Intelligent Design: Is DNA Reshuffling Truly Evidence Against Evolution?

[skihobbes]

Hey all--I am a high school physics teacher, A student asked me a question about the fact that DNA does not increase the amount of information in the strand--the information is just reshuffled. I have searched and I have read many people saying this is inaccurate but nobody gives any specific examples. Can anyone help me out with this argument?

Thanks in advance.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Depends on the strict definition of information.
There is no more information in the works of Shakespeare than there is an a random sequence of letters of the same length.
This, along with arguments about increasing complexity and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, are common attacks on evolution.

 

[skihobbes]

Depends on the strict definition of information.
There is no more information in the works of Shakespeare than there is an a random sequence of letters of the same length.
This, along with arguments about increasing complexity and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, are common attacks on evolution.

Right. I think he means that an increase from say 10 to 12 bits of information. I think he is referring to quantity. I don't think he is concerned with the complexity of the information.

I have a physics degree so I handled the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

 

[Evo]

Hey all--I am a high school physics teacher, A student asked me a question about the fact that DNA does not increase the amount of information in the strand--the information is just reshuffled. I have searched and I have read many people saying this is inaccurate but nobody gives any specific examples. Can anyone help me out with this argument?

Thanks in advance.

First, Intelligent Design is religion, it has no place in school, so I'm confused about the thread title.

A student asked me a question about the fact that DNA does not increase the amount of information in the strand--the information is just reshuffled.

What about his question has some point? What exactly are you asking?

 

[Ryuk1990]

First, Intelligent Design is religion, it has no place in school, so I'm confused about the thread title.

Does it have to be exclusively religion? I thought some ID theorists didn't believe supernatural entities but rather more advanced species (extraterrestrials) that designed us.

 

[Evo]

Does it have to be exclusively religion? I thought some ID theorists didn't believe supernatural entities but rather more advanced species (extraterrestrials) that designed us.

It's still religion. Or pointless hand waving, either way, the people that created it are Christian creationists and made it up in order to try to get it snuck into public school curriculums. It's not science.

 

[skihobbes]

First, Intelligent Design is religion, it has no place in school, so I'm confused about the thread title.

What about his question has some point? What exactly are you asking?

Going back to the book analogy mentioned above--let's say you have 1000 letters. Has the number of letters actually increased. For example---1000 letters become 1100. I explained that the dictionary has more information than the same number of random letters--and he understood that. So I guess it isn't "information" but quantity of letters increasing.

Oh--I know ID has no place in school. This isn't part of instruction--he is a smart kid (and he is actually not religious--more of a deist) and we have just been having this discussion after class.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Does it have to be exclusively religion? I thought some ID theorists didn't believe supernatural entities

Intelligent design is creationism, calling it intelligent design is just a stalking horse to say 'this isn't a religious issue'.

 

[Evo]

Going back to the book analogy mentioned above--let's say you have 1000 letters. Has the number of letters actually increased. For example---1000 letters become 1100. I explained that the dictionary has more information than the same number of random letters--and he understood that. So I guess it isn't "information" but quantity of letters increasing.

Oh--I know ID has no place in school. This isn't part of instruction--he is a smart kid (and he is actually not religious--more of a deist) and we have just been having this discussion after class.

Ok, so why would DNA have to change? For what? You didn't say. What's his argument behind his question?

 

[NobodySpecial]

Going back to the book analogy mentioned above--let's say you have 1000 letters. Has the number of letters actually increased. For example---1000 letters become 1100. I explained that the dictionary has more information than the same number of random letters--and he understood that.

Sorry - there is a certain tendency to leap on ID/Creationism like a kitten on a ball of wool!

The amount of DNA bases, or the number of chromosones doesn't translate to the evolution or advanced-ess of a species. Actually an important point in evolution is that nothing alive today is more advanced or evolved than anything else alive today.
Sharks are just as evolved as primates, there is an unfortunate tendency in textbooks and science programs to say that sharks are 'living fossils' because their body plan is the same as it was 200MYr ago. The job it has to do hasn't changed, and it's so close to perfect that there aren't any big changes that are advantageous - but that doesn't mean it isn't evolved.

DNA mutations more frequently shuffle base pairs than introduce new ones - this is totally irrelevent. All DNA does is make proteins, mutation makes differnet protein, that gives an animal an advantage, animal has more babies, that new 'mutation' is in the babies, it becomes normal.

 

[skihobbes]

DNA mutations more frequently shuffle base pairs than introduce new ones - this is totally irrelevent.

I TOTALLY get your argument. But do we have examples of DNA increasing the base pairs.

Also--I can already see this question coming--what was the process that allowed DNA to evolve.

 

[Evo]

Going back to the book analogy mentioned above--let's say you have 1000 letters. Has the number of letters actually increased. For example---1000 letters become 1100. I explained that the dictionary has more information than the same number of random letters--and he understood that. So I guess it isn't "information" but quantity of letters increasing.

Oh--I know ID has no place in school. This isn't part of instruction--he is a smart kid (and he is actually not religious--more of a deist) and we have just been having this discussion after class.

Ok, so why would DNA have to change? For what? You didn't say. What's his argument behind his question?

You need to answer these questions before we can continue.

 

[skihobbes]

Ok, so why would DNA have to change? For what? You didn't say. What's his argument behind his question?

You need to answer these questions before we can continue.

Agreed. I don't know. I will ask tomorrow.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Evo]

Agreed. I don't know. I will ask tomorrow.

Thanks for your help.

Thanks, once we know what he's thinking, it may be very simple to point out where his error lies.

We won't go around in circles trying to guess what he's thinking, that's pointless.

 

[kkemerait]

Sure, no problem

Actually there are methodologies for adding information to a genome by duplication and polyploidy. For example, If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information. We know this because researchers have now got to the point where they have read out (sequenced) every last bit of the DNA in some bacteria. This means that it's possible to do before-and-after measurements.

Here is a link with other scientific references if you'd like to track them down ..

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html"

 

[tkjtkj]

Hey all--I am a high school physics teacher, A student asked me a question about the fact that DNA does not increase the amount of information in the strand--the information is just reshuffled. I have searched and I have read many people saying this is inaccurate but nobody gives any specific examples. Can anyone help me out with this argument?

Thanks in advance.

The simplest answer would be in the case of micro-organisms where it is common knowledge (ie, has been scientifically proved over and over, even video-graphed) that free strands of DNA (i.e., floating freely, not inside any living cell) are often 'ingested' ( absorbed) into a near-by organism. This 'transfer of plasmids' , eg, is one mechanism that bacteria use to spread specific antibiotic drug resistance among the population.
This fact exemplifies that , indeed, DNA information can be increased within a cell.
But what does this have to do with the religion known as 'Intelligent Design'?

 

[tkjtkj]

The job it has to do hasn't changed, and it's so close to perfect that there aren't any big changes that are advantageous - but that doesn't mean it isn't evolved.

Correct. It is accurate to say that a shark is, in fact, highly-evolved. That species seems to fit perfectly into its niche.
Most of us err and equate 'evolving' with something such as 'gaining intelligence'. Then we misapply that concept to homo sapiens , a species which has progressed to the point of being fully capable of eradicating itself from the planet .. a very unintelligent thing!

 

[nobahar]

Sorry if I have misunderstood. But you might want to look at retrotransposons (and transposons in general), polyploidy, and even differential splicing. Mutations may even lead to different interactions between genes (especially important in embryogenesis, and development more generally), and pleiotropy may also be taken into account (a mutation in a gene may alter it's interactions with other genes and alter development aswell). This all counts as increasing information, I think. The last two may not be quite what your looking for, but I think the first three satisfy what you are after.

 

[Barakn]

Polyploidy does indeed increase the amount of DNA in a cell (and can act as a speciation event), but does that really count as an increase in information? Would you know more about the Bill of Rights if I were to hand you two copies of it rather than just one? And does horizontal transfer of a drug-resistance plasmid explain the origin of the information in that plasmid?

To understand the student's original question, one must unfortunately think from the point of view of a creationist. Humans (and presumably their DNA) were perfect until the fall from grace due to an unfortunate incident with a fruit. The only thing that happen with perfect DNA once no longer protected by God's favor is for mistakes and degradation to occur. The longevity of Methuselah and other ancient crones is evidence that the human race is becoming more and more imperfect as time wears on. When referring to information in DNA, they are referring to "useful" information, information that has not been degraded from its original state.

The answer to this riddle is deceptively simple. The environment adds information to the genome via natural selection. New genetic variations, whether they are point mutations in a gene or promoter, duplications of a gene or an entire genome, or DNA pulled in from an exogenous source, are all put to the test in the physical world. The world gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down - either the variant works as well or better or it does not. It's this constant trashing of the bad information, this constant trying and testing of new information, that allows Nature to not only maintain a species but to improve upon it - humans included.

 

[Borek]

Depends on the strict definition of information.
There is no more information in the works of Shakespeare than there is an a random sequence of letters of the same length.

I would risk a guess that Shakespeare work - as much more ordered - has much less information.

 

[bobze]

Polyploidy does indeed increase the amount of DNA in a cell (and can act as a speciation event), but does that really count as an increase in information? Would you know more about the Bill of Rights if I were to hand you two copies of it rather than just one? And does horizontal transfer of a drug-resistance plasmid explain the origin of the information in that plasmid?

To understand the student's original question, one must unfortunately think from the point of view of a creationist. Humans (and presumably their DNA) were perfect until the fall from grace due to an unfortunate incident with a fruit. The only thing that happen with perfect DNA once no longer protected by God's favor is for mistakes and degradation to occur. The longevity of Methuselah and other ancient crones is evidence that the human race is becoming more and more imperfect as time wears on. When referring to information in DNA, they are referring to "useful" information, information that has not been degraded from its original state.

The answer to this riddle is deceptively simple. The environment adds information to the genome via natural selection. New genetic variations, whether they are point mutations in a gene or promoter, duplications of a gene or an entire genome, or DNA pulled in from an exogenous source, are all put to the test in the physical world. The world gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down - either the variant works as well or better or it does not. It's this constant trashing of the bad information, this constant trying and testing of new information, that allows Nature to not only maintain a species but to improve upon it - humans included.

Thumbs up! Couldn't have said it better.

I TOTALLY get your argument. But do we have examples of DNA increasing the base pairs.

Also--I can already see this question coming--what was the process that allowed DNA to evolve.

As others have pointed out, mutations such as insertions, transposable elements or gene duplication events are the stuff of evolution. As they provide "new" genetic information for mutation to alter, until such a time it will be useful in the context of the environment in which it arose.

When this happens, we have one of those nifty "compounding interest" situations. Because not all variants (organisms) in a population are equally likely to survive or reproduce, those with the best fecundity and survivability for the environment will be more likely to pass on their hereditary information. Thus, in each successive generation a new allele or new gene will increase in frequency.

There are literally hundreds of thousands examples to choose from. From lactase genes in humans, to persistent hereditary fetal hemoglobin to mecA MRSAs.

 

[nobahar]

Polyploidy does indeed increase the amount of DNA in a cell (and can act as a speciation event), but does that really count as an increase in information? Would you know more about the Bill of Rights if I were to hand you two copies of it rather than just one? And does horizontal transfer of a drug-resistance plasmid explain the origin of the information in that plasmid?

Hi, Barakn; thanks for the reply to my post.
I think polyploidy offers the opportunity for an increase in information. Let's say there is a gene A that is essential to the organism. Any non-neutral mutations in the gene would not be tolerated by the organism. Polyploidy offers the opportunity to modify the gene because the gene is present on a duplicate chromosome. This qualifies as a gain in information, because A is retained whilst a new gene - B - can be introduced. Alternatively, say that a gene C is converted to a gene D through mutation. There would be no GAIN in information. However, polyploidy would both allow C to convert to D yet still retain C on a duplicate chromosome. This is a gain in information. It literally gives more physical DNA to play with whilst retaining all the other genes of the organism. This is of course all in my rather humble opinion!

The answer to this riddle is deceptively simple. The environment adds information to the genome via natural selection. New genetic variations, whether they are point mutations in a gene or promoter...

I don't think these would qualify as a gain in information, just a change in information, but I think I have taken this out of context. Apologies if that is the case.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

Polyploidy does indeed increase the amount of DNA in a cell (and can act as a speciation event), but does that really count as an increase in information?

Polyploidy can just be increase in the number - which means increase in no. of copies of the same genes. DO not know what role it has in speciation ?

does horizontal transfer of a drug-resistance plasmid explain the origin of the information in that plasmid?

I do not understand - are u suggesting the origin is from some other source ?

 

[schip666!]

Complexity is orthogonal to Information (in the Shannon sense). Using Information Theory one can estimate the total number of states that a system can occupy, but it tells you very little about it's "organization". It's counter intuitive, but if you have a high Shannon Information value you have a more _random_ system. To get a handle on organization you can compare the actual system configurations to the theoretical total to see how the information space is reduced. This is the obvious result of the Monkey's writing Shakespeare issue -- a document can be composed of N combinations of characters, but only a few of those combinations will have any perceivable "order" and only one will be Romeo and Juliet. Order is a function of sequences of characters which is not addressed in base level information measurements.

There are other "Complexity Measures" that may be more appropriate to the DNA problem -- a search for that phrase will provide a dizzying number of options. I also constantly reference this paper for an introduction: Inferring Statistical Complexity --
http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~cmg/papers/ISC.pdf

And I find it just astounding that the supposedly Scientific Community's response to all of the ID folks complexity arguments is so clueless...

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hey all--I am a high school physics teacher, A student asked me a question about the fact that DNA does not increase the amount of information in the strand--the information is just reshuffled. I have searched and I have read many people saying this is inaccurate but nobody gives any specific examples. Can anyone help me out with this argument?

Depends on the strict definition of information.
There is no more information in the works of Shakespeare than there is an a random sequence of letters of the same length.
This, along with arguments about increasing complexity and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, are common attacks on evolution.

Going back to the book analogy mentioned above--let's say you have 1000 letters. Has the number of letters actually increased. For example---1000 letters become 1100. I explained that the dictionary has more information than the same number of random letters--and he understood that. So I guess it isn't "information" but quantity of letters increasing.

Polyploidy does indeed increase the amount of DNA in a cell (and can act as a speciation event), but does that really count as an increase in information? Would you know more about the Bill of Rights if I were to hand you two copies of it rather than just one? And does horizontal transfer of a drug-resistance plasmid explain the origin of the information in that plasmid?

Hi, Barakn; thanks for the reply to my post.
I think polyploidy offers the opportunity for an increase in information.

There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread regarding information theory mixed in with a lot of good information regarding genetics.

First- the information content of a string of symbols. The information content can be uniquely and precisely specified in two ways: 1) the Shannon entropy and 2) the Kolmogorov complexity.

The Shannon entropy is a measure that is appropriate for the transmission of a stream of signals, and relates to how well you can *predict* the next symbol, given that you know the value of the current symbol. For a random string of binary digits, each bit is associated with k ln(2) units of entropy (kT ln(2) units of energy). English text carries approximately 12 bits of entropy per word.

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/papers/stanford_info_paper/entropy_of_english_9.htm

Kolmogorov complexity relates to the inherent information content of what is encoded, and is more difficult to quantify. One way is to set the Kolmogorov information as the minimum length message required to specify the object, or alternatively, the number of computer instructions required to reproduce the result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

The use of 'information' and 'entropy' in this context are opposite our intuitive sense of the terms- a random string of bits has maximal information, but makes no sense to us. So, it is common to use 'negentropy' of a string in order to make the concepts intuitive.

So now the question becomes, "How does DNA encode information?" I'm not an expert, but there are several ways to formulate a response:

1) each base pair of DNA corresponds to (IIRC) k ln(4) bits of information. So increasing the length of DNA increases the information.

2) Not all DNA encodes 'useful' information: introns and 'junk' DNA (to be sure, much of what we used to think of as noncoding DNA is used for alternative purposes). This is at the limit of my understanding of information theory, as the Kolmogorov measure is more appropriate.

3) One gene can encode multiple proteins through splicing and post-translational modification. This is at the limit of my understanding of genetics.

4) cells and higher-level structures operate using regulatory feedback networks: for example, the jak/stat pathway leads to nuclear translocation of a DNA-binding protein to regulate gene expression. It's not clear how this higher-level network relates to the information content of the genome.

5) Our cells contain more DNA than what's in the nucleus: mitochondrial DNA, for example. And AFAIK, it's not clear how centrosomes multiply after the cell has divided.

So, bottom line, DNA does encode information in a quantifiable way.

There's another problem pertaining to dealing with ID arguments- your opponent is not constrained by logic. No amount of logical argument will suffice to convince them that life and evolution are subject to the same physical constraints as say, a block of wood sliding down an inclined plane.

 

[ViewsofMars]

So now the question becomes, "How does DNA encode information?"

Andy, that is a superb question. Thanks. I'd like to tag along with what you have already shared and introduce what Nature Education (1) has on "DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information":

What do a human, a rose, and a bacterium have in common? Each of these things — along with every other organism on Earth — contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. Encoded within this DNA are the directions for traits as diverse as the color of a person's eyes, the scent of a rose, and the way in which bacteria infect a lung cell.

DNA is found in nearly all living cells. However, its exact location within a cell depends on whether that cell possesses a special membrane-bound organelle called a nucleus. Organisms composed of cells that contain nuclei are classified as eukaryotes, whereas organisms composed of cells that lack nuclei are classified as prokaryotes. In eukaryotes, DNA is housed within the nucleus, but in prokaryotes, DNA is located directly within the cellular cytoplasm, as there is no nucleus available.

But what, exactly, is DNA? In short, DNA is a complex molecule that consists of many components, a portion of which are passed from parent organisms to their offspring during the process of reproduction. Although each organism's DNA is unique, all DNA is composed of the same nitrogen-based molecules. So how does DNA differ from organism to organism? It is simply the order in which these smaller molecules are arranged that differs among individuals. In turn, this pattern of arrangement ultimately determines each organism's unique characteristics, thanks to another set of molecules that "read" the pattern and stimulate the chemical and physical processes it calls for.

Please read on . . .
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050

1. "Nature Education is a new division of Nature Publishing Group devoted to facilitating high quality, innovative, accessible science education in all countries of the world. Nature Education is currently focused on bringing together high quality content, a global community of faculty, researchers, and students, and technology-based learning tools to provide a new and powerful kind of science learning experience."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/about

 

[ViewsofMars]

Oh--I know ID has no place in school.

Dear OP, many of us have known that the Intelligent Design Theory was debunked long ago. The American Association for the Advancement of Science Board of Directors on 10/18/02 made a Resolution:

on Intelligent Design Theory

The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

Also from the AAAS from 2002:

AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition
to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.

"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."

American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.

Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:

"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."

In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."

Please read on . . .
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml

 

[Upisoft]

I would risk a guess that Shakespeare work - as much more ordered - has much less information.

"Random" doesn't necessary mean "less ordered".

 

[schip666!]

"Random" doesn't necessary mean "less ordered".

Ok, I'll bite... Please explain.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'd like to add a few items to this topic.

From Nature Education:

Are Mutations Random?

The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.

However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127

From the National Human Genome Research Institute:

How are DNA sequences used to make proteins?
DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins.
http://www.genome.gov/25520880

Please be aware of the following:
"Importantly, modern proponents of Intelligent Design, the latest version of creationism, have exploited biologists’ use of the language of information and blueprints to make their spurious case, based on pseudoscientific concepts such as “irreducible complexity” and on flawed analogies between living cells and mechanical factories." Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boundry (Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education- 06/2010 - 2010: Springer Science+Business Media)

 

[Evo]

Great posts ViewsofMars!

 

[Philophysis]

Intelligent design is creationism, calling it intelligent design is just a stalking horse to say 'this isn't a religious issue'.

Religion is defined primarily as, "a strong belief in supernatural power or powers that control human destiny", or as, "an institution to express belief in divine power".

Taking the first of these two, let's examine the word supernatural.

Supernatural is defined primarily as, "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material."

By the definition of supernatural, it is possible to therefore infer that a being of non-supernatural nature could exist with intelligence and the means to design our universe. If the possibility of such a being actually existing is plausible, and if it does in fact exist despite our failings to unveil it, then it's obvious that it is only by the short reach of our potentially flawed perception, can't see something as real as you or I.

This is clearly intrinsic of all things we believe to be true or untrue, as history shows us that through its course, humanity has held many things as fact or fiction that we now know to be extremely incorrect in the modern sciences (i.e. the Earth is flat) and it was not until a way was discovered through the enlightened perception of a few to prove or disprove these now outdated ideas.

I'm not saying there's some big guy sitting on a leather couch that put a bunch of atoms into a primordial easy bake oven and out we came, I'm just saying the possibility is there, and therefore, it's possible to conceive of this without calling it religion.

 

[Evo]

Religion is defined primarily as, "a strong belief in supernatural power or powers that control human destiny", or as, "an institution to express belief in divine power".

Taking the first of these two, let's examine the word supernatural.

No, you don't understand. Intelligent Design is make believe nonsense created by a couple of creationists, Micheal Behe and Stephen Meyer. There is no guessing, it's all very well documented.

Defining science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[128] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science.[129] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 28][130][n 29] it is expected to be:

Consistent

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

Progressive (refines previous theories)

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[131] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 30] is not scientifically useful,[n 31] is not falsifiable,[n 32] is not empirically testable,[n 33] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[n 34][n 35][n 36]

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[132] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the US Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.

The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.

The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Origin_of_the_concept

And to put the nail in the coffin, The Wedge document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

[Andy Resnick]

Religion is defined primarily as, "a strong belief in supernatural power or powers that control human destiny", or as, "an institution to express belief in divine power".

Taking the first of these two, let's examine the word supernatural.

Supernatural is defined primarily as, "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material."

By the definition of supernatural, it is possible to therefore infer that a being of non-supernatural nature could exist with intelligence and the means to design our universe. If the possibility of such a being actually existing is plausible, and if it does in fact exist despite our failings to unveil it, then it's obvious that it is only by the short reach of our potentially flawed perception, can't see something as real as you or I.

This is all irrelevant to the issue of teaching ID as part of a *science curriculum*. ID is not subject to scientific reasoning, therefore it is not science and should not be taught as such.

 

[shadowofman]

I am not a teacher, but if I were, I do believe I would address the issue of ID on day one and only on day one.

"Some people hypothesize that our observations of nature are to various degrees controlled by an unseen and powerful designer. This is an acceptable hypothesis, but at this point in human technology cannot be further verified using the scientific method. This hypothesis is therefore left to the philosophical studies and will not be discussed in science class this year."

Sort of a non-confrontational.

Great answers everyone, btw.