Intelligent design

[questor]

Clay, suppose the theory of evolution is correct. how does that eliminate the possibility of a creator of the universe?

[C1ay]

Clay, suppose the theory of evolution is correct. how does that eliminate the possibility of a creator of the universe?

It's not my claim that it does. I do not see evolution as an explanation for any first cause, I only see it as one possible mechanism of speciation. It is not a theory of first cause itself and it is not a theory that excludes any possibility of a first cause. Theories of first cause are just that and we can't prove any of them. Pick any that you want, ID, biblical creation, even evolution is your view of evolution is different than mine, we have no evidence to prove or disprove any of them or use any of them to exclude any other theories. They are just theories and our interpretation of what is observable evidence to support any of them is just that, our interpretation. One thing keeps catching my attention though, there are those whom freely admit that we just don't know and everyone else seems to be religious in their belief of a first cause.

[questor]

Then you can simply say that you don't know if evolution is correct or if there was intelligent creation of the universe?

[C1ay]

Then you can simply say that you don't know if evolution is correct or if there was intelligent creation of the universe?

No, I do know that some evolution is correct, ring species prove that for instance. I do not know what the origin of the universe is or if there even was one. My view of evolution does not exclude any possibilities of any first cause though and I do not claim to believe any particular cause of origin because that would require me to know and I don't. I freely admit what I don't know and question others that cannot do the same.

[questor]

i haven't seen evidence here of people who say they KNOW. there are many who say they

BELIEVE. since no one claims to know first cause, we cannot reach any conclusion at this time. any beliefs posited lack scientific proof. this goes for ID and the possibility of a creator. you believe in evolution, but admit this does not preclude a creator of the universe. if there was a creator, i would think there was enough intelligence there to create the conditions for evolution. do you agree with this?

[C1ay]

i haven't seen evidence here of people who say they KNOW. there are many who say they

BELIEVE. since no one claims to know first cause, we cannot reach any conclusion at this time. any beliefs posited lack scientific proof. this goes for ID and the possibility of a creator. you believe in evolution, but admit this does not preclude a creator of the universe. if there was a creator, i would think there was enough intelligence there to create the conditions for evolution. do you agree with this?

What's your point? You can keep saying "if this" or "if that" forever. There is no evidence for or against a creator and that has nothing to do with evolution. Why keep dragging evolution into it? If you want to believe there's a creator then go and search for one. I've seen nothing to make me believe in any origin of the universe so I don't.

[TRoutMac]

Even that evolution we know to be true? What else do you want to throw out, gravity perhaps?

 

Once again I must remind you (collectively) that the only form of evolution that is in dispute here is macro-evolution.

 

Are you stating that you have undoubtable proof that ID is an unquestionable fact? Just because it's a possibilitiy and you believe it is true doesn't make it true.

 

Virtually, yes. You would laugh me out of the room if I told you that the topiary at the edge of town here which spells out the word "BEND" was NOT the result of intelligent design. You would howl and snicker and quite rightly conclude that I was completely nuts.

 

If you are going to make blanket claims that theory A or theory B is absolutely false, period, because you say so, etc.. then you need to provide absolute proof, period. The house rules clearly state, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted." You are wrong to tell people that they should flat out reject evolution just because you say so.

 

I haven't said that theory A or theory B is false "because I say so." My belief in something doesn't MAKE it true. Truth exists indepent of what I might or might not believe. I have not based anything on "I just know that this is the way it is". I've given examples and shown quite logically how the reasoning by which I.D. operates is quite well accepted and relied upon by other fields of study within science.

 

Remember, to absolutely disprove all of evolution you would have to prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species. Can you do that?

 

First of all, refer again to the beginning of this post. Micro-evolution is not in dispute, therefore I do not intend to disprove "all of evolution". Secondly, Darwin disagrees with you. He said that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This has already been demonstrated by Michael Behe. End of story.

 

Just 2 options, huh? Either one religion is the right one or none of them are. All black and white with no gray in between? Religion is not that absolute. Religion is just a system of beliefs some of which are know to be fact and others that are taken on faith alone. You cannot say that there is only one true system of beliefs, completely free from falsehood itself, and all other belief systems are therefore false. That in itself is simply a point of view that would be based on faith alone, thereby a religious view at that.

 

If you asked 20 people how old I was, and you got twenty different answers, what would you conclude? Wouldn't you conclude that either all the answers were false, or one was true? Certainly, you wouldn't conclude that MORE than one was true, right? I can't be 26 and 14 at the same time, can I? If I'm actually 29 years old but none of the twenty people you asked gave that answer, then that means all the answers you got were false, right? There are lots of religious systems, lots of religious ideas (such as, the idea that the "truth" lies within some combination of all religions). Therefore, I say that all religious ideas cannot simultaneously be true. Either one religion is true (perhaps that one religion is the magic "combo" religion… who knows?) or they're all false. It's really very simple logic… there aren't any other possibilities.

 

If you say that all religions ARE true, then you're either saying that faith creates truth, (and a different truth for everyone) or that all religions are false and that we just like to believe in our personal little fairy tale and play head games with ourselves.

 

Furthermore, if you say I'm free to believe in my religion of choice, but that I'm wrong to conclude that anyone else's religion is wrong, you're really saying that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don't actually think it's true. Obviously, if I can't come to the conclusion that other religions are false, then I must not really believe my religion, right?

 

Explanations are not restricted, explore any that you want.

 

I've been told repeatedly by others on this forum that in order for something to "scientific" it has to explain natural phenomena by reference to natural explanations. In fact, this is what Dr. Robert Pennock testified to in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. That is what's called a "restriction".

 

One thing to think about with your theory, if there was an intelligent designer, would the ability required to learn that require that the designer provide that very ability in the design to begin with? If not, how could you ever find out?

 

Great question. It appears that's exactly what this Intelligent Designer has done… provided us with the means, ability, intellect, ingenuity, creativity to discover evidence of the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

[Boerseun]

Nowhere in science is it stated that an Intelligent Designer did not set the whole shebang in motion. Science has, however, said that all things being equal, Intelligent Design is less likely to be the Truth. Science is an asymptotic approach to the Truth. Intelligent Design, as an answer, fits the bill perfectly - 300 years ago when we were further away from that unattainable Final Answer that we are asymptotically approaching.

 

And using the searh for Extraterrestrial Intelligence as a counterargument for science's discounting of an Intelligent Designer is irrelevant. We are searching for ET, because chances are very good that ET is out there. If we said we're looking for the very same ET you're implying with ID, then I agree with you - that is kinda stupid. But nobody involved in the search for ET ever claimed that what we're looking for is the same guy who designed us. At best, if ID is true, then the same intelligence must have designed both us and ET. And seeing as how Earthlife shows remarkable similar design features throughout the animal world (that we Wise Ones ascribe to [shudder]Evolution[/shudder]), chances are 110% that your designer ran out of blueprints long ago, and alien life will look almost exactly like Earthlife. Which is unlilkely.

 

Here's my opinion:

 

ID is utter, unadulterated, unashamed ignorant hogwash. Why do I say so? It's a testament towards basic human superstition, basic human fears that we're built blindly and dumbly for no purpose at all. The one basic fear of death, that there's nothing on the 'other side'.

 

ID's argument that the coding of DNA testifies to an intelligence who must have designed it because it works like a computer program, information etc, being read and executed in the proper way to form either a human or a slug, is hogwash, once again. Hydrogen combines with Oxygen in order to form water. It happens every time, predictably, and in the same order. It happens like this because basic chemical laws orders it to do so. Every time. Electric charges force the H2O molecule to take on a certain shape, with the two H atoms dangling off-set from the fat Oxygen atom. There's no intelligence there, although a casual observer might be hard-pressed to see it in such a heathenly light. It looks programmed. It's not. It's electric.

 

Now - the shape of a H2O molecule causes havoc. That specific shape is the reason why solid H2O takes up more space than liquid H2O, bursting water pipes all over Earth, and any other planet where ET is suffering to pipe his H2O run through cold climes. It's a universal occurence.

 

Carbon, in all its wonderful manifestations, is so complicated, that it's forced science to dedicate a whole field of study to carbon alone. Organic Chemistry is complicated, weird, strange, and the bedrock of life. Because of its weirdness. Regardless of you being in Boston or the other end of the universe, carbon acts in weird and wonderful ways. Organic Chemistry is also a universal oddity and occurence.

 

Organic Chemistry might create a DNA molecule, following the same laws that created the petrol you chuck in your car, that might look to you as if it's an intentionally programmed piece of software. It's not. It's electric. Carbon's just plain weird. Because of the shape of these complex molecules, life arises out of the muck. On Earth, as it is in Heaven. But it wasn't planned. It wasn't designed. It's just what Hydrogen and Carbon and a host of other elements does when left alone for long enough, with sufficient energy input. But swinging a fundamentally superstitious religiously inclined human being around to see it from that point of view, is kinda hard. But according to science, its simply more probable than Intelligent Design, and in my personal opinion, closer to that unreachable vertical axis of Truth that we are asymptotically approaching.

 

Going back to the middle ages is not the smartest of ideas, regardless of what any politician out there tells you.

[paultrr]

I am reminded of a line from the movie Constantine, "God is a kid with an errector set."

 

By restirctions, if you mean that science depends upon nature to get our answers from, then you are correct. Does than prelean science and its findings away from the possible "God" solution. Yes. However, if there is some designer out there we would expect that his or her's signature would appear within what nature shows us. Outside of the sometimes thought about and used argument of order being that signature the problem is we have hundreds of examples in nature where nature itself tends to force or predetermine order in the first place. That in the end run is one of the many reasons we suspect when you boil it all down creation is a self-ordered process.

 

As to that sought after quantum theory of everything what we think it would show us is that original set of natural equations from which all that order sprang forth. To use something close to heart here when it comes to forum arguments, the equations could show that life was predetermined in the first place as a result of natural process. Yes, I put that word "could" into all this. The reason it is there is because we do not know that finial solution yet. We have hints at it and nothing more yet.

 

Right now with what little ID has to present I rather agree it is more of a step back into the dark ages than a leap forward to suggest it as science or have the government demand it which is exactly what happened in the dark ages because the government was the Church then. Discuss it is okay. Demand it by government intervention is totally anti to the constitution.

[Boerseun]

On so-called "Intelligent" Design:

 

In politics, there's a New Line:

That we're the result of Design!

We call it Natural, they call it Divine;

The Scientist have all said "Well, Fine;

When Life first started, it started in brine,

in a mix of a soup that just needed the sun to shine.

For an added gain

it developed a brain

that could see the truth, simple and plain.

What did it do, but went to the pain

of telling Science it was all in vain;

like dancing around, praying for rain.

 

And thousands of years of advance

is being ignored at a glance

by idiots who say

"it happened this way,

if you want it to rain, go and dance!"

[C1ay]

Even that evolution we know to be true? What else do you want to throw out, gravity perhaps?

 

Once again I must remind you (collectively) that the only form of evolution that is in dispute here is macro-evolution.

That's a silly word game. Can you prove that today's crocodile species are not related to archosaurs? Can you prove that none of todays bird species are related to each other or previous bird species? You say you dispute this level of evolution but you certainly have not provided any proof that it does not occur. Where is it?

 

Are you stating that you have undoubtable proof that ID is an unquestionable fact? Just because it's a possibilitiy and you believe it is true doesn't make it true.

 

Virtually, yes. You would laugh me out of the room if I told you that the topiary at the edge of town here which spells out the word "BEND" was NOT the result of intelligent design. You would howl and snicker and quite rightly conclude that I was completely nuts.

 

Nobody's laughing you out of the room. You're simply asked to provide this undoubtable proof and repeatedly you reply with these distractions. The fact that some human can sculpt shrubs has nothing to do with any claim that maybe some unknown force designed the universe. Quit trying to use evidence of man made objects as proof of supernatural existance.

 

If you are going to make blanket claims that theory A or theory B is absolutely false, period, because you say so, etc.. then you need to provide absolute proof, period. The house rules clearly state, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted." You are wrong to tell people that they should flat out reject evolution just because you say so.

 

I haven't said that theory A or theory B is false "because I say so." My belief in something doesn't MAKE it true. Truth exists indepent of what I might or might not believe. I have not based anything on "I just know that this is the way it is". I've given examples and shown quite logically how the reasoning by which I.D. operates is quite well accepted and relied upon by other fields of study within science.

 

What do examples that may or may not support ID have to do with your claims that evolution should be rejected. Forget your examples of ID and use real evidence to disprove evolution if that is your claim. Suggesting that a horse drinks water provides no evidence that the horse doesn't eat.

 

Remember, to absolutely disprove all of evolution you would have to prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species. Can you do that?

 

First of all, refer again to the beginning of this post. Micro-evolution is not in dispute, therefore I do not intend to disprove "all of evolution". Secondly, Darwin disagrees with you. He said that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This has already been demonstrated by Michael Behe. End of story.

 

Michael Behe has proffered some theories. He has proven nothing.

 

Just 2 options, huh? Either one religion is the right one or none of them are. All black and white with no gray in between? Religion is not that absolute. Religion is just a system of beliefs some of which are know to be fact and others that are taken on faith alone. You cannot say that there is only one true system of beliefs, completely free from falsehood itself, and all other belief systems are therefore false. That in itself is simply a point of view that would be based on faith alone, thereby a religious view at that.

 

If you asked 20 people how old I was, and you got twenty different answers, what would you conclude? Wouldn't you conclude that either all the answers were false, or one was true? Certainly, you wouldn't conclude that MORE than one was true, right? I can't be 26 and 14 at the same time, can I? If I'm actually 29 years old but none of the twenty people you asked gave that answer, then that means all the answers you got were false, right? There are lots of religious systems, lots of religious ideas (such as, the idea that the "truth" lies within some combination of all religions). Therefore, I say that all religious ideas cannot simultaneously be true. Either one religion is true (perhaps that one religion is the magic "combo" religion… who knows?) or they're all false. It's really very simple logic… there aren't any other possibilities.

 

If you say that all religions ARE true, then you're either saying that faith creates truth, (and a different truth for everyone) or that all religions are false and that we just like to believe in our personal little fairy tale and play head games with ourselves.

 

Furthermore, if you say I'm free to believe in my religion of choice, but that I'm wrong to conclude that anyone else's religion is wrong, you're really saying that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don't actually think it's true. Obviously, if I can't come to the conclusion that other religions are false, then I must not really believe my religion, right?

 

No one has said all religions are true. You said if there is not one true belief then all beliefs are false because that's all that religion is, beliefs. If you don't see the error in that logic there's no point in even trying to explain it.

 

Explanations are not restricted, explore any that you want.

 

I've been told repeatedly by others on this forum that in order for something to "scientific" it has to explain natural phenomena by reference to natural explanations. In fact, this is what Dr. Robert Pennock testified to in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. That is what's called a "restriction".

 

Was this a trial about what scientists choose to work on or what people want to teach in science class?

 

One thing to think about with your theory, if there was an intelligent designer, would the ability required to learn that require that the designer provide that very ability in the design to begin with? If not, how could you ever find out?

 

Great question. It appears that's exactly what this Intelligent Designer has done… provided us with the means, ability, intellect, ingenuity, creativity to discover evidence of the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

 

Can you prove that?

[TRoutMac]

Nowhere in science is it stated that an Intelligent Designer did not set the whole shebang in motion. Science has, however, said that all things being equal, Intelligent Design is less likely to be the Truth. Science is an asymptotic approach to the Truth. Intelligent Design, as an answer, fits the bill perfectly - 300 years ago when we were further away from that unattainable Final Answer that we are asymptotically approaching.

 

You've got it backwards. Based on what we knew and understood in the late 1800s evolution seemed to fit the bill perfectly. Our greater understanding of biology at the micro level is turning against Darwinism, and has been for some time.

 

And using the searh for Extraterrestrial Intelligence as a counterargument for science's discounting of an Intelligent Designer is irrelevant. We are searching for ET, because chances are very good that ET is out there. If we said we're looking for the very same ET you're implying with ID, then I agree with you - that is kinda stupid. But nobody involved in the search for ET ever claimed that what we're looking for is the same guy who designed us.

 

It's amazing to me that you can read what I wrote, and what has been written by others far better qualified than myself and still miss the point of the SETI connection. It has nothing to do with who SETI is looking for. The point is that in order to find an intelligence out there, you need a set of standards that you expect the intelligence to meet in order to categorize it as an intelligence. SETI scientists know that a signal from E.T. (intelligence) will stand out from the ambient radio noise of deep space. That standard, that threshold, is essentially "information"; that is, "meaningful content". So, moving to biology, we see the same standard met when we look at DNA. Meaningful content. For example, you could take the instructions encoded in a strand of DNA and encode those instructions into a radio signal if you were so inclined, and if you could make that signal look like it came from the vicinity of Alpha Centauri (or wherever) then the people at SETI, upon hearing it, would conclude it was from an intelligence and they'd throw a big party.

 

What's invalid scientific reasoning in one discipline must be invalid scientific reasoning in another, right? Therefore, throw out I.D. and you've gotta throw out the fields that use that same reasoning, including SETI. The issue isn't who SETI is looking for or even why SETI is looking. The issue is how are they looking for them.

 

The rest of your post was to explain the information in DNA by reference to forces of chemical attraction. And yes, chemistry is chock full of such examples. But once again, you're missing the point. Laws of chemical attraction are what hold the structure of the DNA molecule together. It's also true that laws of chemical attraction dictate that guamine must always pair with cytosine and adenine must always pair with thymine. But laws of chemical attraction cannot explain for the sequencing of the base pairs!

 

For example: If, according to some such law, every AT base pair had to be followed by a CG base pair, then you could never have AT follow AT. If TA always had to follow CG, then AT would always follow CG. In which case, your code would have to look like this AT-CG-AT-CG-AT ad infinitum. Similarly, if your law said CG must ALWAYS follow CG, then the first occurence of CG in the code would be followed only by CG. Like this: AT-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG and on and on. Well, we know that DNA isn't sequenced like this.

 

When you write a message on a piece of paper, laws of chemical attraction make the ink stick to the paper… but they don't explain the sequence of characters, do they? Of course not. Your intelligence does that.

 

Going back to the middle ages is not the smartest of ideas, regardless of what any politician out there tells you.

 

Again, I agree fully. Ditch evolution, it's bunk.

[TRoutMac]

That's a silly word game. Can you prove that today's crocodile species are not related to archosaurs? Can you prove that none of todays bird species are related to each other or previous bird species? You say you dispute this level of evolution but you certainly have not provided any proof that it does not occur. Where is it?

 

Um, excuse me, but the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to "prove" that this did happen, it's not on me to prove that it did not happen. There might indeed be evidence which you interpret as proof, but that doesn't make it proof. Also, the examples you chose leave a lot of room for obfuscation… why not zoom out and consider the simple one-celled animal and its alleged evolution into something (anything) more complex? The issues are much easier to see clearly at that level, wouldn't you think?

 

Nobody's laughing you out of the room. You're simply asked to provide this undoubtable proof and repeatedly you reply with these distractions. The fact that some human can sculpt shrubs has nothing to do with any claim that maybe some unknown force designed the universe. Quit trying to use evidence of man made objects as proof of supernatural existance.

 

Why would anyone be laughing me out of the room? I'm not the one making claims analogous to saying that the shrubs grew that way by natural, undirected processes. It's you guys who are saying that. I'm saying that in any other instance (an instance that doesn't threaten your naturalist world view) you would make the same conclusions and you would laugh uncontrollably at someone who made the kind of claims you're making. Also, note that strictly speaking, I.D. theorists do not even claim that the designer is "supernatural".

 

The reason you're having trouble with the analogies is that you're assuming that mankind is the only source of intelligence in the universe, and so when you see the topiary, you think "man made". That humans made the topiary is not what's interesting. What's interesting is that an entity with intelligence created the topiary. So, when we look at DNA, we see exactly the same kind of complexity… information that is extrinsic to the properties of the DNA itself, information that is greater than the sum of the DNA's parts. That makes it comparable to the topiary, and that makes the analogy undeniably valid.

 

Forget your examples of ID and use real evidence to disprove evolution if that is your claim.

 

If I have to meet your standard of "real evidence", then you will never allow me to meet it and you will move the goalposts as necessary. Been there, done that.

 

No one has said all religions are true. You said if there is not one true belief then all beliefs are false because that's all that religion is, beliefs. If you don't see the error in that logic there's no point in even trying to explain it.

 

What I said, quite plainly, is that all religions cannot be true simultaneously. Either one religion, however you define it, is true or they're all false. There's nothing controversial about that statement, it's simple common sense. Again, refer to the age analogy I used. Same argument, same conclusion. No one need be offended by it, it's just plain logic.

 

Was this a trial about what scientists choose to work on or what people want to teach in science class?

 

As I understand it, the trial is about whether I.D. study materials should be made available to those students that might be interested in them, within a public school setting. Now, if you don't think Pennock's statement was germaine to that debate, then write a letter. But that's what the ACLU is building their case on. "It's turtles all the way down!!"

 

Can you prove that?

 

Well, we have discovered evidence that an Intelligent Designer designed the universe and the life therein. So, either of two things is true… either the Intelligent Designer wanted us to find the evidence of Its existence and designed everything, including us, so that we could discover that evidence, or the Intelligent Designer just didn't care one way or the other if we found out. One thing is certain… if the Intelligent Designer did not want us to discover It, then It did an awful job of covering Its tracks.

[C1ay]

Um, excuse me, but the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to "prove" that this did happen, it's not on me to prove that it did not happen. There might indeed be evidence which you interpret as proof, but that doesn't make it proof. Also, the examples you chose leave a lot of room for obfuscation… why not zoom out and consider the simple one-celled animal and its alleged evolution into something (anything) more complex? The issues are much easier to see clearly at that level, wouldn't you think?

No, the burden of proof is yours. Evolutionists have never said that evolution is the explanation for all species, only that it is a theory for some. You have said repeatedly that it's all bunk. Your claim is that all evidence supporting evolution should be disregarded. Not even Darwin claimed that his theory was about the origin of life, yet you think it should be completely thrown out as a valid theory of speciation. Maybe evolution is the design but only the open minded will see that possibility.

 

Why would anyone be laughing me out of the room? I'm not the one making claims analogous to saying that the shrubs grew that way by natural, undirected processes. It's you guys who are saying that. I'm saying that in any other instance (an instance that doesn't threaten your naturalist world view) you would make the same conclusions and you would laugh uncontrollably at someone who made the kind of claims you're making. Also, note that strictly speaking, I.D. theorists do not even claim that the designer is "supernatural".

 

Don't ask me. You're the one that said we'd laugh you out of the room.

 

The reason you're having trouble with the analogies is that you're assuming that mankind is the only source of intelligence in the universe, and so when you see the topiary, you think "man made". That humans made the topiary is not what's interesting. What's interesting is that an entity with intelligence created the topiary. So, when we look at DNA, we see exactly the same kind of complexity… information that is extrinsic to the properties of the DNA itself, information that is greater than the sum of the DNA's parts. That makes it comparable to the topiary, and that makes the analogy undeniably valid.

Where have I said that mankind is the only source of intelligence in the universe. I personally think the universe is likely full of intelligent life. I accept many possibilities and I do not reject ID as one of them.

 

If I have to meet your standard of "real evidence", then you will never allow me to meet it and you will move the goalposts as necessary. Been there, done that.

 

I don't need to move any goal posts. The fact that the flu evolves into a new strain every year is enough to prove that evolution is a valid theory that explains part of this world that we are trying to understand. You'll never prove that it's all bunk. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that many of the reptiles are related to each other as are birds and other fauna. What I don't understand is why you think one theory about adaptation and mutation competes with another theory about origins when neither precludes the other. Why must either of them be wrong for the other to be right? You seem to be obsessed that evolution somehow stands in the way of ID.

 

 

As I understand it, the trial is about whether I.D. study materials should be made available to those students that might be interested in them, within a public school setting. Now, if you don't think Pennock's statement was germaine to that debate, then write a letter. But that's what the ACLU is building their case on. "It's turtles all the way down!!"

What I think is that the ID crowd wants to introduce a course of study on the origins of life and we have no evidence to substantially support any such theories. The ID camp wants to introduce it as a theory competing with evolution even though evolution is not a theory about the origin of life or the universe.

 

 

Well, we have discovered evidence that an Intelligent Designer designed the universe and the life therein. So, either of two things is true… either the Intelligent Designer wanted us to find the evidence of Its existence and designed everything, including us, so that we could discover that evidence, or the Intelligent Designer just didn't care one way or the other if we found out. One thing is certain… if the Intelligent Designer did not want us to discover It, then It did an awful job of covering Its tracks.

 

We've discovered no such evidence. We've only discovered that we continue to find more order in the universe than we understand, not a reason for it. Just because there is order does not mean that it is by design, it only means that there is order. It means that scientists should continue to look for the reasons why. It does not mean that we should lead tomorrow's scientists to conclusions that aren't supported.

[damocles]

If we wanted to be "fair", we would stop making claims and insinuations that I.D. has "absolutely no evidence". You've gotta face facts here, folks…

 

If I.D. has "no evidence" and is "unscientific" and is "untestable" as so many of you seem so convinced, then if some archaeologist somewhere is exploring a previously unknown remote island and finds an artifact with symbols carved into it, then he has no basis whatsoever to claim that any intelligence has ever visited that island. That is the logical consequence of these ridiculous claims. That archaeologist then would have to come up with some natural process that created the artifact and would not be allowed to explore the possibility that an intelligence crafted the artifact. That's where you're at, folks.

 

And if I.D. has "no evidence" and is "unscientific" and is "untestable", then the scientists at SETI who are listening day in and day out for a message from another intelligence in the universe need to look elsewhere for work, because according to you all, they are quacks, not scientists. According to you all, the scientists at SETI have no reasonable means by which to detect information that is from an intelligent source. None whatsoever. So they're just wasting their time down there listening through the telescopes. That's you guys. That's where you're at. That's the logical conclusion to what you're all saying.

 

Something more foolish than this I can scarcely imagine.

 

Of course, you all realize perfectly well that the archaeologist does have a very reasonable basis for which to claim that intelligence has visited his island, and of course, whether you believe there's intelligence elsewhere in the universe or not, the scientists at SETI actually do have a reliable 'test' to discover if a message they receive originated from an intelligence.

 

So, understand, it is not me who is lacking in intellectual consistency here. It's you all. And frankly, you oughtta be a little embarassed.

 

False analogies again.

 

1. If I land on an island and I see carvings and inscriptions chiselled into rock, I start looking for the authors.

 

2. http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

 

Description

The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. The Drake Equation is:

 

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

 

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?

Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?

Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?

Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?

Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?

Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?

Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?

Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The real value of the Drake Equation is not in the answer itself, but the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer. Obviously there is a tremendous amount of guess work involved when filling in the variables. As we learn more from astronomy, biology, and other sciences, we'll be able to better estimate the answers to the above questions. Many of these questions will be addressed in depth in future issues of Enigma.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now then;

 

Troutmac

 

Well, it appears we have a pretty good idea (even if it's not totally complete yet) of HOW DNA works. But we do not know who devised the Universal Genetic Code. We know that even the simplest 'codes' are products of intelligence. The Universal Genetic Code appears to be one of the most complex codes ever discovered.

 

Too bad it was all just an accident. (note sarcasm)

 

We know that the self-organizing principle exists.

 

You don't need intelligence to direct a system to organize thermodynamically and the fact that you don't understand this is sad.

 

Further;

 

Originally Posted by questor

Trout Mac, i'm trying to deal with the level where particulate matter reacts in such a way as to create life. your interest in genetic information is fine, but that is on a macro scale.

something has to occur at the lowest elemental level to differentiate life from inanimate objects. living things are made of elements and so are rocks. at what level of combination of elements do the humans separate from the rocks? if you have a pile of electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, muons,etc lying around, how do you put these together to create life? at what level does the life force live?

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

 

Troutmac

 

If you'll forgive me, I have a personal tragedy that underscores your questions, and I agree they are excellent questions. Approaching five years ago my first child, a son named Conner, died in my arms. He was 18 days old. Long story, but we learned with 8 weeks to go 'til delivery, that he had a chromosomal anomaly called Trisomy 13. Enough about that, the point goes to your question about life. My little boy was alive one minute and gone the next. His body weighed the same, had the same mass, had the same cells, the same molecules, etc. But he was gone. To me, that can only mean one thing: The "real you" is software, not hardware. His "hardware" remained after he had passed, and just as your computer will not start up without an operating system, neither will your body.

 

It's my contention that we are incapable of discovering where the "operating system" comes from, because it comes from something beyond what we understand as nature. By that I mean, undiscoverable or inexplicable in purely natural terms. To try to explain it natural terms is, once again, to beg the question. And of course, this idea squares perfectly with the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

 

Error in successful replication; the animal dies. In the case of the child he died; before he could be taught to be self-aware. The foundation of self awareness is "language". Its part of that human hive mind I previously discussed.

 

As to personal tragedy. That is a shared event(by me, among others.). So I discount the emotional appeal.

 

Further;

 

Well, I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else (can't remember who) on this forum. I think everyone should believe what's true and reject what's false. Whoever I was responding to told me that nobody here was telling me I shouldn't believe in I.D. Well, sorry, but that's a load of bull. If you think I.D. is false, and you have any respect at all for the truth, then you should convince me to reject it!! I think I should be free to believe what I want, but I don't want to believe in what's not true. Do any of you? We should be free to believe as we see fit, but we should all realize that something is true and it's up to us to figure out what.

 

So to be totally honest, I'm telling you that you should reject evolution. That doesn't mean I think you should be forced to reject it, and it doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to accept evolution even though it is false. It simply means that I'm convinced it's false and that I have enough respect for the truth and enough respect for people (not wanting them to be misled) that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't want people to feel threatened at all, but I don't want people to accept what is false. If people insist on doing just that, then fine… that's their business.

 

With respect to religious beliefs, seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that either one religion is true, or all of them are false; just our own personal fairy tales. If it's the latter, then we're all lying to ourselves and we ought to stop. If it's the former, then we all ought to be prepared to deal with the possibility that we're wrong, because if only one religion is true, then all others are necessarily false.

 

I hope you catch the nuances here. I'm as much in support of freedom of religion as anyone. Believe what you want, ultimately it's your business. But I'm not going to blow smoke up peoples' posteriors and say that I'm not telling them they shouldn't believe in evolution. Not only am I telling you you shouldn't believe in evolution, but I'm telling you why.

 

I've raised several key problems regarding evolution and particularly methological naturalism to several of you numerous times, and I have not heard one answer to explain those problems away. My comments are essentially ignored or I'm simply told I'm wrong.

 

I'll ask you, and anybody else: If, in the name of science, we restrict our explanations of natural phenomena to those that are "natural", when will we ever get to the "first cause"? If we do find a "first cause" that is "natural", then don't we have to find a natural explanation for it as well? And if that's true, then it's not really the "first cause", is it? How would you answer this? Does this not call into serious question methodological naturalism's validity as (an alleged) governing philosophy of science? Is it really me being illogical here?

 

Lie. The following is a brief list of some of the presented numerous false analogies not connected with this discussion and false reasoning in the attempt to establish equivalence with which I have dealt.

 

Recap

1. Scientists refuse to test-basis of the IDer argument. Response-present testable hypothesis/evidence and they will come.

a. painter analogy. Response-if there is a painter look at his brushstrokes.

b. senator bedfellow analogy. Response-Piltdown Man hoax correction.

c. archaeologist analogy. Response-artifacts are evidence; no matter who made them and humans recognize this.

d. SETI analogy. Response-mathematical probability equation justifies attempt.

e. Micro-evolution proven but macro-evolution not-Error pointed out that information theory simplification of body planform during a killoff event is a successful predictor of macro-evolution that is a consequence of applied information theory..

 

Further;

 

Well, there can obviously be no solution, because any solution must be natural, according to methodological naturalism. Damocles just snaps back that I'm using "faulty logic" and then pastes half-a-dictionary's worth of definitions of "phenomenon" and "explanation" as if that solves the problem. Total case of denial, pure and simple. Methodological naturalism is bogus, period. And that question proves it.

 

Once you're out of that box, then the blinders come off and you're able to consider the evidence for Intelligent Design.

 

Lie.

 

The solution lies in understanding. For there to be a supernatural explanation, there must be a supernatural phenomenon. Where is it? Evidence. That is what I wrote. I also wrote what you should look for natuarally to postulate the possibility of the supernatural. Information theory. LEARN IT.

 

Then use it to build the tests I already know must be run to prove the ID crowds case.

 

Further;

 

Originally Posted by C1ay

Even that evolution we know to be true? What else do you want to throw out, gravity perhaps?

 

Troutmac;

Once again I must remind you (collectively) that the only form of evolution that is in dispute here is macro-evolution.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Are you stating that you have undoubtable proof that ID is an unquestionable fact? Just because it's a possibilitiy and you believe it is true doesn't make it true.

 

Troutmac;

Virtually, yes. You would laugh me out of the room if I told you that the topiary at the edge of town here which spells out the word "BEND" was NOT the result of intelligent design. You would howl and snicker and quite rightly conclude that I was completely nuts.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

If you are going to make blanket claims that theory A or theory B is absolutely false, period, because you say so, etc.. then you need to provide absolute proof, period. The house rules clearly state, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted." You are wrong to tell people that they should flat out reject evolution just because you say so.

 

Troutmac;

I haven't said that theory A or theory B is false "because I say so." My belief in something doesn't MAKE it true. Truth exists indepent of what I might or might not believe. I have not based anything on "I just know that this is the way it is". I've given examples and shown quite logically how the reasoning by which I.D. operates is quite well accepted and relied upon by other fields of study within science.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Remember, to absolutely disprove all of evolution you would have to prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species. Can you do that?

 

Troutmac;

First of all, refer again to the beginning of this post. Micro-evolution is not in dispute, therefore I do not intend to disprove "all of evolution". Secondly, Darwin disagrees with you. He said that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This has already been demonstrated by Michael Behe. End of story.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Just 2 options, huh? Either one religion is the right one or none of them are. All black and white with no gray in between? Religion is not that absolute. Religion is just a system of beliefs some of which are know to be fact and others that are taken on faith alone. You cannot say that there is only one true system of beliefs, completely free from falsehood itself, and all other belief systems are therefore false. That in itself is simply a point of view that would be based on faith alone, thereby a religious view at that.

 

Troutmac;

If you asked 20 people how old I was, and you got twenty different answers, what would you conclude? Wouldn't you conclude that either all the answers were false, or one was true? Certainly, you wouldn't conclude that MORE than one was true, right? I can't be 26 and 14 at the same time, can I? If I'm actually 29 years old but none of the twenty people you asked gave that answer, then that means all the answers you got were false, right? There are lots of religious systems, lots of religious ideas (such as, the idea that the "truth" lies within some combination of all religions). Therefore, I say that all religious ideas cannot simultaneously be true. Either one religion is true (perhaps that one religion is the magic "combo" religion… who knows?) or they're all false. It's really very simple logic… there aren't any other possibilities.

 

If you say that all religions ARE true, then you're either saying that faith creates truth, (and a different truth for everyone) or that all religions are false and that we just like to believe in our personal little fairy tale and play head games with ourselves.

 

Furthermore, if you say I'm free to believe in my religion of choice, but that I'm wrong to conclude that anyone else's religion is wrong, you're really saying that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don't actually think it's true. Obviously, if I can't come to the conclusion that other religions are false, then I must not really believe my religion, right?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Explanations are not restricted, explore any that you want.

 

Troutmac;

I've been told repeatedly by others on this forum that in order for something to "scientific" it has to explain natural phenomena by reference to natural explanations. In fact, this is what Dr. Robert Pennock testified to in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. That is what's called a "restriction".

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

One thing to think about with your theory, if there was an intelligent designer, would the ability required to learn that require that the designer provide that very ability in the design to begin with? If not, how could you ever find out?

 

Troutmac:

Great question. It appears that's exactly what this Intelligent Designer has done… provided us with the means, ability, intellect, ingenuity, creativity to discover evidence of the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

 

1. Macro-evolution is predicted by information theory. Life should distribute gross variation in planform given sufficient discrete intervals.

2. Ants clip leaves to conform to hive dimensions. Do they possess intelligence you recognize because they clip plants?

3. false analogies and false reasoning is not the basis of proof-no matter how much you "believe" you proved.

4. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

 

I was delighted to hear of a book written by a Biochemist, questioning whether "gradualism" could explain the origins of complexity. The problem seems pretty clear - how could you possibly explain the origin of complex, interdependent biochemical systems, with a step-by-step reductionistic approach. I have been interested in evolution and the origins of complexity, and so was looking forward to reading Michael Behe's "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". However, as I began to read the book, I became concerned (and frustrated) by some of the statements made (rather dogmatically) about "modern biochemistry". I feel that although Behe asks a good question - and the subject of the book has potential for some really interesting problems to be dealt with - his manner of presenting the arguments made the topic appear more translucent (or occasionally opaque) rather than clear. Many of my biologist friends tell me that few "modern biologists" believe that Darwinian gradualism on its own can fully explain evolution - that most of them agree that there are aspects of punctuated evolution mixed with the more slow gradualistic evolution. I had expected the book to deal more with this, or perhaps to discuss some of the new ideas concerning origins of complexity in terms of "self organization" systems, instead of a general debunking of natural selection altogether. This review is my own personal response to Behe's "biochemical challenge to evolution".

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I LIKED about the book:

 

Behe does a good job describing Biochemical systems and making them interesting to the reader.

He is trying to deal with a very real and important question: the origins of biochemical complexity.

He takes somewhat of an "anti-reductionist" stance. That is, you can't fully explain EVERYTHING in terms of simpler parts.

He seems to be saying that science might not be able to explain everything.

 

What I DISLIKED about the book:

 

Although Behe says that he believes in "Evolution by common descent" in the introduction, he seems to contradict this later in the book. I am really quite skeptical of the idea of God (or the "Intelligent Designer") creating some amoeba 3.5 billion years ago, with all these IC systems. Why is this any better (or different) than Francis Crick's Panspermia theory, where space aliens seeded the earth with bacteria a couple of billion years ago?

There are many places where, when the arguments presented can be put to the test, they fail miserably. For example, his insistence of the absence of literature about molecular evolution. This is easy to test, and see that what he is claiming is clearly wrong. This greatly reduces his integrity, in my opinion.

When reading the book, I get the feeling that Behe is implying some sort of "conspiracy" amongst scientists. I am convinced that what motivates many very good and talented scientists is the desire to be RIGHT and to be the first one who got there.

The appeal to ignorance of the reader. Many things are said to support his arguments which are simply not true, but the intended reader would likely have no idea of this. ( I strongly recommend that the rest of the review be read. Behe may be a biologist but he flatly gets the science WRONG.

6. I knew the arguer was thity by the way he argued.

 

If you say that all religions ARE true, then you're either saying that faith creates truth, (and a different truth for everyone) or that all religions are false and that we just like to believe in our personal little fairy tale and play head games with ourselves.

 

I agree with that statement.

 

8. The IDer crowd have been challenged to test or present valid evidence and have been shown(by me) how this is possible b y using the scientific method. Its not my fault that they refuse to try or that they fail.

 

Now if you want to argue that ID is a science then prove it by the scientific method.

 

further;

 

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Nowhere in science is it stated that an Intelligent Designer did not set the whole shebang in motion. Science has, however, said that all things being equal, Intelligent Design is less likely to be the Truth. Science is an asymptotic approach to the Truth. Intelligent Design, as an answer, fits the bill perfectly - 300 years ago when we were further away from that unattainable Final Answer that we are asymptotically approaching.

 

Troutmac:

You've got it backwards. Based on what we knew and understood in the late 1800s evolution seemed to fit the bill perfectly. Our greater understanding of biology at the micro level is turning against Darwinism, and has been for some time.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boerseun

And using the searh for Extraterrestrial Intelligence as a counterargument for science's discounting of an Intelligent Designer is irrelevant. We are searching for ET, because chances are very good that ET is out there. If we said we're looking for the very same ET you're implying with ID, then I agree with you - that is kinda stupid. But nobody involved in the search for ET ever claimed that what we're looking for is the same guy who designed us.

 

Troutmac

It's amazing to me that you can read what I wrote, and what has been written by others far better qualified than myself and still miss the point of the SETI connection. It has nothing to do with who SETI is looking for. The point is that in order to find an intelligence out there, you need a set of standards that you expect the intelligence to meet in order to categorize it as an intelligence. SETI scientists know that a signal from E.T. (intelligence) will stand out from the ambient radio noise of deep space. That standard, that threshold, is essentially "information"; that is, "meaningful content". So, moving to biology, we see the same standard met when we look at DNA. Meaningful content. For example, you could take the instructions encoded in a strand of DNA and encode those instructions into a radio signal if you were so inclined, and if you could make that signal look like it came from the vicinity of Alpha Centauri (or wherever) then the people at SETI, upon hearing it, would conclude it was from an intelligence and they'd throw a big party.

 

What's invalid scientific reasoning in one discipline must be invalid scientific reasoning in another, right? Therefore, throw out I.D. and you've gotta throw out the fields that use that same reasoning, including SETI. The issue isn't who SETI is looking for or even why SETI is looking. The issue is how are they looking for them.

 

The rest of your post was to explain the information in DNA by reference to forces of chemical attraction. And yes, chemistry is chock full of such examples. But once again, you're missing the point. Laws of chemical attraction are what hold the structure of the DNA molecule together. It's also true that laws of chemical attraction dictate that guamine must always pair with cytosine and adenine must always pair with thymine. But laws of chemical attraction cannot explain for the sequencing of the base pairs!

 

For example: If, according to some such law, every AT base pair had to be followed by a CG base pair, then you could never have AT follow AT. If TA always had to follow CG, then AT would always follow CG. In which case, your code would have to look like this AT-CG-AT-CG-AT ad infinitum. Similarly, if your law said CG must ALWAYS follow CG, then the first occurence of CG in the code would be followed only by CG. Like this: AT-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG-CG and on and on. Well, we know that DNA isn't sequenced like this.

 

When you write a message on a piece of paper, laws of chemical attraction make the ink stick to the paper… but they don't explain the sequence of characters, do they? Of course not. Your intelligence does that.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Going back to the middle ages is not the smartest of ideas, regardless of what any politician out there tells you.

 

Again, I agree fully. Ditch evolution, it's bunk.

 

1. The current refinement of the model is not the refutation of its gross principles. Even Behe is not stupid enough to reject the evidence of common descent.

2. SETI analogy is false. Information transmission is not imposed information ordering byu intelligence. There is somewthing called competitive energy states that provides sufficient explanation for complexification of self replicating systems in mathematics and biology. Ignorance may be bliss but the IDers won't be alllowed to share it without challenge.

3. The rest of the gibberish demonstrates a profound lack of respect for those who know basic high school chemistry. Bonding of molecules is restricted by available bonding pairs that balance atomic charges and geometries. Any further read into the mechanism is a distortion of the experimental truth.

 

4.

When you write a message on a piece of paper, laws of chemical attraction make the ink stick to the paper… but they don't explain the sequence of characters, do they? Of course not. Your intelligence does that.

 

Lie. The electro-chemistry of the human brain explains how you process information. To that extent does the false analogy have anything to do with ID.

 

The intent was to somehow equate the act of writing with the act of creating a chemical bond at the DNA level by saying that language requires an intelligent designer. Nonsense.

 

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/Dance_language.html

 

There can be no argument that the most famous aspect of honey bee biology is their method of recruitment, commonly known as the honey bee dance language. It has served as a model example of animal communication in biology courses at all levels, and is one of the most fascinating behaviors that can be observed in nature.

 

The dance language is used by one individual to communicate two items of information to one ore more receivers: the distance and direction to a location (typically a food source, such as a patch of flowers). It is usually used when an experienced forager returns to her colony with a load of food, either nectar or pollen. If the quality of the food is sufficiently high, she will often perform a "dance" on the surface of the wax comb to recruit new foragers to the resource. The dance language is also used to recruit scout bees to a new nest site during the process of reproductive fission, or swarming. Recruits follow the dancing bee to obtain the information it contains, and then exit the hive to the location of interest. The distance and direction information contained in the dance are representations of the source's location (see Components of the Dance Language), and thus is the only known abstract "language" in nature other than human language.

 

You would expect this to be the common product of a hive mind.

 

5.

Troutmac;

Again, I agree fully. Ditch evolution, it's bunk.

 

Prove it. Don't just assert.

 

Further;

 

O

riginally Posted by C1ay

That's a silly word game. Can you prove that today's crocodile species are not related to archosaurs? Can you prove that none of todays bird species are related to each other or previous bird species? You say you dispute this level of evolution but you certainly have not provided any proof that it does not occur. Where is it?

 

 

 

Um, excuse me, but the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to "prove" that this did happen, it's not on me to prove that it did not happen. There might indeed be evidence which you interpret as proof, but that doesn't make it proof. Also, the examples you chose leave a lot of room for obfuscation… why not zoom out and consider the simple one-celled animal and its alleged evolution into something (anything) more complex? The issues are much easier to see clearly at that level, wouldn't you think?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Nobody's laughing you out of the room. You're simply asked to provide this undoubtable proof and repeatedly you reply with these distractions. The fact that some human can sculpt shrubs has nothing to do with any claim that maybe some unknown force designed the universe. Quit trying to use evidence of man made objects as proof of supernatural existance.

 

Troutmac;

Why would anyone be laughing me out of the room? I'm not the one making claims analogous to saying that the shrubs grew that way by natural, undirected processes. It's you guys who are saying that. I'm saying that in any other instance (an instance that doesn't threaten your naturalist world view) you would make the same conclusions and you would laugh uncontrollably at someone who made the kind of claims you're making. Also, note that strictly speaking, I.D. theorists do not even claim that the designer is "supernatural".

 

The reason you're having trouble with the analogies is that you're assuming that mankind is the only source of intelligence in the universe, and so when you see the topiary, you think "man made". That humans made the topiary is not what's interesting. What's interesting is that an entity with intelligence created the topiary. So, when we look at DNA, we see exactly the same kind of complexity… information that is extrinsic to the properties of the DNA itself, information that is greater than the sum of the DNA's parts. That makes it comparable to the topiary, and that makes the analogy undeniably valid.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Forget your examples of ID and use real evidence to disprove evolution if that is your claim.

 

Troutmac;

If I have to meet your standard of "real evidence", then you will never allow me to meet it and you will move the goalposts as necessary. Been there, done that.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

No one has said all religions are true. You said if there is not one true belief then all beliefs are false because that's all that religion is, beliefs. If you don't see the error in that logic there's no point in even trying to explain it.

 

Troutmac;

What I said, quite plainly, is that all religions cannot be true simultaneously. Either one religion, however you define it, is true or they're all false. There's nothing controversial about that statement, it's simple common sense. Again, refer to the age analogy I used. Same argument, same conclusion. No one need be offended by it, it's just plain logic.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Was this a trial about what scientists choose to work on or what people want to teach in science class?

 

Troutmac;

As I understand it, the trial is about whether I.D. study materials should be made available to those students that might be interested in them, within a public school setting. Now, if you don't think Pennock's statement was germaine to that debate, then write a letter. But that's what the ACLU is building their case on. "It's turtles all the way down!!"

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Can you prove that?

 

Troutman

Well, we have discovered evidence that an Intelligent Designer designed the universe and the life therein. So, either of two things is true… either the Intelligent Designer wanted us to find the evidence of Its existence and designed everything, including us, so that we could discover that evidence, or the Intelligent Designer just didn't care one way or the other if we found out. One thing is certain… if the Intelligent Designer did not want us to discover It, then It did an awful job of covering Its tracks.

 

1. I'm laughing now. That you would claim that the fact there is an event of growing bushes is equal to the event that humans clipped them has me rolling on the floor. How many times do you have to be shown that two separate events are not information equivalent?

 

Any appeal to false equivalence has to be called a lie. So that it is to call hedge clipping and chemical sequencing the same. A LIE.

 

2. Proof never attempted by the IDers- hence they reject the challenge as being unnecessary since they expect their critics to deny their absurd assertions without them the IDers having to do anything except say it isn't so and we so assert. Nevertheless faced with this obdurant obstinancy.

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

 

evolution: science and belief

Intelligent Design?

a special report reprinted from

Natural History magazine en español

educator resources

 

 

 

reporthighlights

Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EVO). The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement.

The authors who contributed to this Natural History report are:

 

Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed. (introduction)

Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) and Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO)

William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) and Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO)

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) and Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO)

Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. (overview)

(Read more......D.)

Examples of suggested tests and where to look for physical evidence supplied.

-look for a two boundari boundary condition.

-look for intelligent organization in "entanglement".

-LOOK FOR "MIRACLES" in history.

That the IDers say that scientists have nort supplied evidence?

Another lie.

 

3. Here is how to have multiple religions be true using information theory alone.. Multiple gods create multiple universes(sets) that all impinge on each other and set up competitive "faith" states for salvation within the merge.

 

4. Fine teach it as part as a religious philosophy course(mythology as the basis of religion). As science goes? Not yet valid. Testable hypothesis with predictors, please.

 

5.

 

Troutmac;

Well, we have discovered evidence that an Intelligent Designer designed the universe and the life therein^1. So, either of two things is true… either the Intelligent Designer wanted us to find the evidence of Its existence and designed everything, including us, so that we could discover that evidence, or the Intelligent Designer just didn't care one way or the other if we found out.^2 One thing is certain… if the Intelligent Designer did not want us to discover It, then It did an awful job of covering Its tracks.^3

 

^1 No valid evidence presented yet. Assertion is a current lie to be rectified by future valid negation testing of a testable hypothesis.

^2 (^1) restated as an assertion with no proof; but with two testable conditions once the hypothesis is shown to be possible.

^3 Then it sahould be childs' play to discover this by the scientific method.

 

TEST.

[IrishEyes]

I don't know how many times this has been asked in this thread, but I am going to state that I am formally ordering all parties involved in this discussion to stop with the over-long posts, especially the post-quoting. If you need to quote something, please post only the relevant information from the post, NOT the entire thing.

It is also VERY helpful to people trying to follow this discussion if you break up your responses, and only address one or two points in each post. I understand that you sometimes get into a groove during a response, but it makes it very difficult to follow the conversation when reading each response is like reading "War and Peace".

 

In short:

- stop quoting entire posts when one or two lines will suffice

- stop making your posts so long as to be virtually unfollowable.

 

It should not take me three seconds to scroll to the end of any post. One post should not have literally 18 screens worth of information!

[questor]

the real answer to the voluminous postings and logical arguing and semantic acrobatic posturing is that we don't know the answers. one group argues that a posit must be proved scientifically before it can be admitted, even though neither side can prove its point.

the other side cites many obvious and overt examples of the presence of ID. the opponents says even though there is no evidence that ID does NOT exist and can offer zero evidence against the existence of ID, it is a religion and is involved with God, therefore there is no chance it has credibility. what a foolish argument. since we don't

know, i would say if you're going with the evidence, go where the evidence leads you.

my challenge again is to hear some good reasons against the theory of ID. do not be fearful of the ridicule of the scientific community--this is just between us.