Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

I think there is at the heart of your thread a deep misunderstanding about Intelligent Design. You seem to be ascribing Creationist traits to ID which is odd. About the only thing they agree on is that evolution is false. ID makes no attempt to unmask who or what the Designer is, whereas, creationists attempt to tie the Bible into its science. If anything, they model after Ptolemy's beliefs. They aren't satisfied with "Goddidit" any more than you would. It is unnecessary as far as showing that natural phenomena will produce more natural phenomena. But if you keep reducing life's physical components by a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, at some point, you will be left with nothing.Aside from which, ID is simply inferential. If anything, it is a philosophical belief intertwined with the natural law and order. There is nothing to distinguish ID from any other philosophy of science aside from the fact that one group believes everything comes from nothing, and the other seeks to find patterns stemming from a higher cognizance. We should remember that such things as Intelligent Design, evolution, Big Bang theory, string theory, etc aren't branches of science. They employ branches of science in order to corroborate or incorporate their philosophical view from the whole of science. Religion is no place in the science classroom, just as science has no place in the religious classroom. Invoking the Biblical God is only a theological/philosophical view. And saying that we cannot understand something doesn't mean we have to reduce all of life to meaninglessness. Its okay to say, "I don't know." Its also okay to say, "This is what I believe, based on this and that." But that's not what ID does. It says, "Whoa, look at all this patterning, look at this order, look at this configuration. This clearly appears to be intended, and thus, designed." That's an inference. And if somebody wants to say, "No, no, no, that is mere happenstance." Either option is inferential. Really, why such a fuss over our own views unless there really was some truth to it? Then what is your objection to ID? The thrust of the argument seeks to marry science and philosophy. Its a numbers game, Modulous. Its a game of odds. ID claims that there is no way you can get A from B, without first having C at your disposal. The competing theory posits that C is all you need to know, and that A an B are merely superfluous elements to add in, as its inconsequential to why C is what it is.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Indeed, it is an old argument that far exceeds in time and in bulk, that which was posited by William Paley or Aquinas. And, yes, it is an argument in support of God, however, there is no mistaking that you cannot "prove" the existence of God with Newtonian precision. It just doesn't work that way. There will always be that element of faith, however informed it might be. But as I alluded to, the Great Protagonist need not be identified in order to recognize intent.There is a feeling of dread within the secular science community. But their dread is unwarranted because here is nothing threatening science here. Nothing at all. Especially when we consider that most of science has nothing to do with whether or not a Designer exists. Whether you or I believe that evolution was true or not doesn't, in the least bit, affect our ability to to practice medicine. Our belief in God or not won't determine whether the earth's eliptical orbit will stay in balance. Belief in God or not will not determine the amount of atoms in the universe.Therefore, its clear that this aversion towards ID is strictly philosophical. Atheists have grown accustomed to total domination of the field of science for the last 100, give or take, years. This aversion bespeaks of something far more insidious at work in their minds. Look, people don't need to apologize for their personal beliefs. So whether or not the vast preponderance of ID'ists ascribe to specific religious beliefs is inconsequential. There is this growing sentiment that "anything" related to God is immediately ruled out of bounds. The sentiment is that you can't God outside of the four walls of a church. That's hokum and that's suppression. I don't know if current British law is still modeled after the Magna Carta, but the Constitution of the United States of America is explicit in its approach. Religion will not be advocated in public institutions, nor will its religious freedoms be hindered by the state.There is nothing wrong with mentioning a Creator or a Designer. This belief that its really some conspiracy to teach about Jesus is garbage. If they want to profess the Name of Jesus, they will do so on their own time. At the same time, if there really is a Designer, then we really can't get around speaking about it at some point. What should not be taught in schools, is religious beliefs. ID is NOT religious. It is removed from religiosity. If you reduce the secular argument about science, that's exactly what you must believe, simply by default. "I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer too. And I doubt that we ever will. That's a philosophical belief. There are many competing theories over the First Cause, but we will likely never know the answer in this realm. Such as? What exactly makes it pseudoscientific? This word is thrown around so flippantly, and yet, it seldom seems to be followed up by example. Explain to me this subtle distinction? Because as far as I can tell, its a philosophical belief stemming from scientific arguments. Holding theistic or atheistic beliefs bear no reflection to molecular biology at the base level, right? I mean, it really doesn't mean anything for face value as far as conducting a scientific method, right? So, what exactly is the problem? You are trying to monopolize secular thinking with science. While I would wholeheartedly agree that science deals with the physical universe, there still is left this lingering question of intent or unintent. All that ID does is look at natural phenomena and attempt to ascertain whether or not it was the result of design or happenstance. The science is the same. There is nothing different about it. We can't? Why not? Life either exists by deliberation or it didn't. And from its inception, whatever happens after the First Cause was guided along or its floating aimlessly. Now, looking at the science behind it, which best supports Ockamm's Razor? That's the inference. We can't make an inference from that? That's true, hence, why its inferred. It doesn't speak about the mysteries, it speaks about the things that we already know about. Anything beyond that is just theorizing, which, consequently, no one seems to have a problem with so long as it entails Big Bang, String theory, evolution, etc. Why do you secularists get to monopolize on the inference of unknown variables and theists don't? Seriously, who says that?! Who says we should raise our arms in incredulity and say, "well, I can't figure it out... God did it, so don't even bother to think about it any longer." Who says that? Wouldn't they be out of a job if they left science to such brevity? That's an absurd claim espoused only by its detractors-- and unfairly, at that. If this is what you have reduced the ID movement to, then this is what the secular argument is tantamount to: There is no God. Rule out anything that might be inferred to be intentional because that couldn't possibly be the answer. No matter how much something appears to be designed, you must come up with clever reasons to insist on its coming about by fortuitous occurences no matter the odds. So basically you are applauding the maxim that people shouldn't follow the evidence where it leads, but rather, rule out anything even remotely akin to supernaturalism as a priori? That, sir, isn't science. That's just pure bias. Insoluble problems may only appear as such. Design seems axiomatic to me, but, nevertheless, I understand your position. Of course. Who would expect anything less. All that ID is saying is that something of Cognizance is behind all of this intricacy. That's it. It doesn't emasculate science. It doesn't just throw its arms in the air and give up. The methodology is one and the same. We investigate natural phenomenon in the same way as the counterpart would. The conclusion is the only real difference. No, it isn't. That is beyond an unfair mischaracterization. ID'ists are tired of being slandered and mischaracterized by a population completely under the radar of what's going on and those fanatically imbued by strict naturalism.I thought we lived in the Democratic world were tolerance of others is supposed to be sought in all cases and that suppression is viewed negatively.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

*delete*won't even dignify it with an answer.

Indeed, as Darwin noted:"If it could ever 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." - Charles DarwinI think there is, at the base level, a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Intelligent Design and Evolution actually are. Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science. As I stated earlier, they are theories that employ science as a method to corroborate their claims. Having said that, we must then distinguish whether or not proponents of both are either suppressing actual scientific evidence or distorting the actual evidence to fit their preconceived notions about this or that.Both the ToE and ID are inferences based on observation, logic, and deductive reasoning. The evolutionist sees no compelling reason to assume that the universe, and all that is contained therein, was the product of a greater intelligence. Rather, they feel evidence supports that a capriciousness in the universe exists and that we are the bi-product of ebb and flow, not going in any discernable direction.Proponents of ID see that the universe, and all that is contained therein, is far too complex for there to be chance after chance of a wholly chaotic universe constantly getting it right so often so as to even allow for the possibility of life's start or fruition. So where does that leave us?Its become apparent to me that people feel that ID smacks of theology. And, for face value, I understand why some would be apprehensive. At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance. I'm of the opinion that the majority of detractors simply don't understand what ID really is-- that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon. This is an appeal to authority. They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism. Now, while I do believe that most proponents of ID would likely be Christian, this could only be just one more compelling reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH. But this isn't the rule and they shouldn't be made to feel sorry over their personal opinions.Some of you may know that I object to theology playing a role in the science classroom. And my belief comes not from them being diametrically opposed or incompatible in any way, but rather, I feel that it bears no immediate relevance to the subject. On one level, I think it was the Creator that bestowed upon us the ability of mathematical reasoning. But that doesn't mean that the Creator should play a role in solving any given theorem. However, if there really is "Creator(s)," or a "Greater Mind" behind the choreography, then we cannot in any sense get around discussing the Designer(s) on some level.ID proponents assert that we do not need to define what the Creator is, or assign a theological reason. I agree. They say, "just recognize that one might exist given the circumstances, given the evidence, and given all the reasons listed." So, what is everyone's true objection to ID then?I can go no further in the argument until I establish a solid reason why the objection exists. But, to answer some of the questions, far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but if evolution is true, then there is no need for a God, other than to create, perhaps, the first atom. And even that much, for many evolutionists, is suspect. And as Richard Dawkins has conceded, Darwin gave atheists the first compelling reason to be an atheist. Consider it another context. A supervising Creator is unnecessary. And anyone willing to understand the nature of evolution and the theory itself may be less willing to try to paste God onto a theory that has no need for Him.The only method that ID uses is already well-established facts concerning the laws of nature and demonstrably shows how chance plays no factor into it. It says that the obvious nature about nature, is that we were created by something as opposed to nothing. So, I'm unsure as to why anyone has such an aversion towards it.

If you respond, no, to both, then there is absolutely no need for a Creator, because a "Creator," by definition, is something that "creates." If He/She/It did not create a single thing, then He/She/It is simply existing, but does nothing at all; in which case His/Her/It's name needs to be changed from the "Creator," to the the "Being."Having said that, are there theistic evolutionists? Obviously. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that you are one of them. But the atheist cannot be an atheist without some explanatory power to back up his claims. Without evolution, he has to revert to the old thoughts about the universe being infinite. Its a no win situation for the atheist. Therefore, at its core, evolution is an atheistic doctrine.
No one here is trying to put a face to the Creator(s) because such a task is likely impossible to do in an ephemeral universe. If you want the Creator to be the FSM, more power to you. That question is theological in nature. My argument on this topic is whether a need of a Creator(s) exists. And being that life is either intentional or unintentional, then evolution of Intelligence quite nicely refutes the entire premise.Rules of the game might include:

• Does a natural law explain it?
• Could chance alone explain it?
• Does design explain it?

Some anti- ID'ists insist that we must unmask the Designer(s) in order to understand the design at all. That's patently false, however. Was a computer designed? We would say, 'obviously.' But could you obviously know who created it by looking inside the computer? No, you couldn't unless there was a manufacture sticker on it somewhere, and even then you could suppose that somebody just put the sticker on it to trick you. Is it neccesary to know who built it in order for you to plainly see that it was designed and did not form by chance? No.So, what's the problem? This whole thing is an ideological aversion, not a problem with science, as it were.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Yup, that's it... Satisfied? I actually see most ID'ists as trying to disassociate themselves from creation science, not because they are trying covertly bring in the Bible, but because they are embarrassed by some of them over the perception of outright bias. I would be surprised if they hardly conferred over anything at all. Want to know what won the Scopes Trial in the end? It was the appearance of suppression by a biased community-- namely, Christians. Now, 70-80 years later the roles have reversed. No one is saying that opponents of ID shouldn't oppose it, least of all, me. But there is a difference between opposition and total distortion in an attempt to slander your opponents views. And judging by the response I've seen here on this thread alone makes me think that they've done a bang-up job at swooning people over with such disinformation since its becoming increasingly apparent that there is a fundamental misunderstanding. They both believe in a Creator, that's why. Here's the key difference: One group wants to codify a particular science by marrying those principles with its theology. The other group wants nothing to do with that except recognize that life certainly appears to have been designed. One wants to push theology, the other does not.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This is true because everything in the known universe is material-- hence, everything we observe is considered "natural." And what is also true is that we don't know what kind of conditions existed from the beginning. Its only counterintuitive, from an existential view, that something-- anything-- can come from absolute nothingness. But that is only the opening segment of ID. What ID bases its value on doesn't stop at any singular argument. I wouldn't argue with you that improbability, alone, does not present a solid case for an intelligent design hypothesis. Improbability must be coupled with specific patterning in order to discredit chance. What I mean by this could be followed with an example. Suppose that NosyNed shoots down to the DMV to register his brand new vehicle. Now, lets say this in California where they use 3 letters of the alphabet, followed by 4 possible numbers. The odds that he could get any number of combinations is the same. But suppose that Ned didn't opt to personalize his license plate. They give him his plates and he goes to his vehicle to affix them. He notices that the license plate reads, NED 8953. Ned is quite shocked at the incredible odds that this happened to be the tags he received, since his name is Ned and he was born on August 9, 1953. The odds that he would have gotten that specific pattern is incredibly improbable, but not impossible. Stranger things have happened.But now suppose that he buys his son (we'll pretend that his name is Ben) a new car for his birthday. Ned takes the new vehicle and gets it registered. The plates this time reads, BEN 2481. Whoa! Ben's birthday is February 4, 1981. The odds are now staggering.He then goes to register his wife's vehicle, then his daughter's, etc. Now, if they all had license plates that reflected some personal meaning without anyone personalizing them, wouldn't you think that someone at the DMV is playing around with them? Wouldn't it take a cognizant mind in order to come up with that specific patterning? Obviously. So, it isn't merely improbability, but rather, the coupling of improbability with patterning. For a more in-depth understanding of the principle, you can read it from Dembski's own mouth if so desire. Nobody came to such a conclusion on a whim. Everyone in history has noted such phenomenon and have always attributed to either God or gods. Why? Because even they understood that we all can see this pattern emerging out of life. Its not unreasonable to expect that it was intended, just as its not unreasonable to assume it isn't. Its not neutral, however tacit it might be or however cleverly its packaged and repackaged. What can kill you (A), is getting hit by a car (B). Getting hit by a car (B) can kill you (A). A can follow B just as easily as B can follow A in this instance. They object to it because it implies God. That's overwhelmingly the case. And if someone can say that they reject ID because it tries to smuggle in God, then I could just as easily indict them by saying that they want to snuff out God, and getting rid of ID is an excellent way of doing so. In that way, we can go tit for tat until we're dizzy with circular reasoning. Perhaps its you that belies its source as masked creationism. You are making it out of bounds to even mention design, or creation, or God, or anything that might even loosely be described as theological. That's not cool at all. That's messed up. I mean, even if something can be proven to have been non-random, that still wouldn't prove God. Nothing can "prove" God, except God. Nothing. So, again, what's the problem? I don't know any ID'ists that take a position on the age of the earth. That's what creationists quibble about. (See Reasons to Believe :vs: AnswersinGenesis for details). As for them being opposed to evolution, its on the merits of scientific inquiry, not whether or not it appears designed or not. That's always been a non-issue. If a Designer exists, He/She/It/They could have designed in whatever way He/She/It/They saw fit. Why is that? And who are the champions of ID?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

If you look at the Deist position, this about all that God did. According to some of them, God, (as abstract a concept as any) set the ball in motion and just sort of observes for the rest of eternity. If this is this case, I wonder how anyone could come to believe that God exists. At least the main body of theism is based off an informed faith. But this deist belief seems to be supported by, literally, nothing-- except perhaps the notion that it is counterintuitive to suppose that everything comes from absolute nothingness.To assimilate a mindless, chance process after a deliberate act of creation seems to be a paradoxical notion, replete with inconsistency and self-obviation. In other words, do we have a Watchmaker who designs as He intends, do we have a Blind Watchmaker that only exists as an abstract concept for chaos theory, or do we have a Watchmaker that blindfolded Himself after the inception of the first atom?The existence of a potent blind watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence. That means, if the Designer designed evolution, then chance plays no part in it."There is a popular television game show called "Jeopardy," in which the usual order of things is reversed. Instead of being asked a question to which they must supply the answer, the contestants are given the answer and asked to provide the appropriate question. This format suggests an insight that is applicable to law, to science, and indeed to just about everything.

​

The important thing is not necessarily to know all the answers, but rather to know what question is being asked.... The trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power to decide what that term "evolution" means in public discourse, including the science classes in the public schools.

​

If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community.

​

The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism... In 1874, the great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge asked the question I have asked: What is Darwinism? After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation of the doctrine, his answer was unequivocal: "It is Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical naturalism.

​

To return to the game of "Jeopardy" with which we started, let us say that Darwinism is the answer. What, then, is the question? The question is: "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?" Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of the agenda of scientific naturalism. What we need to do instead is to challenge the assumption that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true." -Phillip Johnson

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I certainly agree! If that's the case, then why is there a propaganda campaign to undermine ID in order to "save science?" Its very obvious that there is a sense of fear. Education isn't being threatened by the introduction of another variable. Drawing the inference that life is intentional or unintentional does NOTHING to threaten science. That's just more of the pernicious lies being perpetrated against ID'ists.And evo's have waged a war over much-ado-about-nothing. They've responded with a scientific excommunication. If people started asserting that there is no such thing as DNA, and that we really get our looks from God, then you'd have a legitimate claim. But the [b]reEvolution is itself a strong dogma. Politicization? Meaning what? Because they are objecting to evolution on the basis of its misuse of science. Pointing out that most evolutionists have used evolution to advance atheism only adds to it the element of hypocrisy. In other words, let the students decide for themselves whether or not there is sufficient evidence that life is intentional or unintentional. believing in the FSM is a belief totally separate from science, and so is belief in God. I have no way of unmasking who or what the Designer is. For all we know, Gaia could be the Designer. Direct or Indirect Panspermia could be the delivery method for how life was first seeded on earth. But simply recognizing that life has all the markings of intent, who are we to try and dismiss by inventing clever reasons why it cannot be so. Both options should be allowed to be examined. All three are acceptable answers, save the first, because it is supported scientifically that the universe has a definite beginning. Speaking about God or Pink Unicorns is a theological debate, which is why ID does not attempt to invoke God. And if God is mentioned, it used in the same way that Hawking uses the term God, or Einstein's Spinoza's God-- which is a way to give meaning to the universe and its power in a totality. If you only allow Hawking to mention God if it is supplied in an abstract definition because he doesn't 'actually' believe in God. But if a theist, who has every right to believe in whatever they want, is ruled out of bounds. Thus, you would validate my argument that this whole thing is philosophically inspired, not on the grounds of "protecting true science."Its pointless in a scientific setting to simply assume that it was God who created this or that. That doesn't mean that we can't recognize if something couldn't possibly have derived via successive mutations. Without that, we are all inexplicably driven to a latter alternative-- that chance plays no part in it. And if not by chance, then it must surely have been intentional. If it was intentional, then that bespeaks of a cognizant mind capable of bringing it about. The rest is a theological argument because science can't go any further. That's absurd! Demand evidence before the fact when its the evidence that will lead you there!? Think about it. We theorized, based off initial evidence, that Black Holes existed. We didn't know for sure. We theorized based off initial findings. With your logic, you demand that we must first have seen Black Holes before you will allow the evidence that would lead to their discovery as an a priori. That's absurd. No, you follow the evidence until it is either falsified by other evidence to the contrary, or until your theory is validated. Of course. And no scientist is immune to these things, whether theists or atheists. We always have presuppositions in mind, but it is better to set those aside and simply follow where the evidence leads. Agreed. An idiot savant would be a prime example. They may be musical geniuses, and yet, are incapable of composing a coherent sentence. Which is why the debate about God will rage on until the end of the world or will trek on for all eternity. So, really, trying to undermine ID won't take away the God-factor for anyone. So, instead of either side invoking the name of God, maybe we should focus on whether something could have come about by capriciousness or intent. I agree. That's the thrust of the argument, not about God. Science should be a meritocracy in all cases. Which is why ID'ists do not agree with the current paradigm. You know, I really don't want anyone to settle on it. I would much rather that people be given a host of options. I just want ID to have a platform. That's all. If people think its bunk, then that's up to them. To leave it simply at that would emasculate scientific inquiry. Indeed, they'd be out of a job-- including proponents of ID. Neither wants that. I think they'd be content on examining evolution and work from there.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I'm using the Scopes Trial here as a euphemism to mean the fight for the introduction of evolution into public schools.

No, you've imagined this Bogeyman scenario so you can keep it out.

quote:

---

We should remember that such things as Intelligent Design, evolution, Big Bang theory, string theory, etc aren't branches of science. They employ branches of science in order to corroborate or incorporate their philosophical view from the whole of science.

---

No, it isn't. Can you get a degree in String Theory? No, I didn't think so. What you can do is study the theory by taking advanced astrophysics courses. The rest of post is incoherent.*pats fallacycop on the head*Run along now, the big people are talking.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I think if there is a considerable amount of support for a topic, there should be a platform for at least discussing its possibilities. Yes, it could be anything. The Designer could be a microscopic pink elephant wearing a pink and purple polka-dotted dress for all we know for sure. No, because there is literally nothing supporting the inference of the deist God. It has as much philosophical and scientific backbone as the microscopic elephant.What exactly lead you you your deist beliefs? Because, if it was not design, nor by any special revelation, what then made its reality known to you? I'm not being cantankerous either, I'd really like to know. Yes, I mean that both pro and con arguments against design should be allowed to be discussed, because design does not have to be theological in nature. I mean, there are quite a few competing theories. We have terrestrial evolution, indirect panspermia that assumes extraterrestrial evolution, direct panspermia which assumes intelligent beings intentionally seeding life on earth, the multiverse theory where this universe is one of many, etc, etc. Intelligent Design does not merely encompass a theological belief. Yes. That's where chance and patterning come in, which is just a facet of the anthropic principle. Well, RAZD, I obviously don't see it as delusional, but you are welcome to that opinion. Here's a novel idea: Lets leave it open to discussion in school instead of shunning those who have a different view.There really is only two options for anyone would want to suppress ID. Either ID is so fallacious and so pernicious that it would bring the whole of science into disarray, or its such a good deduction that its a frightening prospect that could supplant the current prevailing theory.I don't see a third option.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I would like some specifics, yes, so I know what you referencing.

quote:

---

Can you get a degree in String Theory? No, I didn't think so. What you can do is study the theory by taking advanced astrophysics courses.

---

*Ding, ding, ding*This argument started when I said that neither ID nor evolution were actually branches of science, but rather, employed branches of science to corroborate the theory. Therefore, its well within reason to challenge both theories on the merits of the thesis either presents. How is that wrong when you just conceded that evolution is not a branch of science? I didn't say it wasn't scientifically based, I said that it wasn't a branch of science. Therefore, science isn't threatened by ID, whatsoever, because it isn't challenging the branch, its challenging some of the theories within that branch of sicence. Oh, I see. And what are they doing? Playing with Play-doh? I'm going to advance an argument that is indicative of Intelligent Design. If it is not parsimonious, let me know why:Looking at creatures that employ camouflage as a defense or offense, I, personally, cannot see how anyone can miss the intent. That certainly doesn't make my view correct, but lets examine it a little.Creatures, such as the praying mantis, chameleon or the octopus each have some sort of camouflage ability. Lets start with the mantis. This critter has a body shape that looks like some twigs from a bushel, blending in with an actual plant. Looking at this creature, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of happenstance?You would either have to figure out a way that any creature could develop this or concede that either the mantis willed itself, genetically, or that nature has a mind. Similarly, the chameleon employs camouflage by using its chromatophores. The chameleon has these highly specialized cells that lie in two layers underneath the skin. The chromatophores contain a yellow and red pigment. Underneath this first layer are guanophores. These guanophores reflect light creating the illusion of incandescence.Octopi and some other cephalopods are similar in that they can manipulate chromatophores by contraction and expansion as the result of controlling muscle fibers. They can terminate this color shifting almost instantly with motor neurons. As a result, these color changes can come about through the dispersal or aggregation of granules within the cell under hormonal control.Now, if we were to assert that these instances are the result of a natural progression of evolution, then aren't we going to have to explain the mechanisms and reasons for this occurrence? Why did these creatures develop this distinct feature and no other, when all organisms could benefit from them as well? How did we lose the procryptic ability? I don’t know about you, but I sure would not mind blending in with my environment. It certainly seems beneficial to me. Why is it lost during our divergence?If you cannot logically answer this, then you will have to explain how the mantis, chameleon, or octopus granted itself these procryptic abilities. We know they are able to manipulate their body, but how would they be able to create this in their offspring’s genetic code?If you cannot answer that either, then you are going to have to admit that nature has a mind and that it exhibits intelligence and intent. If you cannot do that either then we aren't we inescapably driven towards an alternative answer? Out of all other options, we would have to concede that something else is the cause of this spectacular feat.Does this, in any way, shape or form verify that God created this? Certainly not, however, couldn't we greatly assume that something cognizant is the cause of these features, because as we’ve seen, there is nothing in nature that would, alone, account for these occurrences. What other choice do we have left?We can argue about who or what the Creator{s} are/is until we’re blue in the face and dripping with perspiration, but that much is inconsequential to the direct question. I know this much, however; that evolution does not answer the finer details of how this was even possible. Furthermore, it has nothing to support the belief. And the law of parsimony on animals with procryptism seems to speak the loudest of intent.“We wish that science teachers would distinguish clearly between firmly established empirical facts concerning evolution and theories about mechanisms. They forget the fact that any theory of the world has at most a provisional, pro tem value. It is only valid until it is falsified or a better model is proposed. When the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as Darwin does, students must learn that scientific alternatives exist. Failure to mention them is deceitful.” -Brig Klyce

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

*pats fallacycop on the head*

​

Run along now, the big people are talking.

---

Then I guess my comment about him still stands, huh... Maybe so. I am a sinner afterall.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

No, you've imagined this Bogeyman scenario so you can keep it out.

​

No, it isn't. Can you get a degree in String Theory? No, I didn't think so. What you can do is study the theory by taking advanced astrophysics courses.

---

Actually, Percy proved my point for me quite nicely. Neither evolution or ID are branches of science. They aren't-- they really, really aren't. Well, somebody thought that the heliocentric model was better than the geocentric model...? Some people thought that the round earth is better than the flat earth model too.

quote:

---

*pats fallacycop on the head*

​

Run along now, the big people are talking.

---

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings fallacycop. I'll make a concerted effort to include you with the big people next time, and leave myself playing with the silly putty with a stupid look on my face.To clarify my position, what that meant is you tend not to give me anything to go by. You're what I like to call, a hit-and-run poster-- a polemicist. You expect two sentences to speak profoundly to me when it doesn't. I suppose I could have responded with, "okay," to your statement, because that's really all it warranted. You just don't really ever seem to engage in the conversation with specifics. You say how much you detest ID, but don't really give indications as to why, aside from never forgetting to mention how much that its 'crap.'I guess what I'm asking for, is specific grievances. What about ID don't you like. If your only objection is that you feel that it tries to smuggle in theology, we're just going to go around in circles.Does that make sense?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I'm not the authority on ID, neither are you, and neither is John 10:10. I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-