ID's refusal to speak on the designer(s) is highly suspect

I wonder why? Is it the circular aspect of the designer argument? Not only is the designer not (publicly) identified or talked about, but the question of who designed the designer ad infinitum is ducked. Yet, they'll tell you that the designer is not important, it's that you can see intelligent design in life. Doesn't make much sense.

For example, say you have a Lamborghini Gelardo (Akon song stuck in my head ). I guess you could say that your car was intelligently designed, and that's it. But what's the point of stopping there? What do you do if you need a part for it? Do you say "that doesn't matter, all I know is that this car was intelligently designed?" Of course not; you contact the designer (or manufacturer if you like, it's the same idea) to get the part.

Or say you are so impressed with your whip, you want to find out more about the designer. Like, you're interested in previous models, the original model, or how this car went from concept to initial production.

What I'm saying is there's more to it than just saying "this is ID." Who cares? There's not much room for further inquiry when you stop there. At least evolutionary theory allows for that.

But when you think about it, there's an explanation for this. This silence serves as the cloak for ID's true form. And yeah, I know some will say that ID does not necessarily imply a deity, but your alien designers still fit the bill of circularity.

You see, how do we know which of the thousands of deities is the designer? Maybe all of them? But of course, the IDers won't say Aten or Odin, they'll say Biblegod. Or Allah or Yahweh, to a lesser extent.

ID would be all good if it was portrayed as something like philosophical science. But, when it tries to pass as science proper, eh...I don't see it. That there is another example of the shady aspect of ID. Proponents are fighting tooth and nail to get it into the schools, even with the exclusion of evolution. This has been seen before under a different name, which is also shady.

I understand what you mean, ID is nothing more than the concept that we humans are special because we were "design" by a higher being for a special purpose.

Why can we just believe in our human abilities that put us on top of the food chain and that is what make us special.

ID's bunk. For most, it seems to be the easy way out of learning science; surrenduring the ability to think independently and explore the universe in exchange for the belief that some higher power, who loves them and made them special, can have the burden of having to worry about all the big, important, complex things in life. Sort, of like, "Don't worry your sweet little head about it." Just relax, let the creator take care of everything and you just do what I tell you. By giving the cosmic watchmaker a name (GOD), ID gets itself ejected from the science class and these people sure don't want that! My question is, if the cosmic creator made us so special, then why discourage the development of the intelligence which defines us as a species? How much does that differ from encouraging a star athlete to take up a couch potato existence? Why squander our biggest evolutionary advantage? If you don't use it, you lose it!

As Dembski said himself, IDs conceptual end point is Christ.



LOLDembski.

Have a good LOLday.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by melatonin]

Awesome! Absolutely hilarious!

LOLBehe

I'll stop now, heh.

Loads more floating about on scienceblogs and elsewhere.

LOLCreationists

While that was pretty funny, melatonin, my point wasn't to ridicule the IDers. I was pointing out how they use shady tactics to get around a big flaw in their idea. That clearly shows an ulterior motive behind the ID movement, which is reviving creationism, IMO.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I wonder why? Is it the circular aspect of the designer argument? Not only is the designer not (publicly) identified or talked about, but the question of who designed the designer ad infinitum is ducked.

Do you know of a theory, hypothesis, anything, that doesn't invoke an infinite regress or instead defines a first cause wrt to the origin of the universe? Even an atheistic multiverse world-view leaves an infinite amount of designers, infinitely old, to choose from. This is metaphysics. Until you can come up with a way to test for it.

Yet, they'll tell you that the designer is not important, it's that you can see intelligent design in life.

Doesn't make much sense.

It's non-sensical to you because you've, quite obviously, not bothered to read anything on the subject. Atleast nothing from the pro ID side. Nobody says the designer is not important; ID theorists say that they know of no methodology with which to test for it. If you've got an idea spit it out. ID arguments are not set up to answer it. Seems most of you critics understand why that is but, yet, still insist ID answer these ultimate truths. :shrug:

What I'm saying is there's more to it than just saying "this is ID." Who cares? There's not much room for further inquiry when you stop there. At least evolutionary theory allows for that.

Who's stopping there? You're asking questions that are outside the purview of ID. Same if I asked you do describe the origins of life using evolutionary theory. 'This is evolution,' you may say. Who cares, I may reply. Don't know about you, but I'm fulfilled.

But when you think about it, there's an explanation for this. This silence serves as the cloak for ID's true form. And yeah, I know some will say that ID does not necessarily imply a deity, but your alien designers still fit the bill of circularity.

Yup, you nailed it. Most of 'em believe in God. Now what? Can they use anything in ID to prove that, nope. Seeing it yet? Take your time.

You see, how do we know which of the thousands of deities is the designer? Maybe all of them? But of course, the IDers won't say Aten or Odin, they'll say Biblegod. Or Allah or Yahweh, to a lesser extent.

So, what's your point? Plenty of evolutionists would too.

ID would be all good if it was portrayed as something like philosophical science.

How do you mean philosophical science?

But, when it tries to pass as science proper, eh...I don't see it.

Well good on you, you're in the majority. Why bother with a philosophical argument wrt infinite regress/first mover cloaked as an anti-ID argument if you understand the science. Woulda been a bit helpful, dontcha think.

That there is another example of the shady aspect of ID. Proponents are fighting tooth and nail to get it into the schools, even with the exclusion of evolution.

No they aren't. See how easy this is. Um, re: "exclusion of evolution," what part of evolution (as it is in the textbooks) would change were an ID(telic) paradigm considered scientific? You honestly believe that highschool textbooks get that deep into ToE. Give an example or two please.

This has been seen before under a different name, which is also shady.

:gasp: Not the "C" word :gasp:

Get yer pitchforks boys.


Some reading, should you get bored or sumphin'

ID and Mechanisms and ID 101 ~MikeGene (two short essays on same topic as OP)

And one more just in case you're really bored and/or don't know it all yet.

www.ideacenter.org...

Firstly, it should be noted that the scientific theory of intelligent design cannot address the nature or identity of the designer but merely detects the products of the action of an intelligent designer (see our Intelligent Design Theory, and the Relationship between Science and Religion for details). The identity of the designer is a question that lies outside the explanatory scope of the science of intelligent design theory. To understand why this lies outside the scope of intelligent design theory, it is necessary to understand how intelligent design theory works.

You aint gotta like it, but you don't get to re-define-it to suit your needs.

PS,

For mel:




Ruuunnnn!

Cheerio
-

rren, it's good to see you back. just one question about the designer. did it co-exist with the matter and energy that was already there? because it sure as hell couldn't have created it... that would be unscientific and in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

it's improper to say that we have an infinite regress without a designer, it terminates with matter and energy for they have always existed.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
rren, it's good to see you back.

Thanks. Good to see you too.

just one question about the designer. did it co-exist with the matter and energy that was already there? because it sure as hell couldn't have created it... that would be unscientific and in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

Not sure I follow. Your saying that energy cannot be created or destoryed (FLoT) therefore it's infinite. Which would, therefore, violate causality. It's a pickle, I agree. A philosophical/metaphysical one. An infinite regress of (only/purely) energetic causes, is still an infinite regress.

it's improper to say that we have an infinite regress without a designer, it terminates with matter and energy for they have always existed.

Matter too now? How did you establish this, scientifically?

Regards.

Science is testable, reproducible and the data can be used to predict phenomena with a high degree of accuracy. ID is none of these things. It is purely faith-based. I think what he meant when he said "philosophical science" was just philosophy, unless the reference was in relation to older, refuted concepts such as Lamarckism (changes in morphology in a single generation that are beneficial to individuals of a species rather than the population at large).

I suppose if ID belongs in an evolutionary science course, it could be included in a discussion about the historical and cultural development of science in that sense. The course I took in college actually DID mention creationism and ID but they were presented as untestable hypotheses, not theories whereas evolution, a testable concept, is a THEORY. There is considerable confusion between "hypothesis" and "theory". The dividing factor is the ability to test the concept. Prior to testing, all concepts are on the same level, classified as hypotheses.

However, once data has been collected, those which support their hypotheses are upgraded to theories, those that fail to produce supportive data are relegated to the realm of refuted claims. Unless ID can be tested, it must, by definition be eliminated as a viable theory and as such it has no place in general science classes (that's genetics and molecular biology, not history). Theories become Laws only after extensive repetitive testing which produces data that is always consistent (as opposed to consistent with tiny margins of error commonly seen in biology as a consequence of negligible, interacting factors such as the type of DNA damage incurred by collision with a free radical). ID has no predictive power of any sort and often exploits this confusion in terminology by falsely claiming evolution violates thermodynamic laws.

Rather than reducing the chaos, proponents seek to widen the margin of error in order to magnify the appearance of complexity by neglecting testable aspects of biology. I listed affordable ways in which individuals could put evolution to the test for themselves (a very scientific thing to do) but no one had any interest in getting their hands dirty! Perhaps this isn't the way everyone responds to an opportunity to investigate scientific phenomena in their own homes but I was disappointed by such an obvious lack of interest.

We don't have to go to the Galapagos to test evolution. We don't even need a yard. All we need is a population of organisms a contained environment where a change is introduced that culls members of the population that can't cope. It's just before and after. Keep in mind however, that the more complex the organism, the more time must pass before profound morphological changes can occur through the accumulation of mutations. Don't expect to keep an ant colony for a week and expect to discover a new species of insect! Consider the number of genes in your chosen model. How many mutations accumulate over a given period of time in your model? This is the basis for molecular clocks.

I think I'll stop here to see where we're at. If there's heel digging going on, I may need to back up. Perhaps you might like to demonstrate how ID is testable? I think that might be useful.

Hey madness if you like the old-school philosophy arguments, this book looks like a good read:

ucpress.edu...


The world is configured in ways that seem systematically hospitable to life forms, especially the human race. Is this the outcome of divine planning or simply of the laws of physics? Ancient Greeks and Romans famously disagreed on whether the cosmos was the product of intelligent design or accident. In this book, David Sedley examines this question and illuminates new historical perspectives on the pantheon of thinkers who laid the foundations of western philosophy and science. Versions of what we call the "creationist" option were widely favored by the major thinkers of classical antiquity, including Plato, whose ideas on the subject prepared the ground for Aristotle's celebrated teleology. But Aristotle aligned himself with the anti-creationist lobby, whose most militant members--the atomists--sought to show how a world just like ours would inevitably form by sheer accident, given only the infinity of space and matter. This stimulating study explores seven major thinkers and philosophical movements enmeshed in the debate: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Socrates, Plato, the atomists, Aristotle, and the Stoics.

Just put it on my list the other day and your post made me think of it. Also the (online) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good biography on William of Ockham (of "Ockham's razor" fame) that I really enjoyed. Sorta off-topic, but lots of history/argumentation I didn't know about.

Regards.

ID is for people who just don't understand and in addition can't come to terms with the fact that maybe they'll never understand why what is is. It is the second half of that statement that catches out physicists who get very agitated at not knowing why and come up with all sorts of weird explanations. What they should do is leave some things alone until such time as our knowledge base allows to understand or at least more facts to theorise on. As for a "designer".......how very very sad to believe in that.

Still ID has its good points. While the US starts to take ID seriously the rest of world can get on with reality and corner the market in modern technology

I hope the US keeps up the ID theorising because it makes great reading and much funnier than some of the sitcoms on TV these days.

Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion


However, once data has been collected, those which support their hypotheses are upgraded to theories, those that fail to produce supportive data are relegated to the realm of refuted claims. Unless ID can be tested, it must, by definition be eliminated as a viable theory and as such it has no place in general science classes (that's genetics and molecular biology, not history). Theories become Laws only after extensive repetitive testing which produces data that is always consistent (as opposed to consistent with tiny margins of error commonly seen in biology as a consequence of negligible, interacting factors such as the type of DNA damage incurred by collision with a free radical). ID has no predictive power of any sort and often exploits this confusion in terminology by falsely claiming evolution violates thermodynamic laws.

Excellent post. You are correct in mentioning that Science is a method of establishing objective truths on the Earth and in our Universe. However, until we go into other Universes, we can only follow a limited objective truth. The fact is, and I have stated this on more than one occasion, cause and effect relationships are crucial to the development of hypotheses, theories, Principles and Laws of Nature. This becomes ridiculous if you are a Creator of the very Laws which make a Universe. Also, if you create matter and energy, you must be DIFFERENT from both of your creations. Therefore, scientific proof from our Universe becomes difficult doesn't it?

I agree with your demonstration of the Law of Natural Selection which can be seen with a simple experiment in a fish tank with two different species of the same genus. However, this is not entirely the Theory of Evolution - just an important aspect of it which I as an ID-er will not dispute.
However, it is the job of IR-ers to find flaws with the Theory of Evolution and, my goodness, don't we find lots of flaws? This then alows you guys as evolutionists to modify and test your hypotheses to what we say. This is not an easy way out for ID-ers but a chance for scientific truth to be refined and re-presented.

Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion

All we need is a population of organisms a contained environment where a change is introduced that culls members of the population that can't cope. It's just before and after. Keep in mind however, that the more complex the organism, the more time must pass before profound morphological changes can occur through the accumulation of mutations. Don't expect to keep an ant colony for a week and expect to discover a new species of insect! Consider the number of genes in your chosen model. How many mutations accumulate over a given period of time in your model? This is the basis for molecular clocks.

I think I'll stop here to see where we're at. If there's heel digging going on, I may need to back up. Perhaps you might like to demonstrate how ID is testable? I think that might be useful.

Actually that sounds like a very good arguement for ID. 1998-99 I helped my then girlfriend induce mutations to e coli. By using thought and experimentation, different antibiotic resistant strains were created and replicated. Many long hours of thought and reading the spun down DNA sequence charts resulted in some 16-17 new types of e coli and her masters degree in microbiology. Fun part was weeding out mutations that were not antibiotic resistant...I have no idea how many new types were created that did not pass that test.

Ultimately all of creation comes down to some amino acids in some primordial slime. Evolution doesn't explain very clearly how that compound got there. ID kinda does. Biblical Creationism says what slime, the agnostics? But even BC does lend some credence to ID. Evolution has to call on some other theories such as Big Bang and drifting space borne chemical compounds that drifted here by a modified Chaos Theory.

As for the profound perfection of science, examine zero degrees Kelvin, Absolute Zero. So far it has not been found in the vacuum of space. I argue that it can not exist at all on the basis of radioactive isotopes like Radon-222. If held at Absolute Zero, it would not decay in 3.8 days into Lead-210. So would it still be Radon-222 despite not following the proper decay rate? That question had my college physics professor confess to me in private that her higher degrees were in education and not physics. And don't get me started on the centrifical/centripital bad science (BS) that they teach now.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Actually that sounds like a very good arguement for ID. 1998-99 I helped my then girlfriend induce mutations to e coli....DNA sequence charts resulted in some 16-17 new types of e coli and her masters degree in microbiology...I have no idea how many new types were created that did not pass that test. ..all of creation comes down to some amino acids in some primordial slime. Evolution doesn't explain very clearly how that compound got there. ID kinda does. Evolution...call on other theories such as Big Bang & drifting space chemical compounds...y a modified Chaos Theory. ...Absolute Zero...not been found in space...can not exist on basis of isotopes like Radon-222. If held at Absolute Zero, it would not decay in 3.8 days into Lead-210...would it still be Radon-222 despite not following the proper decay rate? my college physics professor confess to me in private that her higher degrees were in education and not physics. And don't get me started on the bad science they teach now.

True, ID proponents love artificial selection arguments because they seem to support the existence and intervention of a creator. However, all people are doing is immitating natural conditions.

For instance, if I have a population of ants who are, as a species generally unable to tolerate temperatures over 40oC, and I come along and turn up the heat to 45oC, would we be surprised if most of the ants died? Not at all. However, if then the only ants that survived were left to breed, changes are if we subject them to another warm spell, a lower percentage would die than the first time around. Temperature is only one of many natural processes that could impact the survival of individuals in a population.

The ones who have the ability to tough it out are the only ones left to breed. If it happens enough, the ants will acquire a new, higher temperature tolerance over time. No creator required. The work you did with E. coli is an artificial selection process. There, we don't know how many "losers" we have because they die and fail to colonize. Thus, only the "winners" form colonies.

Perhaps a better environmental example for the development of antibiotic resistance is the emergence of vancomycin resistant strains. People used to use it as the drug of last resort in bacterial infections (not specifically to select bacteria) but it's heavy usage exposed more populations to this drug, providing an environmental selection pressure on pathogens. Thus, a surge in resistant strains has been observed due to the reproductive success (intergenerational reinforcement) of survivors to vancomycin exposure. We tried to kill it and it adapted to survive.

Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? This is one of the classic founding experiments in astrobiology where scientists study the origin and evolution of life (as well as possibilities for it to exist elsewhere). Here's where you can see it:

www.ucsd.tv...

Sadly, Stanley Miller just passed away last week. His pioneering work triggered a plethora of variations and many more compounds have been synthesized by varying conditions in the reaction vessel. Miller insisted on replicating natural environmental conditions indicated by geological evidence to see if amino acids would appear in the sludge. No big bang, just lightening. Meteorites have nothing to do with Chaos theory. They, comets and IDPs rain down on Earth on a regular basis mind you, current levels are a far cry from the Heavy Bombardment period when life likely originated!

Space is on avergage about 2K. I am not sure what you are trying to say in your isotopic argument. Perhaps citing some peer-reviewed literature (esp. decay series @ 2K) might help? As for your professor, it sounds like you needed to take the course from a physicist qualified to teach the material. The only bad science being taught is ID; attempting to masquerade as science.

Originally posted by Rren
Do you know of a theory, hypothesis, anything, that doesn't invoke an infinite regress or instead defines a first cause wrt to the origin of the universe? Even an atheistic multiverse world-view leaves an infinite amount of designers, infinitely old, to choose from. This is metaphysics. Until you can come up with a way to test for it.

The thing is, the designer is CENTRAL to the ID view. I mean, it IS intelligent design.

Nobody says the designer is not important;

Yes they do. I've heard that the design of life is important, NOT the designer. Which I still don't quite understand...

ID theorists say that they know of no methodology with which to test for it. If you've got an idea spit it out. ID arguments are not set up to answer it. Seems most of you critics understand why that is but, yet, still insist ID answer these ultimate truths. :shrug:

Well damn, why say that life is designed when you, by your admission, have no idea how to test for a designer. That should kill the idea right there.

The ID crowd wants it both ways. They say that evolution is wrong because it explains design without a designer, which doesn't make sense. Out of the other side of their mouths, they mumble that they have no way of finding out if there IS a designer. Doesn't sound falsifiable to be me, but it does sound suspect...

Who's stopping there? You're asking questions that are outside the purview of ID. Same if I asked you do describe the origins of life using evolutionary theory. 'This is evolution,' you may say. Who cares, I may reply. Don't know about you, but I'm fulfilled.

And? Evolution can be used to make predictions, among other things; it doesn't just stop with "life evolved." Care to share any predictions that ID makes?

Yup, you nailed it. Most of 'em believe in God. Now what? Can they use anything in ID to prove that, nope. Seeing it yet? Take your time.

And therein lies the fraud. They can't offer evidence, much less prove their view, but they spout it nonetheless. Oh, trust me, I see it clearly.

No they aren't. See how easy this is. Um, re: "exclusion of evolution," what part of evolution (as it is in the textbooks) would change were an ID(telic) paradigm considered scientific? You honestly believe that highschool textbooks get that deep into ToE. Give an example or two please.

Oh, I will. I've seen the cases. I'll tell off the dome that many want to put a "this may not be true" disclaimer in evolution textbooks, as well as have evolution thrown out completely.

Firstly, it should be noted that the scientific theory of intelligent design cannot address the nature or identity of the designer but merely detects the products of the action of an intelligent designer

Again, this is garbage. This would be like saying that finding artifacts from an ancient civilization shows ID, but you can't speak on the designer, even if this is a civilization that has just been discovered.

Originally posted by truthseeka

The thing is, the designer is CENTRAL to the ID view. I mean, it IS intelligent design.

From the "ID 101" essay I linked:

" Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?" ~W. Dembski

The arguments aren't structured the way you say they are.

Nobody says the designer is not important;

Yes they do. I've heard that the design of life is important, NOT the designer. Which I still don't quite understand...

No, they're not saying it's not important. They're saying they know of no way to test for the identity and/or nature of the "designer." They're not going as far as you think they are. You say conspiracy. Were they going as far as you accuse them, you'd cry, 'see, it aint science, just like I told ya." Some sort of ontological anthropomorphizing of what ID is or should be, depending on the critics' mood.


Not nearly as clever as you think it is. Maybe that's just me.

Well damn, why say that life is designed when you, by your admission, have no idea how to test for a designer. That should kill the idea right there.

You don't seem to understand what the idea is. But, yeah, your strawman has been soundly defeated. Kudos.

The ID crowd wants it both ways. They say that evolution is wrong because it explains design without a designer, which doesn't make sense. Out of the other side of their mouths, they mumble that they have no way of finding out if there IS a designer. Doesn't sound falsifiable to be me, but it does sound suspect...

Ditto.

And? Evolution can be used to make predictions, among other things; it doesn't just stop with "life evolved." Care to share any predictions that ID makes?

You missed my point wrt ToE explaining abiogenesis and ID explaining the "designer." Anyway, re: predictions, good question. I'm not sure, to be honest. We'll know when and if ID theorists get around to some wet work. I realize I'm the (only) 'pro ID' guy in the thread, but I'm not nearly as evangelical wrt ID as you may think. The real arguments are good and I follow them as best as I can, the typical critics' talking points are crap, but many valid criticisms are out there (from philosophy, theology and science). Believe it or not I am undecided wrt ID as a science. It's hard to tell, for me, when you've crossed over the demarcation line (philosophy/science), those concerns are valid, imo. On the note of predictions, this link is decent:

www.ideacenter.org...

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

You can easily conflate ID (wrt BioChem) with the various ideas re: directed evolution and/or front-loaded evolution. See: Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis as an example of that.

And therein lies the fraud. They can't offer evidence, much less prove their view, but they spout it nonetheless. Oh, trust me, I see it clearly.

If you say so.

Oh, I will. I've seen the cases. I'll tell off the dome that many want to put a "this may not be true" disclaimer in evolution textbooks, as well as have evolution thrown out completely.

The Cobb County (GA) Disclaimer:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Didn't pass:

Source, DI:

“The case deals with a three-sentence sticker, not an effort to improve the curriculum to include an objective discussion of scientific evidence critical of Darwin's theory, as well as evidence that supports it. Nor does the case deal with the entirely different question of whether alternative scientific theories such as intelligent design can be taught, as the court itself noted." ~Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

Most people never bother to read any of the specifics (there's other "disclaimers" out there) so it's easy for them to make mountains out of molehills. There's no ID highschool science curriculum being offered in any of these cases. Just these textbook blurbs. I agree it's ridicuous, and no, I have never supported ID in highschool science classes. Makes no sense for a hundred reasons and the 'blurbs' are pointless and inflammatory. Nobody asked me, such is life. :shrug:

Again, this is garbage. This would be like saying that finding artifacts from an ancient civilization shows ID, but you can't speak on the designer, even if this is a civilization that has just been discovered.

Ridiculous indeed, you seem to get it sometimes, but only if it can be used to shine a negative light on ID. It's a strawman, and very fundamental misunderstanding of ID argumentation, to suggest ID would rule out any comment on the designer in your example. In your example including the "designer" makes perfect sense. It could be done.


What if its identity and nature were unknown (take your example 'off earth' pre-meeting ET)? If you're arguing that ID can't be scientific in that case, I can respect that. Depends if you're saying it's wrong or just incomplete. I agree with the latter. It is reasonable to think ID could never be scientific (or useful/insightful) without a way to model the designer as well as the design. I remain optimistic, your mileage may vary.

Regards.

(edit)spelling

(edit2)ammended, 'new civilization' as extra-terrestrial in hopes of elucidating the point. I hope.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Rren]

Ok, an effort to keep things light here, I offer, from the extraordinary mind of Ben Affleck, via his character Chuckie in Good Will Hunting

ID's refusal to speak on the designer(s) is highly suspect ~truthseeka

You're suspect, yeh you. I don't know what your reputation is in this town but after the [expletive] you tried to pull today you can bet I'll be looking into you. Now the business we have here-to-for you can speak with my aforementioned attorney. Good day gentlemen and until that day comes, keep your ear to the grindstone. ~Chuckie

Not that having this discussion for the millionth time isn't stimulating, I must bid you adu. I don't see this one going anywhere.

I said good day!




BTW melatonin, that Behe 'Oh Noes' one is great.



On that note, coming from the IDers, I give you: TheBRITES (Biological Research Institute for Theoretical Evolution Studies) Sorta like an IDers' version of The Onion.



Regards.

Okay so since an obseveration of planned environmental changes to manipulate and mutate a bacteria to the desired result is not a proof of using ID to produce desired results, let us look at something a bit more esoteric in nature. Of course it relies on that pseudoscience called thought experiment and uses the word if quite a bit, but hang tight.

In Carl Jung's synchronicity seeming unrelated series of events set in motion other series of events that set about more events that become a meaningful result to the observer that many would call fate. The Greeks profoundly believed in fate. That all aspects of life followed a grand script (the thread of life). From this basic philosophy many observable theories can be found such as Seven Degrees of Seperation, Chaos Theory and Synchronicity.

Now if you were to able to have a glimpse of this master script of Fate by say a "prophetic vision" of future events and were able to recall and record what you saw and could repeat these "visions" and they were found to be acurate. Then you have a fairly scientific proof of precognition. If precognition were to be provable, then a script of predetermined events would have some merit of validity. So if that script is valid and fate is truely written and planned and some have access to it, would that be a proof of ID?

While I do find any theory presented as absolute fact to be as unpaletable as to flatly deny the the possible exsistance of something greater than yourself because you have not seen it. I find it to be rather ethnocentric and lacking in understanding of the venerable theory of evolution. Evolution should clearly indicate that homo sapien is not the endpoint but just a point on a larger chain that has yet to occur. Those future changes would be as godlike to us as we are to a cat that hears us make the magic whirr noise that opens the can of food. But given the reaction of the misinformed reception of his idea of man came from monkeys (yes I know it was ancient relative that was shared that begat both lines) Darwin would have been crucified had he explained that modern humans were not the endpoint.


Edit to add: Yeah not a very clear cut contribution, but that darn cat hit the trackpad the right way to activate the back button emulation feature. And I had to rewrite. I would clean it up, but no real need. People form their own thoughts and too often follow what they were taught to be true over searching for truth so yeah, this will be ripped apart for introducing pseudoscience and a series of "ifs" as more junk science. I guees we shall have to find an identical planet to primordial earth and try to replicate evolution there.

But remember the test will be unsucessful until the human 2.0's develop the idea that there is no way in hell some long dead crazy people that looked somewhat like us started all of life just to prove some crazy theory. After all this is Erftu not some mythological "Earth 2" that the ancient Somewherians believed 5000 years ago when "Space Boats" full of creators came and "visited" them promising to return when the stars were right or in alignment or whatever.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Ahabstar]