The I in ID

I hope your not sniffing that coke False logic. All it needs is this to be one place where it worked out compared to millions where it didn’t, no need to invoke a special attention. Talking about the sun and earth distance as proof of design is a conclusion after the fact based on a data set of 1 and personal incredulity (that’s 3 logical fallacies in one argument). There was a study a while back, it was in Discover magazine and I don’t have the reference with me today, that had evaluated what the average temperatures would be for an earth with a variety of different orbits, from ours to highly elliptical to variations in distance. The conclusion was that there were many widely different scenarios that would produce a similar climate to what we have. Now, in order to claim that the current orbit is evidence of design you must show why other perfectly valid orbits were rejected so that this one is the only logical choice to use.Enjoy.

quote:

---

some things do evolve, but only to a point...

---

Really?At what point do they stop evolving?

when they start thinking ID is true?

mmm, maybe.

see http://EvC Forum: The I in ID -->EvC Forum: The I in ID

So was I. Is there a reason you ignored my post?

quote:

---

RAZD:
Talking about the sun and earth distance as proof of design is a conclusion after the fact...

---

What are you saying? That we were supposed to come to that conclusion BEFORE there was a Sun or Earth? Was the theory of evolution written BEFORE or after life came to its present status? Do scientists observe a phenomenon before or after said phenomenon occurs?That said if you really want to know what IDists say on the obvious design of the cosmos. I suggest you read The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discoveryYou could even go to the ISCID:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
and discuss it.Is Discover magizine a peer-reviewed pub?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
We do? Funny, I am sure that all matter is made from the same type of atoms, following the same physical rules. The only difference is in their arrangement. Just because we deem life to be an important result (and branch) of chemistry (ie biochemistry), it still is just chemistry. There is no supernatural force that makes living creatures move, live, breath and reproduce. Major advancements have been made in biology and medicine for the very reason that life is just a form of chemistry and thus can be understood.

---

Who deems that life is an important result of chemistry? Who says that life is just chemistry? What major advances in biology have been made under that premise?
Please support your claims.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Science is about finding supported and logical explanations for observable phenomena. It has nothing to do with "truth", as that implies we have discovered incontravertible rules by which nature operates.

---

Science has everything to do with truth (no scare quotes needed). Science deals with reality.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Of course your computer runs on "natural" processes.

---

Now we are getting into semantics. Please show us one instance of nature acting alone creating a computer program. Or a computer.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
First, computers are not able to reproduce, change, etc as biological systems are.

---

Computer programs can. And guess what happens if a program gets altered during replication? It doesn't compile- ie it dies.BTW theories of evolution have been around for milenia. IOW Newton heard of them, as did Galileo, Aristotle et al. Charles didn't have the evidence to support his BS so I doubt he would have persuaded the great scientists I mentioned.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Remember, personal belief in a diety doesn't automatically equate to overwhelming belief in a personal god that tampers directly with reality.

---

Now that is nonsense. Who says that God or a designer has to tamper directly with reality?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

crashfrog:
In which scientific theories did Newton and Pasteur include the supernatural, specifically?

---

Look if you are not going to read what they wrote than I can't help you. Pasteurt said he saw the Creator when he observed nature. Newton goes into more detail. It was clear to both that what they observed was part of God's creation.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
But archeologists don't acertain aspects of the populations that lived in the areas they study;

---

Yes, they do.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The only known intelligence is human, and human intelligence can't be responsible for life, because how could we be there before we were created?

---

The arrogance of that statement aside, that is how IDists deduce that the designer may be supernatural. Again I suggest you read Nature, Design and Science by Del Ratzsch. Your issues are resolved in it.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The only way you can assert that "all IC systems are caused by intelligence" is if you assume what you're trying to prove; that is, biological IC systems are caused by intelligence.

---

Not so. We can assert that all IC systems are caused by intelligence because of the fact that is what we observe. Period, end of story.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Simply because intelligence can cause IC systems doesn't mean that intelligence is always the cause of IC systems.

---

There is your falsification. Just start by showing us that IC can come about by nature acting alone. If you can't do this than yours is a theory based on faith.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Loudmouth:
Not only do we have a sufficient natural mechanism for creating design in reproducing organisms, which would negate the potter analogy, but the supposed designer is not evident outside of the design process. Therefore, ID strikes out at every step of the design inference.

---

If only you could substantiate your claim. IOW you have faith that there is a natural mechanism for creating design in living organisms, because you haven't any evidence for it. Also you haven't any evidence for life coming from non-life by nature acting alone- more faith required. Therefore materialistic naturalism strikes out before the game got started.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

I just stumbled onto a bookmark for the article in question:Discover Financial Services There is nothing further to see at the above cited, if you are not a subscriber (which I am). But the article can maybe be looked up at your local library.I'm not up to doing a major review right now, but the essence of the article is that there could be considerable variation in the earths orbit (could be much more eliptical), and earth would still be habitable.To ID Man: No it is not a peer reviewed journal - Just a broad based science magazine.Mooseps: What kind of name is "William Speed Weed"?

quote:

---

Ooook!:
This is what I see every time ID get's explained to me:

---

I posted a list of books that explain ID rather nicely. Why don't you just read them? I say that because if what you psoted is what you see that I would have to say you have a spin chip implant that twists reality.What tools have we been denied? Public schools, universities, grants, etc.Oook! ID is falsifiable. If you want it to go away than falsify it. Better yet present a better case for your faith in evolutionism.There’s a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years, the Moon will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view or solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. Page 18 paragraph 4; The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery by G. Gonzalez Ph. D. astronomy & J. Richards Ph. D. philosophy & theology.The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

​

This is because the medium in which we live is, on the one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and to prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block any view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime. Hans BlumebergThere is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe The impression of design is overwhelming. Paul DaviesHere I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BehePeer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing under the magnifying glass. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence? The writings of Walter Bradley, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, along with the conclusions of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Aristotle et al., make it clear that the positive evidence for ID extend beyond biology, is based on observation and is definitely a valid scientific endeavor.A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth. Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.What has become obvious is that the ID critics who post here haven't read much on ID by IDists. Bad form indeed.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

Yes, if you were going to test that hypothesis. Or show that other systems where similar but slightly different orbits never produce life. The hypothesis needs to be testable or it is just speculation. You should also read about the "Coincidental Correlation" (post hoc ergo propter hoc) and "Hasty Generalization" logical fallacies:Forbidden
ForbiddenAs I said, you are making universal conclusions from a data set of one after the fact, and thus the conclusion contains two logical fallacies at a minimum. And as the conclusion is logically false from the get-go, why should I read a book based on such a logically false hypothesis? No, but it publishes articles about studies done that are published in peer reviewed journals. It is like Scientific American in making science more accessible to the public. I imagine it would be a good place for any ID science to be submitted. maybe I will. I will certainly put it in my bank of IDeist sites.Meanwhile, you have other questions to answer, eh?http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?soon you will have another one too, on the "ID as Religion" topic.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes, I found it as well. Thanks. There should be a reference to the author of the study and I will look to see if something is available on the web.

1) The unraveling of photosynthesis in 1946;
2) The discovery of sickle-cell anemia in 1949;
3) The Miller-Urey experiment in 1953;
4) The discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953;
5) The development of the contraceptive pill in 1954;
6) The discovery of the chemical basis of vision in 1956;
7) The discovery of the structure of hemoglobin in 1959;
8) The discovery of the Hayflick Limit in 1961;
9) The discovery of the endosymbiosis of cellular organelles in 1967;
10)The discovery of rnadom molecular evolution by Kimura in 1968;
11)The creation of semi-dwarf wheat by Norman Borlaug (credited with saving more lives than anyone else in history) in 1970;
12)The discovery of biological self-recognition in 1971;
13)The invention of genetic engineering in 1973;
14)The discovery of genetic "molecular clocks" in 1975;
15)The development of monoclonal antibodies in 1975;
16)The discovery of oncogenes in 1980;
17)The discovery of prions in 1982;
18)The discovery of molecular elements of memory in 1983;
19)The development of genetic fingerprinting in 1984;
20)The discovery of SRY genes on the Y chromosome in 1991;
21)The first mammalian clone in 1996;
22)Completion of the human genome sequence in 2000Dates from The Science Book, edited by Peter Tallack, published by Weidenfield and Nicholson. That's simply impossible, as sophistry cannot be denied.Science deals with the reality as it is apparent to us. There's no way to know if that reality is the same as the "real" reality. This is a trivially obvious philosophical point.Science is not the search for truth. Science is the search for accurate, predictive models. None of those were theories, though. Conjectures, perhaps.Not until Darwin proposed a sufficiently robust mechanism for evolutionary change did it become a theory.