Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

Well, the original thread went way off topic despite all my efforts to wrangle it in. So, now that it's topped out and been closed down, I'm going to repost my original question again.I have read several threads here about Intelligent Design / Creationism / Evolution, and something has jumped out.Creationists have a very well developed theory - "God created mankind, all the animals, and all the plants in just the way it's described in the Bible."Evolutionists have a very well developed theory - "Mutations in the genetic code create new traits which can be passed from one generation to the next. Those traits which are benificial thrive. Over time, small changes add up to big changes."But Intelligent Design, not so much...Here's the thing -
Creationists have "mechanics". That is to say they can clearly explain how something happened. "God did this using the power of God."Evolutionists have "mechanics". Mutations happen as a result of copy errors in DNA. Natural Selection happens when something dies before it can reproduce.But the Intelligent Design side of the debate has yet to explain their "mechanics".If you are an ID supporter, can you please step up to the plate?What is Intelligent Design's theory?
What would be tought in schools if ID was the only theory?
What are the "mechanics" of Intelligent Design?
How are designs done? How are they implimented?
What constraints are put on Natural selection to assure that only the incorrectly designed species are killed?
Why are there incorrectly designed species at all?Can anyone explain any of this?

Sadly, we've apparently frightened off all the ID supporters.This is the second time I've run this thread, and I have yet to have a single ID supporter even try to answer the questions or explain their position.With so little support in the debate, why then do they insist on legal recourse to have their ideas taught in schools?

Sigh...I guess we need to completely abandon the whole debate, since no one is willing to support ID at all.Oh, well, victory party at my place. (And yes, you Creationists are invited)

Prophex, for someone who complains as much as you do about other posters, you may want to take a long look in the mirror.If you want to debate, debate. If you don't want to debate, go away. But repeatedly posting that you don't want to debate is silly.Re: "Here we go again". In case you missed it, this is a repost of my original thread which ran its course and slipped very much off topic - hence the "part 2". My "problem" is that Intelligent Design is being suggested as an alternative to science. What you are saying is that ID is a religion. That's fine. I don't have a problem with religion. You'll notice that this thread is not "Help me understand the Loaves and Fishes" nor is it "Help me understand how the rabbit comes out of the hat". The Catholics aren't trying to tell me that miracles are science. The Magicians are trying to tell me that magic is science.If all Intelligent Design is is a religion, then more power to you guys. Obviously it doesn't belong in schools, certainly not in science class.If you want to believe it, go do so. Just keep it out of the class room.If you still insist that it has some relationship to what has actually happened here in the real world, then step up and explain how it works.

Then it is a good thing that there are entire institutions dedicated to just that.My question is why you seem to be implying that all institutions be dedicated only to that?All hospitals running solely on prayer?
All librarys holding only religious texts?
All courts asking Allah if person X is guilty?If you want to convert schools, why not the rest?

So Christians shouldn't take medicine? Shouldn't go to doctors? Only a very very small minority actually follows those rules. They will stop to be actively a part of science theory and become a part of science history. This is in stark difference to religion which holds that the first possible answer is always the best possible answer.Sam: How'd this rock get here?
Bob: Um... a big flood?
Sam: Maybe it just fell off that cliff over there.
Bob: Sorry, too late, I already said flood.
Sam: Yeah, but, aren't there rocks just like this up on the cliff.
Bob: Man, sorry Sam, but I'm going to have to stone you to death for saying that. There were Intelligent Designers before Copernicus. That's how we KNEW that the sun went around the Earth. And what better observation of God than the fact that he has blessed scientists with the mental capacity to discover the world and shake the superstitions out of a central role in controlling people's lives. Let me lay it out for you.Question: How did we end up with Sea Otters?
Answer: God did it.
Question: How?
Answer: With God Power.
Question: Can you explain that better?
Answer: Nope, why would we even bother to.

By Rael, I think you've got it.Intelligent Design is strictly Raelians trying to impose their religion (allbeit true) upon us.

Two points here:First, you have not listed any mechanics at all. You have just reiterated a poor understanding of biology and mathematics. Even if you were 100% correct in your assumptions, you STILL have nothing to offer in place of evolution.The whole point of this thread is to discover what the mechanics of ID are? What are they? Do you even know?You talking about ID being more likely than the highly improbably evolution? Let me ask you this: In a 100 mile race, who's going to win, the car the goes 1 mile an hour or the other car that lacks not only gas, wheels, an engine, but even an entire car? There is a British engineer (name escapes me, but I'll find it if I have to) who has been "breeding" circuits that are far more effecient than code written by computer experents. He gives a series of chips a task like "identify this muscical note without using the clock" and then cross breeds the successful programs. He's managed to develop chips that solve the problem with half as much code as even the best program can create. These circuits are evolving.

Tell that to Industrial Rock bands. What note is "Power Drill"? How do you show that on the sheet music? You may call it nose, but others call it music.Either way, what does any of this have to do with the fact that ID is completely without mechanics / theory / concept? Nothing.Deal with your lack of theory instead of making up bad analogies about evolution

I'll take your complete inability to engage in the conversation as proof positive that you know you are wrong.So, keep pretending to sit on your high horse and look down your nose at everyone while you cry yourself to sleep.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread, been busy with other things. Not only is this not an answer to the initial question of the OP (namely "What is the mechanics of ID?"). But this also doesn't hold to it's own internal logic.The supposed lack of evidence in a theory does not validate a different theory. For example, gravity. No one can tell you how gravity works. You can not show me the cause of gravity. This, however, does not validate the "theory of the perpetual pusher" - a being who's all extending power is used to hold things down. Again, not logically consistent. First of all, what missing transitionals? All? You want fossils from every thing which has ever lived? Second, if there were absolutely no fossils at all, would that disprove ToE? Third, by inverse of your own logic, wouldn't ID therefore be disproven by the existance of ANY transitional. (Archie anyone?) And, fourth, what does this comment have to do with "the mechanics of ID?" Can these "scientists" answer the question: "What are the mechanics of Intelligent Design?" So, for example, when my keys go "missing" it's because my keys never existed? What happens when I find my keys? Do I thank the Intelligent Keymonger? Nothing is required to "invalidate" the ID movement. ID has yet to "validate" itself.Here's a quick guide to validation -1) Come up with a hypothesis. - Check
2) Explain the MECHANICS of your hypothesis - Um, waiting on that one
3) Devise a test to check for data which supports your hypothesis - Can't do that until we take care of number 2
4) Devise a test to check for data which disproves your hypothesis - Still gotta wait on good old number 2
5) Publish and ask others to do both similiar and more intense testing - Still waiting on good old number 2.So, perhaps you'd like to step up to bat and give it a shot"What are the mechanics of Intelligent Design?"

Not really the point of the thread. I understand what ID is. What I don't understand is why no one seems to be able to explain how it works.Let me give an example:What is a car?
A car is a vehicle, driven by an engine running on fuel. It's used to travel from one location to another.That's a perfectly fine definition of "a car". Not the best, not the worst.But that does not answer this question:
How does a car work?Here's a good (albeit rough) answer to that:
Fuel (typically gasoline) is sprayed into a chamber and ignited. The force of the resulting combustion pushes a piston. A collection of these pistons working in series turns the drive shaft which powers the wheels. The more gas which is combusted, the faster the wheels turn.Could we go into more detail? Yeah. But, I'm just trying to get the basic concept across.Now let's do ToEWhat is Theory of Evolution?
ToE is a theory which explains the diversity of life on the planet through the process of mutation, heridity and natural selection.How does Theory of Evolution work?
All life is based on the building blocks of DNA. The process of reproduction allows for mixing of DNA(heridity)/changes in DNA(mutation). The resulting organism may be more or less suited for survival. Those which are more suited for survival thrive. Their features become more prevalent, until newer, better features emerge and the process repeats itself.Okay, now let's do Intelligent Design:What is Intelligent Design?
ID is the theory that the variety of life we see around us is the result of careful planning by an entity or entities of great intelligence.How does Intelligent Design work?
???That's what needs to be answered.Care to step up?

I don't understand this statement.From everything I've seen, ID is based on the lack of evidence.In other words, "ID would be true if there were no evidence which contradicted it".But I haven't seen any evidence which "supports" ID. Largely because no one has been able to explain to me how evidence can be classified to be in support of ID, since no one can explain to me how ID works.If you were to say, that ID works because there are tiny magic elves that measure everything out with tools that are 1.5 mm in diameter. Then you went on to show me that the smallest gap in any living thing was never smaller than 1.5 mm, that would be a start.But, as it stands, all I'm hearing is that ID is supported by this idea that certain fossils (like Archie for example) don't exist.But, sadly they do exists. So, since they exist, doesn't that pretty much shut down ID?

Golfer, do you understand what a scientific theory is? Like so many other fanatics out there, I really don't think you do.The fact that you are giving up on ID when confronted with a question about how it works and turning to YEC simply reveals that you have been a YEC all along, wanting to cram your personal religious beliefs down the throats of people who are more educated than yourself.It's sad that you don't have enough faith in your religion to allow it to stand on it's own.But, since you'd "rather see YEC taught alongside of ID." I'll give you the same shot I'm giving the IDers.What are the mechanics of Creation? If you are going to teach it in school, step up.How does Creation work? What tools/techniques/devices are used? Given a specific subject, how do we test if "Creation" was used? How would we prove that Creation was not used?Can you answer that? Or, when you said "teach" did you actually mean "force feed my religion on innocent people"?

Oooh ooh, fun game. I'll randomly compile words tooBrocolli feast seventy one catwalk supports YEC.Of course, my sentence makes no more sense than yours.What does this have to do with evolution or creationism?And, can you please define a scientific theory.