What exactly is ID?

In this case, I know the results of theory and observation. In the first case, sickle-cell is atypical, and in the second place, I should like to know why you do not consider not dying of malaria to be amongst the functions of the gene. This does not answer my question. Why are you using Sanford's language of "genetic entropy" if your argument, when and if you think of one, would not be the same as his? No, you've just said what unit of measurement you want to use. No. I can see why you'd want to duck this issue. Not only would providing a way of measuring the information in a DNA sequence take work, but once you produced it it would become trivial to prove you wrong.If you're going to take refuge in obscurity, might I suggest that with less effort and less embarrassment to yourself, you could take refuge in silence?

The problem is you are referring to genes which apply to disease resistance. The diseases in question rely on the target cells to be functioning normally, so by necessity any resistance mechanism is going to affect normal function.However, I read of an example recently posted by PZ myers in his blog on the evolution of alpha-actinin which anchors the actin cytoskeleton of cells. To describe it briefly, invertebrates have one of these genes whereas vertebrates have four. These extra genes resulted from a duplication event 200-300 million years ago. In that time these duplicated genes have undergone mutations, adapting to subtly different roles, in particular alpha-actinin 2 and 3 which are expressed almost exclusively in skeletal muscle tissue. So how does this fit into your hypothetical genetic entropy?

The problem with the Thaxton definition of ID (from Dr. A): Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings.is that it is nothing more than Creationism. So how would you distinguish it from Creationism? The more I debate Darwinists and atheists or whatever form of materialism any of you subscribe to, the more I am convinced that you all seem to be poor philosophers.I have got Nuggin who says the Wedge document is here for religious reasons. This is probably very true and I am not debating that.An insight came to me recently that (possibly all) "paradigms" can be or are front loaded with intentional or unintentional agendas and Darwinism is no exception. It doesn't need a 10 or 20 year agenda. It serves materialism intentionally or unintentionally. It naturally appeals to atheists and materialists or those whose appeal is to anti-religious views.As I have stated before, materialism cannot explain reality or find the truth. "There is no deep reality." is a view held by a vast majority of quantum physicists. Materialism continues to fail as the economic models of socialism and communism fail over the long run. Capitalism mixed with materialistic philosophy also fails in the long run.Creationism is a child of a materialistic paradigm.

Hi Drew, I agree. I wouldn't.Seriously, the only difference is that ID tries to play hide-the-Bible and present creationism as if it were science. Mostly, this is in a vain attempt to smuggle their creationist propaganda past the Establishment Clause of the US constitution and into the public schools. The purpose of ID is to promote Christian apologetics under the guise of science and at the expense of science. This is deeply dishonest, ignorant and dangerous. Sanctimonious bullshit. You go on to prove your command of philosophy by indulging in a meandering ramble about nothing in particular. You certainly don't touch upon the topic. I've tried long and hard to think of something funny to say in response to that. However, on reflection, I don't think that there's anything I could say that would make it any funnier than it is already.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Ah, I see, you're a crackpot. Good to know

How? You are claiming that an unknowable designer of unmeasurable power used undetectable mechanisms for purposes you can not explain. No, because we follow a naturalistic approach citing only what exists.You, however, ARE claiming that there is an invisible pink unicorn. Your only "evidence" is that you think he did it. WRONG! Science absolutely has an absolute. "Reality is real".You have thrown out that premise and thus everything you've presented has NOT been science. Seriously? Look around you. Are you honestly suggesting that the presence of multicellular lifeforms IN ADDITION TO single celled life forms means that the grand sum of complexity has DECREASED? I didn't bother reading your link because I can tell you EVEN WITHOUT READING IT that the experiment was NOT an attempt to turn RNA strands into people.In fact, there were ALREADY people present when THEY started the experiment.

And you think it is funny? Well I am glad I at least entertain someone with my humor.You see I belive there was a presumption that Genesis had to be interpreted into a framework of material reality. Is material reality the only reality that exists? Why should we assume God operates within our limited perpectives? The bible isn't a materialistic science book.If Genesis was a matter of science then, God wouldn't have told Adam that he would surely die if he ate the apple. Adam didn't die, he lived for another 800 years or so. If it was a science book then, the trees wouldn't have been created before the sun. According to this new interpretation, the fourth day (fourth dimension) time was established for people. Is it possible that everything described in the fourth day had a reference to time? What did the signs in Genesis 1:14 refer to?Also, I am considering Einstein's theory of relativity as applied to Genesis. I haven't worked things out yet but there are people working on it.Anyway, this is another topic worthy of a new discussion, so maybe some other time. And thats all there is to it? It couldn't possibly be anything else? I see over and over again what you people are afraid of.I will also point out (from the top of my head), I believe it was during the Dover trial that someone asked Michael Behe if intelligent design should investigate astrology. If someone thinks ID and Creationism are the same thing then, why would someone think Creationism should investigate astrology or ask if it should do so? Do I need to tell you that astrology and Christianity are incompatible?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Check the trial transcript. It is online.Behe was being asked about his definition of the scientific method. In order to have a definition broad enough to include ID he also had to admit that his definition would also include astrology.In other words, Behe was changing the commonly understood definition of the scientific method in an effort to include ID, and he got caught on a witness stand under oath.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well that's only a problem if you want the phrase to mean something different from what the guy who coined the phrase wanted it to mean.In which case want must be your master. But not so poor as someone who descrbes "Darwinism" as a "form of materialism". How about science? Is that any good at finding the truth?It does seem to be doing rather well.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It could possible be something else. It isn't. Get back to us when it is.

If you accept that, what's the point of clinging to creationist nonsense? So do I. As seventy-two Nobel-Prize winning scientists testified in Edwards v. Aguillard: That does sound rather worrying, doesn't it?But the spiritual consequences of Creationism are to me more worrying than the practical ones. It inculcates a habit of willful stupidity and a hatred of critical thought. One has only to look at the antics of most (thankfully not all) of the creationists on this board to see that. You believe some strange things. This is what happens to people who don't examine the evidence.

If you go into any dicitionary and search for certain words, you will soon find that certain words "may" have multiple meanings. I don't see why this can't apply to the phrase "Intelligent design". Obviously you believe Thaxton's definition should hold weight as the only possible definition. I presume this is because of its publication. Theoretically, I don't see why some people can't come along and disqualify or override Thaxton's definition on the basis that it is a definition of Creationism. I think Thaxton was or still is a "cdesign proponent" - "Creation-design proponent". From a scientific perspective, I agree with you but from a larger philisophical persepective, I see it can be used to advance materialistic agendas. I believe natural selection is a valid observation and the same goes for random mutations (to a certain extent) but obviously, it does not persuade me that it is the absolute truth in its power to explain the evolution of modern organisms from organims that existed 3.5 billion years ago.I don't always agree with design proponents. I don't necessariy outright disagree with all of their points but they would have to do a better job in persuading me of certain things. The same goes with neo-Darwinism.Just look at the flagellum as theoretically built by a TTSS. You can find the video on youtube. The model appears to be a poor example of a step by step process of natural selection acting on mutations. It is more descriptive of an irreducibly complex system as being built by the invisible forces of an intelligent designer.I'm sure this pilus model appeases the feelings neo-Darwinists on this forum but it just doesn't persuade me. To say that it explains the flagellum is like saying I can walk to Africa from here in Palm Beach because I discovered the Bahama Islands. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Got some examples? What are you talking about?

It seems to me we can't go further if we can't find common ground. I have to admire one thing about the Creationists is that they stubbornly believe what they want to on the basis of their faith. I on the other hand have a need form a deeper understanding of the realities and the truth behind why we are here. I guess that is one reason why I have a hard time staying away from this forum.I like science. I don't think ID is science but I don't think I can neatly categorize ID into one particular category. I would encourage people to investigate it and not to be afraid of it. To me it is almost exclusively an exercise of the concious left hemisphere of the brain. This is part of what science is.

Richard Dawkins