are imperfect creatures, and thus our creations (and theories) are not perfect. We try to come up with theories that work under most circumstances (any scientist will tell you that). Evolution, thus far, fits the evidence. It doesn’t provide all the answers, but what theory does?

The truth is that we don’t know everything about how we got here. Until someone can come up with concrete evidence that a being (or beings) directed evolution on our planet, the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation we have. To say that ID is a scientific alternative requires proof. Without proof it is little more than a debate exercise.

Having said all of this, my tendancy is to believe there is something greater. As Joe said, “I prefer the God who set up rules, and then stepped back and let them run, maybe occasionally performing a miracle or two.” I couldn’t agree more. But, again, that’s my faith and it should not be taught as fact to anyone (especially in school).