Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

You have not made a case for that. You have made a faith statement.But, you have not explained anything at all about many things.1) HOw does Intelligent design explain the fossil record in a way that distinguishes itself from variation followed by natural selection. Because you are insisting there are not enough points on the graph??2) What predictive powers does I.D. have. In the I.D. claims, why are the predictions that are claimed are part of the I.D. mechanism.3) What can I.D. be used for?

Accepting it as faith is fine. However, that is NOT a scientific theory.Scientific theories go by evidence, by testablity, by the ability to have somethign falsified. The last thing a believer wants is to have their idea of God having an active roll in the creation of life is it being falsified.That is why, IMO, the promoters of Intelligent Design have turned politics to get it taught in schools, rather than try to come up with
a way to make it science.

I think you should go and read the cross examination from the dover trial when Behe was cross examined. It is highly educational.There were a lot of claims that Behe made that showed he was very ignorant about the subject. For example, he made a claim no peer reviewed article was written. The lawyer cross examining him immedately came up with 50 articles that he placed on the table.The Dover trial exposed Behe as to his level of expertise. He also had to admit that astrology would have to be considered science with the defintion he used to say I.D> was science. Pretty devestating I would say

As explained to you, the filter that is shown to work very effectively does not require intelligence. This filter is testable, can make predictions, and the tests can be independantly verified.Yes, laymen can 'weigh' in on anything they want. However, manytimes they base their opinion on ignorance of the subject matter.You claim to see an indication of intelligence. Evolutionary biologists see a mechanism where an intelligence is not required, and manage to test that mechanism.Lets see you come up with a way to test for intelligence in the biological system. No one has yet been able to come up with a satisfactory method. It would earn you a nobel prize if you could. Claims based on the logical falacy of personal incrediblity just don't cut it in science. Do you think you can do better?

From what I see, the evidence for 'I.D.' is area in Evolution that is considered 'I don't know'. That makes it NOT evidence, but rather the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty.The areas that I.D. was pushing as evidence was attacks on the lack of knowledge in what ever the current biological evolution was at the time.
For example.. the evolution of the immune system , (as described in
Behe's "Darwin's Black Box".When Behe repeated his claim at the recent Dover Trial that there will never be anyway to see how the Immune system evolved, he was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, and text books on the immune system that describes in detail on how the immune system evolved.The same goes for the evoulution of the Bacterial Flagullum.Pointing to things that are not known, then proclaiming 'See, it had to be intelligently designed' is not evidence FOR I.D. at all.On edit:As for your claim about transitional form fossils not being repleat, I won't bother to show you the list of severl hundred of transitional fossils, because, I think your 'level of proof' is unrealisticly high.
I know these have been pointed out to you before, yet, here you are , repeating the same claim. This is very common amoung people who are anti-evolution. A claim is made , it is refuted, and then it gets made again without consideration of the evidence presented. However, if you do want a partial list of many forms, you can go to
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThis message has been edited by ramoss, 12-23-2005 08:13 AM