Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Originally posted by WolfofWar
While I don't have time to sift through several pages of pseudo-scientific double talk on these pro-creationist sites, maybe you can enlighten me on what ID is all about?

Or in other words, you choose to remain willfully ignorant re: this topic, as it fits more comfortably with your world view.

Give me a rough synopsis on the theory.

Because according to the basic theory Intelligent Design is this. "Certain features within the universe and living things are best explained as created by an intelligent force (god) and not natural selection."

Completely and patently false. The DI does not insist that (god) is the intelligent force. The only people who insist this is are design opponents who are more or less totally unfamiliar with the theory. Please reference the page where the DI says 'God did it.'

Design theory simply holds the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. God doesn't enter the equation until people such as your self add it.

How is that, in any way, contradictory to my slimmer, more slicker summary of the I.D. Beliefs? "God did It."

It differs completely as no ID proponent states that ID=God did it. Just like most Darwinists don't go around saying their theory is 'God didn't do it.' Maybe it's fun to say and all, but it's not true.

See, big difference.

If its wrong, please enlighten me, really, I love to learn, teach me oh wise one.

Really you love to learn... Hmmmm.... kind of seems to go against your first statement here where you had judged a bunch of stuff you hadn't read as pseudoscientific.

Not much learning happening thus far.

Well mattison, I sifted because theres 14 pages of nothing but two sides bickeringfrom what I've seen, with really no talk about the subject at hand.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Well mattison, I sifted because theres 14 pages of nothing but two sides bickeringfrom what I've seen, with really no talk about the subject at hand.

And this is supposed to somehow absolve you of your responsibility to make informed statements? You looked at one source, found it tedious, and not to like your liking, so you abandoned the entire topic. What, is this the one and only source of info re: ID you have access to?

I don't even know what your source you're refering to, as the sources that Rren has posted recently were not '14 pages of nothing;' they appeared to be what was being asked for. Not agreeing with something is one thing, choosing to be willfully ignorant, and espousing that ignorance as some sort of informed opinion is entirely different thing, and is really... lame.

Is this how you treat all subjects that are not to your liking? You know what, I hated P-Chem, but knowing P-Chem is part of being a biochemist, so I sucked it up, read the books, visited with people that actually understood it, and did my part to learn about it.

I'm sorry, but whoever told you that learning was going to be fun and easy all the time was sadly mistaken.

You don't like the 14 page source? Fine, don't read it and don't talk about it, but either look for another source that you can comprehend, or don't try to come off as a person that actually knows what they're talking about.

I mean... if that's your MO, and it's working for you.... I guess you can stick with it, but I can't imagine it's a good long term option.

I'D (pun) really prefer this debate to stay on topic, if it may please all. Also, there is no need for anyone to wave their majic (pun2) wand and educate me on this fascinating subject toot sweet. That education is happening daily as this thread is woven into 'whole cloth.

So far I have nothing to add, because it's all so fascinating.

Hmm…Paul_Richard for such a long standing member of the community, I find the introductory post rather odd. Most people, seem to check certain key pieces of information before they post. However, I will now do that for you and explain each one.

Evolutionary theory is just that...a theory.

This is actually, not a bad thing. The definition of theory is:

[1]
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

In the most simple form, what this means is. A group of people or an individual, create, think up, dream, hear of a theory and then they decide they are going to test it. This theory, once tested is then given over to the scientific community for others to test. If it can stand up to the majority of tests and no other theory can disprove it then it becomes accepted. This is what has happened to evolution, however your grasp on what evolution actually is seems to be lacking or at least you’ve not operationalised which theory of evolution you have problems with.

Science is falsifiable. Creationism, does not at this point have any studies conducted in its name that have not been disprove already. If it does, I am having a lot of difficulty finding them.

So why is it being a theory a bad thing? All science is theory after theory.

The probability of a Universe and life coming into being from pure chance alone is fantastically small and makes no sense.

So because you can’t comprehend something, it makes it untrue? Do you have a full understanding of every scientific study? Social study? Political theory? Of course you do not, however because you can’t comprehend something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Furthermore, what is fantastically small odds? 1 in a billion? One in ten billion? If each star is one sun of a solar system, how many stars can you see? It is logical we can’t see them all from Earth so there are probably billions. If we are the only one to develop intelligent life that the statistical chance isn’t as fantastic as you’d imagine.

However, let us go back your problem with evolution.

like the never found missing link between apes and man

So, you will openly over-look the ones they have shown evidence of evolution in for millions of years? I suggest, you check out the internet for transitional fossils. [2] As well as the page specifically on horses[3], which is the most interesting and detailed.

An argument against Intelligent Design is that it is really just a clever form of Creationism. Yet many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions were able to separate Creationism from Deism

Emphasis mine.

Do you have any factual information to back this up? Do you know for a fact, that they agreed with every aspect of Deism or that they fully understood it? If you have problems with the lack of evidence that evolution has, when you make such wild claims you need to be able to back it up with evidence yourself.

while also being instrumental in furthering the principle of separation of church and state. So the argument that ID is simply Creationism in disguise and that it threatens the separation of church and state, simply doesn't wash.

The United State’s didn’t have a Federal Education System till 1979 [4]. Furthermore, it was mostly private till 1840 - this was many years after the death of these people. Also the theory of Intelligent Design has differed throughout history, be it the Logos of Greece or the watchmaker analogy of William Paley.

So again, this line of reasoning is flawed.

In light of all of the above, Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolutionism is taught as a theory.

What above? You’ve given no facts, not named one theory or anything else. In fact, your argument that evolution lacks evidence is laughable at best. At worst, this whole thread should be trashed because you have yourself been reluctant to supply evidence as to why intelligent design should be used. However, I myself do not mind quoting the NSTA:

[5]
Science teachers should not advocate any religious interpretations of nature and should be nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students.

Read the whole page, is very interesting.

It is interesting how you post such a thread calling for “Intelligent Design” to be included in the education system of the United State’s. Your initial idea that evolution is lacking in evidence, comes from the standpoint of someone who has not conducted a large volume of research into transitional fossils. But worst of all, you have not supplied any evidence that intelligent Design should be taken as a credible theory. As I pointed out before, science is falsifiable and intelligent design is not and thus not a science.

Micro and Macro-evolution has been proven, both Grant’s Study on Finches [6] and Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium [7] provide scientific evidence. Then you have the legal cases which have all ruled, Intelligent Design is non-scientific:

• Edwards v. Aguillard
  
• Webster v. New Lennox School District
  
• McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

These are just the ones I have written down and there have been many others.

If you desire to have Intelligent Design taught in the education system, maybe you should give evidence for it and not just your opinion? Science is not opinion after all.


[1] education.yahoo.com...
[2] talkorigins.org...
[3] talkorigins.org...
[4] en.wikipedia.org...
[5] www.nsta.org...&psid=10
[6] www.encyclopedia.com...
[7] en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: Fix some BBCode

[edit on 13/8/2006 by Odium]

Gotta call this one.

Originally posted by Odium
Micro and Macro-evolution has been proven, both Grant’s Study on Finches

Please explain in detail how a 5% statistical variation in the beak size of finches, is proof of macroevolution - that is formation of new biological structures, etc. In fact the long term data associated with the Grants study fits quite nicely in even a strict creationist model. In that sense, it's just as much proof for the various creation models. I discuss this in some detail here

Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium [7] provide scientific evidence.

This appears to be a misrepresentation. Here the term theory is used in a context of providing 'scientific evidence.' Gould's punkeek 'theory' is not a 'theory' in the same sense that the Theory of Evolution is a theory, that is there isn't mountains of evidence that allegedly support it. Hey Rren... how ironic is it that I'm using this argument for a change. Bizarre.

Furthermore, Gould's punkeek theory is a way around missing evidence. Gould's theory in fact specifies why there will be no evidence to prove itself (punkeek). In fact, the 'theory' states that most species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens by separating and isolating populations - formally called 'splitting,' and is believed to occur relatively quickly. It's further believed that since splitting and subsequent genetic and morphological change occurs so quickly, the already incredibly slim chances of something fossilizing are further reduced, and punkeek thus leaves no evidence in it's wake.

Then you have the legal cases which have all ruled, Intelligent Design is non-scientific:

Courts DO NOT decide what is and what isn't science. The science community as a whole does this. In fact, those cases are not about what science is per se; they are about what is legal to be taught in public school science classes. There's a big difference.

Yes... I've read much of the transcript of the other recent trial as well, and I am fully aware of Juge Jones' ruling and statements. In reference to his opinion as a trained lawyer of what is and what isn't science is still irrelevant.

You're probably not aware of this, but it's not as if new scientific ideas, including those of Darwin are well generally well accepted when first offered. In fact, Darwin's ideas were debated and called pseudoscience by the budding science community when he first described them... much like the ID movement today.

It's not like the courts have a record of making great decisions anyway... not trying to change the topic of this thread, but in the courts it was 'proven' that OJ Simpson didn't murder two people.

Science is not opinion after all.

Apparently you've never been to a science meeting and observed two geeky nerdy people getting into an argument over the identification of a species, not just an argument, a foul mouthed, name calling, argument on the verge of getting physical. I have... and plenty more like it for different ridiculous reasons... who sold whom a contaminated culture, etc. Believe me... more than a little bit of opinion is mixed in with research.


[edit on 13-8-2006 by mattison0922]

But worst of all, you have not supplied any evidence that intelligent Design should be taken as a credible theory. As I pointed out before, science is falsifiable and intelligent design is not and thus not a science.

Untrue. Out of curiosity how would one falsify blind undirected origins/evolution?

So far as falsification of ID how about: Ken Miller's "acid test" from his book Finding Darwin's God "[use] the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multipart system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it." (Miller 1999, 145) Discussed online (by Behe) here and here; From K. Miller here (the Miller link contains the two pages of his book being discussed and a few more relevant links at the bottom of the page)

How about: The Double Standard for Intelligent Design and Testability


Also see Dembski's response to E. Scott: Is Intelligent Design Testable?

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Also see: Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics

Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

That last link is the best one imo and I would start there. BTW what do transitional fossils have to do with ID? What do they prove and how do they prove it? It seems you have ID confused with special creation. In fact I'm sure you're confused based on what cases you post as decisions against ID.

Micro and Macro-evolution has been proven, both Grant’s Study on Finches [6] and Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium [7] provide scientific evidence. Then you have the legal cases which have all ruled, Intelligent Design is non-scientific:

I believe mattison covered the Grants' and Gould's work already (BTW odium natural selection (Finch beaks) is a conservative process)

... but wrt legal cases you claim establish that ID is not science:

Edwards v. Aguillard
Webster v. New Lennox [sic] School District
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

All three cases involved teaching Biblical creationism and not ID. Perhaps you're thinking of Dover (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), no? You were impressed that a Judge could be literature bluffed, or you are comfortable with science via judicial fiat? IOW had Jones ruled in favor of ID would you accept that it's [ID] scientific? I would think not.

It is a 1 in 600million chance to win the Multi State Lottery, does this mean no one will ever win the state lottery?

It is a 1 in 54,660 chance to get a 4 of a kind in Texas Hold Em, does this mean no one ever gets a 4 of a kind?

It is a 1 in 6 billion chance to give birth to a kid who suffers from the disease that makes werewolf like hair grow on them, does this mean no kids like that exist?(There are, they are circus performers who started out as freak shows then moved to the trapeez((spelling?))

So, just because there is a huge inprobability of something happening does it mean it won't? NO! If I deal you 15 cards from 5 full card sets what are the chances of you getting that exact hand? 1 in a 1,000,000,000? 1 in 5,000,000,000,000? But you have that hand in your hand right now, do you dispute whatever hand you have just because the chances of having that hand are 1 in 999,999,999,999,999,999 or do you accept you have those cards in your hand?

:bnghd:

Originally posted by Theory Man
It is a 1 in 600million chance to win the Multi State Lottery, does this mean no one will ever win the state lottery?

It is a 1 in 54,660 chance to get a 4 of a kind in Texas Hold Em, does this mean no one ever gets a 4 of a kind?

It is a 1 in 6 billion chance to give birth to a kid who suffers from the disease that makes werewolf like hair grow on them, does this mean no kids like that exist?(There are, they are circus performers who started out as freak shows then moved to the trapeez((spelling?))

Ummm... was this is in reference to something specific, or are you just trying to hijack this thread into some bizarre discussion about probabilities?

Seriously...

So, just because there is a huge inprobability of something happening does it mean it won't? NO! If I deal you 15 cards from 5 full card sets what are the chances of you getting that exact hand? 1 in a 1,000,000,000? 1 in 5,000,000,000,000? But you have that hand in your hand right now, do you dispute whatever hand you have just because the chances of having that hand are 1 in 999,999,999,999,999,999 or do you accept you have those cards in your hand?

Hmmm.... I'm no expert in statistics, and don't feel like breaking out the books this late, but doesn't the probability of getting any hand of 15 cards from 5 sets approach something like 5 * (15^52)? This of course doesn't account for not being able to be dealt the same card from the same hand twice. Perhaps that would be something like (4*15^52) * (15^51) after dealing one card. In any case the number is obviously much larger than you indicate here.

Okay 'theory' man, I think I understand the point you are quite unsuccessfully trying to make. The point is not about the chances of some random thing happening, the point is about specified information, not just willy nilly information.

Okay bud, you're so confident in your idea. Sit there with one deck of cards, perform a fair shuffle before each hand, and before dealing specify what the hand will be. As soon as you've managed to pull off that trick, you'll still have only accopmplished something that's at least dozens of orders of magnitude away from a probability that's relevant in an OOL scenario.

But did you care to put those inferences into some sort of context, or should we just move on from my interpretation of your bizarre rant?

[edit on 13-8-2006 by mattison0922]

You people say it is a 1 in X amount of chance that evolution could happen and make humans, so I put out that it is 1 in Y chance to do this or that, does it mean it will never happen?

When I said 1 in 100,000,000,000 or is it 1 in 500,000,000,000,000 I wasn't saying that was the chance I was making a point. Just because something is 1 in 500,000,000,000,000 to get that hand does that mean you don't have those cards in your hand? Would you go "Nope, it's 1 in X chance to get this hand so I don't have this hand."

Ok, if I have 50 decks of cards, all with a different color on the back indicating which deck the card belong to, and they are all shuffeled together for an hour, and you are dealt 20 cards. What are the chances of getting that exact hand? 1 in a billion trillion?(Not literally just making a point) Well then I guess you didn't get that hand because it is a 1 in a billion trillion chance.

So saying it is a 1 in X chance to happen that means it never happened is BS.

Originally posted by Theory Man
You people say it is a 1 in X amount of chance that evolution could happen and make humans, so I put out that it is 1 in Y chance to do this or that, does it mean it will never happen?

When did 'us people' say this?

When I said 1 in 100,000,000,000 or is it 1 in 500,000,000,000,000 I wasn't saying that was the chance I was making a point. Just because something is 1 in 500,000,000,000,000 to get that hand does that mean you don't have those cards in your hand? Would you go "Nope, it's 1 in X chance to get this hand so I don't have this hand."

Ok, if I have 50 decks of cards, all with a different color on the back indicating which deck the card belong to, and they are all shuffeled together for an hour, and you are dealt 20 cards. What are the chances of getting that exact hand? 1 in a billion trillion?(Not literally just making a point) Well then I guess you didn't get that hand because it is a 1 in a billion trillion chance.

So saying it is a 1 in X chance to happen that means it never happened is BS.

Okay, so I'll assume you just ignored the stuff I've posted, and the stuff that Rren has posted regarding specification, demonstrating you're nothing more than a typical ATS O&C troll.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Theory Man
You people say it is a 1 in X amount of chance that evolution could happen and make humans, so I put out that it is 1 in Y chance to do this or that, does it mean it will never happen?

When did 'us people' say this?

When I said 1 in 100,000,000,000 or is it 1 in 500,000,000,000,000 I wasn't saying that was the chance I was making a point. Just because something is 1 in 500,000,000,000,000 to get that hand does that mean you don't have those cards in your hand? Would you go "Nope, it's 1 in X chance to get this hand so I don't have this hand."

Ok, if I have 50 decks of cards, all with a different color on the back indicating which deck the card belong to, and they are all shuffeled together for an hour, and you are dealt 20 cards. What are the chances of getting that exact hand? 1 in a billion trillion?(Not literally just making a point) Well then I guess you didn't get that hand because it is a 1 in a billion trillion chance.

So saying it is a 1 in X chance to happen that means it never happened is BS.

Okay, so I'll assume you just ignored the stuff I've posted, and the stuff that Rren has posted regarding specification, demonstrating you're nothing more than a typical ATS O&C troll.

matty, let us not resort to calling fellow board members trolls

i have one question for the ID theory
where is the proof of the designer?

Let's keep the personal mud-slinging out of this thread, please. If you don't agree with a poster so much you want to accuse them of something underhanded, there is a complaint button handy.

Otherwise, let it rest. No-one needs to respond to anyone else in particular, especially if you consider it trolling...just ignore it.

I hope this is the last time I have to break into this thread...

[edit on 14-8-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
matty, let us not resort to calling fellow board members trolls

Well... techinically I didn't call him one, I merely said that was my assumption, but in any case... it appears I'll have to tone it down.

i have one question for the ID theory
where is the proof of the designer?

I thought you'd spent enough time in this forum to be aware of this, and it's probably what.... the hundred thousandth time you've heard this; but, I guess we have to say it once more for the record.

Your question: "where is the proof of the designer?" is not a question for intelligent design, it's a philosophy question, not a science question.

Is this why you have such a tough time with this, an inability to separate science and philosophy?

Originally posted by mattison0922

Your question: "where is the proof of the designer?" is not a question for intelligent design, it's a philosophy question, not a science question.

Surely if there is no scientific proof of a designer then there is no scientific proof of design? Or to put it the other way round: if you are saying that you have proof of design then you have already proven there was a designer. Though you are claiming this is philosophy not science?

Is this why you have such a tough time with this, an inability to separate science and philosophy?

I think the problem is that ID doesn't seperate philosophy from science. It is a confusion of the two, and that is why, ultimately, I don't think it will satisfy either scientists or Christians.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Your question: "where is the proof of the designer?" is not a question for intelligent design, it's a philosophy question, not a science question.

Is this why you have such a tough time with this, an inability to separate science and philosophy?

let me break down what is giving me a "tough time"

ID revolves around how everything cannot be chance, and there must have been an intelligent influence

ID advocates attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory with rhetoric and faulty arguments

ID advocates never show proof of their theory, only why another theory isn't perfect.

so what makes ID a scientific theory?

name one theory whose advocates didn't prove, and merely pointed out faults in the alternative

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Surely if there is no scientific proof of a designer then there is no scientific proof of design? Or to put it the other way round: if you are saying that you have proof of design then you have already proven there was a designer. Though you are claiming this is philosophy not science?

Boy, this is tough for you folks, huh?

So do you have a penchant for misquoting? Is this like your main pasttime, or do you prefer to split your time evenly between misquoting and constructing strawmen based on misquotes.

Nowhere in this thread did I state "there is no scientific proof of a designer." So... I'm not saying this, you are.

I merely stated -for about the 10 millionth time, that attempting to determine things about the designer is deemed unscientific, detecting the design isn't, or is at least up for debate.

That is correct, I claim that details about the designer, not the design is philosophy not science.

ID is an origins science, and like evolution, is not subject to absolute proof. The 'evidence' comes from inference re: certain empirical observations, but due to their very nature, origins topics, including origins of life, and origins of the species, will never be 'proven,' in the sense that scientists generally use it.

But yes, if you infer design, then you necessarily infer a designer... now read this next part very carefully... I know how hard this topic is for y'all: Inferring evidence of a designer does not infer anything about the designer... you see how nifty that is? The philosophical barrier hasn't been breached.

Fortunately, you've got this in print now, and you can read it as many times as it takes you to understand it, and maybe, just maybe I won't have to explain this topic, here in this forum yet another time.

I think the problem is that ID doesn't seperate philosophy from science. It is a confusion of the two, and that is why, ultimately, I don't think it will satisfy either scientists or Christians.

Actually, I think the problem is that those who feel most inclined to bash ID appear to know the least about it. It's funny how the O&C forum here never progresses beyond either 'ID is creationism in disguise,' and several variations on the 'identity of the designer line.' The fact of the matter is those of you who are so opposed to ID, ought to open an ID book just a few times, so you can at least maintain a facade of knowing what you're talking about, because what you're doing now isn't cutting it.

BTW, I'm a scientist and Rren is a Christian, for the most part, we're 'satisfied' with ID.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
let me break down what is giving me a "tough time"

ID revolves around how everything cannot be chance, and there must have been an intelligent influence

Ummm... okay.... granted. This bothers you? So you're bothered by intelligent influences... Okay... whatever floats your boat.

ID advocates attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory with rhetoric and faulty arguments

Oh... you mean rhetoric and faulty arguments like this statement you made. ID doesn't attempt to 'poke holes' in anything. It has it's own predictions, assumptions, and models. It just so happens that the many of the predictions, models, and assumptions are at odds with evolutionary theory. Just because you don't like it and would rather whine about it then read about it doesn't make it wrong. The physicists are all crying because a few of them are re-evaluating big crunch theories. My advice to the evolutionary scientists is to buck up and stop crying about competing models.

ID advocates never show proof of their theory, only why another theory isn't perfect.

Okay, one more time. Origins sciences aren't provable.

Whether or not you are aware of this, the evolutionary scientists, the IDists, and the Creation Scientists are all examining the same evidence, they are inferring vastly different meanings of said evidence however. I know it's fun for you claim things like this, but it's completely untrue. Behe and Dembski have written entire books about the subject, simply because the proof isn't up to your standard (I'm not sure how it could meet your standard, since it's obvious you've STILL not read any ID, and you likely don't have any intention), doesn't make it wrong.

If you'd bother to invest $5 in a used book at Amazon, you wouldn't waste your time making patently false claims, and we could actually have an intelligent discussion about this stuff.

I remember a time when people believed they actually had to understand something to properly refute it. Whatever happened to that line of thought. I must be old school or something.

so what makes ID a scientific theory?

The same things that make anything a scientific theory, ability to generate predictions, and testable, falsifiable predictions mostly, and some other details, but those are really the meat of the idea.

name one theory whose advocates didn't prove, and merely pointed out faults in the alternative

Perhaps you could rephrase this question into something that resembles coherent English. Thanks

Originally posted by mattison0922
Boy, this is tough for you folks, huh?

Who are "you folks" exactly? Eveyone who disagrees with you and is therefore wrong? If you didn't write like you were talking to a bunch of willful and slightly stupid 5 year olds you might elicit a better response. You are clever, but you aren't half as clever as you think you are.

So do you have a penchant for misquoting?

I honestly didn't try to quote you out of context, and anyway your entire post is up there to read so that would hardly work as a tactic.

Nowhere in this thread did I state "there is no scientific proof of a designer." So... I'm not saying this, you are.

I thought you said the question of a designer was philosophical (which I would agree with) and therefore the implication is that it can't be addressed by science. Sorry if I have misunderstood but these subtle questions of semantics are sometimes difficult for someone of my limited intellect to grasp (oh how I envy you).

Inferring evidence of a designer does not infer anything about the designer... you see how nifty that is? The philosophical barrier hasn't been breached.

You can say that, but it does infer things about a designer. It infers that whatever entity carried out this "design" had capabilities that allowed it to manipulate life on this planet at a molecular or cellular level. How can you not make this inference?

just maybe I won't have to explain this topic, here in this forum yet another time.

You don't have to post anything every again if you don't want to. You are not a teacher who has to get a class through an exam.

It's funny how the O&C forum here never progresses beyond either 'ID is creationism in disguise,'

I have never actually said that, however there are certainly Christians who would like to use it as a "wedge" to eventually make creationism a valid subject to be taught in schools. For the record: I am not claiming anyone on these boards supports that view.

BTW, I'm a scientist and Rren is a Christian, for the most part, we're 'satisfied' with ID.
[edit on 16-8-2006 by mattison0922]

I did say "ultimately" it would fail, and that doesn't mean all scientists and Christians will abandon it.

The same things that make anything a scientific theory, ability to generate predictions, and testable, falsifiable predictions mostly

And what predictions has it made? Where do you think ID is going to go from where it is now?

quote: name one theory whose advocates didn't prove, and merely pointed out faults in the alternative

Perhaps you could rephrase this question into something that resembles coherent English. Thanks

It may not be the most elegant use of English, but the sentence does parse and I know exactly what he means, as I think you do.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Who are "you folks" exactly?

You folks, in this context refers to the average ID opponent on ATS. I don't know if I've met up with you here before, so I don't really know if you're an AIDOATS, but I do know you used a variation of 'identity of the designer' argument, which tends to make me hostile.

Eveyone who disagrees with you and is therefore wrong?

Absolutely not. Some of the smartest people I know disagree with me.

If you didn't write like you were talking to a bunch of willful and slightly stupid 5 year olds you might elicit a better response.

Wow... you picked that up from my posting? For the most part, it's how I feel. I've often said it, but in terms of origins forums, ATS is really the bottom of the barrel. It's the other forums that keep me here. For the most part, I don't post here anymore. I generally only post when the opposition gets so arrogant but is so incorrect that I can no longer sit by and idly watch.

But I would like to discuss this stuff with someone that actually seems to understand it. For the most part, my acerbic style is meant to elicit a response. A few times, it has actually caused someone to read some ID and become more informed. Admittedly, it's not the norm, but the few times it has worked make me keep it up.

You are clever, but you aren't half as clever as you think you are.

That's funny... you sound like my wife.

I thought you said the question of a designer was philosophical (which I would agree with) and therefore the implication is that it can't be addressed by science. Sorry if I have misunderstood but these subtle questions of semantics are sometimes difficult for someone of my limited intellect to grasp (oh how I envy you).

I did say these things.

It's okay though, keep reading, you seem to be getting it.

You can say that, but it does infer things about a designer. It infers that whatever entity carried out this "design" had capabilities that allowed it to manipulate life on this planet at a molecular or cellular level. How can you not make this inference?

Ummm... okay... I would have to concede that if you infer a designer exists, that this implies it is capable of manipulating life on an MC level. Okay... so? This doesn't speak to the identity, nature, or intention of the designer, which are the philosophical questions I was referring to. Inferring a designer exists provides no basis for inferring anything re: identity, nature, intention, or a host of other factors.

You don't have to post anything every again if you don't want to. You are not a teacher who has to get a class through an exam.

True, and for the most part I don't. This barrage of 5 or 6 posts from me is a rarity, not the norm.

I have never actually said that, however there are certainly Christians who would like to use it as a "wedge" to eventually make creationism a valid subject to be taught in schools. For the record: I am not claiming anyone on these boards supports that view.

No, I wasn't classifying you in the "ID is creationism in disquise group." I was actually lumping you in the "identity of the designer," group.

But for the record, I am opposed to the legislation re: the teaching of anything in our science class. I actually discuss this in some detail in various places throughout this forum, as well as in my blog. Science classes are made up of more-or-less consensus opinion re: a topic. If ID wants it's 'rightful' place in the science class, it's got to earn it.

I did say "ultimately" it would fail, and that doesn't mean all scientists and Christians will abandon it.

I suppose this remains to be seen, but your prediction is duly noted.

And what predictions has it made?

Depends on the context. It's capable of making the same types of predictions that Darwinian Theory is. ID, for example, predicts that there is no such thing as 'junk DNA' and that we will find a function for most things currently classified as 'junk DNA,' for example.

Where do you think ID is going to go from where it is now?

Nowhere if it doesn't start generating data. Okay Behe, Dembski, Johnson, etc. you've got me interested, you've made your point, now step away from the keyboard and move over to the lab benches, or else make the funding available for others to do the work.

It may not be the most elegant use of English, but the sentence does parse and I know exactly what he means, as I think you do.

I believe what the question was going for was something like "Name one other idea in science where the opponents made their case by pointing out the inadequacies in another model." I think that's the jist of it anyway.

In any case, there isn't one, including ID. I know this is a popular misconception, but it's just not true. ID is it's own idea, with it's own theories and models. Yes, many, perhaps even most of the models and ideas stand in opposition to those offered by NDT. Again I ask so what? What good would a new model be if it proposed the same ideas as the old model?