Changes

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferrences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought at '''idthefuture.com'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/a_note_to_teachers_part_3_science_and_th.html</ref><br /><br />

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought at '''idthefuture.com'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/a_note_to_teachers_part_3_science_and_th.html</ref><br /><br />

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The [[National Academy of Sciences|'''National Academy of Sciences''']] [[(NAS|('''NAS''')]] makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' <ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55.</ref>, the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The [[National Academy of Sciences|'''National Academy of Sciences''']] [[(NAS|('''NAS''')]] makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' <ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55.</ref>, the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosphically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inferrence of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosphically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

=== General Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology ===

=== General Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology ===

[[Image:Flagellum_2_ARN.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|Bacterial Flagellum]]

[[Image:Flagellum_2_ARN.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|Bacterial Flagellum]]

The general evidence for Intelligent Design in biological systems is evidence that can be used to support both unintelligent causation (e.g., Darwinism) and intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent Design Theory).  Thus, the general evidence for Intelligent Design is the same evidence that evolutionists, particularly Darwinists, use to support theories of unintelligent causation.  However, an objective approach shows that Darwinism is only one interpretation of the evidence.  As with any evidentiary question in which present day evidence is used to determine a past historical event (as in crime solving), it's the ''interpretation'' of the evidence against competing explanatory theories that permits one to converge on a best explanation. In the case of origins science the present day evidence in nature can be viewed in light of alternative explanatory causes. To ''a priori'' rule out intelligent causation and mandate only explanations involving unintelligent causes removes the inquiry from the realm of science.<ref>Indeed, one characteristic of '''''religion''''' is the presence of dogmatic views.  The mark of true science is ''tentativeness'' in holding to theories. Ironically, once a theory like Darwinism becomes unchallengeable based on the supposed religious implications of a competing theory, Darwinism itself is converted from science to religion.</ref> Insisting that science can only consider unintelligent causation converts origins science into unchallengeable dogma. Science should be tentative, considering all reasonable causal inferrences based on observed material data.

The general evidence for Intelligent Design in biological systems is evidence that can be used to support both unintelligent causation (e.g., Darwinism) and intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent Design Theory).  Thus, the general evidence for Intelligent Design is the same evidence that evolutionists, particularly Darwinists, use to support theories of unintelligent causation.  However, an objective approach shows that Darwinism is only one interpretation of the evidence.  As with any evidentiary question in which present day evidence is used to determine a past historical event (as in crime solving), it's the ''interpretation'' of the evidence against competing explanatory theories that permits one to converge on a best explanation. In the case of origins science the present day evidence in nature can be viewed in light of alternative explanatory causes. To ''a priori'' rule out intelligent causation and mandate only explanations involving unintelligent causes removes the inquiry from the realm of science.<ref>Indeed, one characteristic of '''''religion''''' is the presence of dogmatic views.  The mark of true science is ''tentativeness'' in holding to theories. Ironically, once a theory like Darwinism becomes unchallengeable based on the supposed religious implications of a competing theory, Darwinism itself is converted from science to religion.</ref> Insisting that science can only consider unintelligent causation converts origins science into unchallengeable dogma. Science should be tentative, considering all reasonable causal inferences based on observed material data.

Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature.

Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature.

Origin of life, therefore, is ''prima facie'' evidence of intelligent agency, and is at minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific inferrence of intelligent design.

Origin of life, therefore, is ''prima facie'' evidence of intelligent agency, and is at minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific inference of intelligent design.

==== Specified Complex Information ====

==== Specified Complex Information ====

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated."  The "separation" is epistomological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated."  The "separation" is epistomological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inferrence based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer'''''.  Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer'''''.  Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored: