Intelligent Design Creationism

Can anyone please tell me what is Intelligent Design Creation(ism)? The reason I ask is because the only people who use that term, that I have seen, are the ignorant (willfully or otherwise, please remember that ignorance just means you don't know any better) or the malicious misrepresenters of reality. Reality says there is Intelligent Design and there is Creation. The two may have some similarities but then again the two have some vast differences.MrH:
The foundation of the IDC argument is the inadequacy of natural mechanisms to account for certain natural phenomena.John Paul:
That is false. The foundation of ID is our current state of knowledge pertaining to information rich systems, irreducible complexity and specified complexity.As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.It is very clear for anyone willing to read about ID that it is an inference drawn via positive evidence. Why would anyone cling to naturalism when there isn't any evidence to support a purely naturalistic origin for life?

John Paul responds to me in the "What is Science?" thread:1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence.
John Paul:
The evidence of their existence is seen through the microscope, in the mathematical form the natural laws take and many more forms that are discussed in the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.MrH:
And we're still wondering why this inference has to be made.John Paul:
The inference is made due to the evidence.MrH:
Couldn't the mathematical consistency of the natural laws be an argument against an intervening intelligence? It seems that natural law is only fine for IDC'ers when they're praising the austere beauty of physics, but then they claim natural law and material processes are insufficient to explain life on Earth.John Paul:
Your choice- read the book I mentioned or remain ignorant. Although arguemnets from ignorance are not the way to go.2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations.John Paul:
You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue.MrH:
The fact is, we have clues as to the patterns of heredity among life forms on Earth. You're the one that says we shouldn't use them as evidence of evolution, or common descent. Or are you saying evolution is not based on material processes, but guided by an intelligence? It's hard to understand what you're saying when I'm trying to dodge the shit you're constantly flinging.John Paul:
Funny from where I sit it is you who flings the shit. One more time for the reading impaired- ID does not say anything about common descent- for or against it. IOW using any common descent arguments against ID just shows ignorance.3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers.
John Paul:
What we now observe is the result of mutations culled by NS on the original design(s). BTW if you or any other human can design life better please do so or consider youself incompotent or stupid.MrH:
What original designs?John Paul:
The original life forms. The first species.MrH:
Whenever we find biological designs, we always notice that there are clues to previous design work, the telltale signs of the ongoing workings of the mutation-selection machine.John Paul:
But that mechanism can only work on what it has available. It cannot create anything novel.MrH:
We assert that all this design work is an ongoing process, and you need to offer some evidence that intelligent agency is even a plausible explanation for the billions of years of biological tinkering we see in these designs.John Paul:
Assertion is all you can do.MrH:
The point is that designs that emanate from intelligent agency can be judged 'good' or 'bad,' and those that we see in Nature seem unlike anything we currently understand to be intelligently designed.John Paul:
And when you observe nature design anything specified and complex from scratch please let me know.

Duplicate post deleted. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 06-09-2004 02:15 PM

LM:
For anyone willing to familiarize themselves with the theory of evolution they would know that interdependent components is evolvable through trial and error selection via mutation.John Paul:
Is this "trial & error" recorded in the fossil record?LM:
The positive evidence needed for ID is the production of an IC system in "one fell swoop" (to use Behe's phrasology). Behe claims that his IC systems came about this way, but only because his imagination and ideology won't let him admit otherwise.John Paul:
The reality is that all of our current knowledge pertaining to information rich and irreducibly complex systems always points to intelligent agency. ALWAYS! If you want to refute Behe and ID just show us that purely natural processes can account for life. You can't even do that with the flagellum, vision, blood clotting, cilia etc.BTW without the evidence these alleged IC systems can evolve all you have is a theory steeped in credulity. That makes it a belief system and not good enough for a science classroom.LM:
Can evolution create designs in organisms? Yes.John Paul:
Nice assertion. Any evidence for that? I am not looking for a refinement of an existing design...LM:
Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No.John Paul:
Neither ID or Creation state that happens. Go figure...Nice try at misrepresentation though.This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-07-2004 03:37 PM

MrH:
Once again, you surface tossing IDC-flavored excrement at the ignorant defenders of the naturalistic paradigm.John Paul:
I don't even know what IDC is, that is why I asked for someone (hopefully you) to tell me.MrH:
"There is no evidence for a naturalistic origin of life" is an easy thing to say, but offering evidence for an, ahem, non-naturalistic origin is something you have never done.John Paul:
Ahh, but I have done just that. You just refuse to understand my posts or you can't understand them. Here try reading this (again):As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.The above includes life.MrH:
Many have come here drunk on the highly flammable potions peddled by the IDC camp, but none have ever offered anything in the way of testable, plausible, realistic hypotheses concerning Purpose or Design in biology.John Paul:
There isn't any IDC let alone an IDC camp. If you want to learn about ID or Creation I suggest stop your laziness and go to ID & Creation websites. Then of course you would have to read the material posted there.MrH:
Since you abandoned your "What is Science?" thread, I guess we'll never understand the basis of your attack against methodological naturalism.John Paul:
LoL! I didn't abandon anything. My "attacks" are against people who say that Creation can't be science because it starts with a conclusion yet out of the other side of their mouth say all scientic explanations must be naturalistic (which of course is starting with a conclusion).MrH:
It seems like the usual smoke and mirrors, since we're told we're unjustly limiting our options by not allowing invisible, untestable, undetectable, magical mechanisms to be proposed to explain natural phenomena.John Paul:
That was just more horsesh!+ from the pro. Invisible- as in the same invisibility of the desigers of Stonehenge, yet we can make inferences about Stonehenge not being a naturally occuring phenom. Untestable- design is testable. We use it everyday (the processes involved to detect design). Undetectable- design is very detectable. When design is detected and intelligent agency (even if it acted stupidly) is readily inferred. Magical?- I don't know about magic seeing that we are very real. Just because you can't comprehend the process doesn't make it magical.MrH:
Intelligent Design Creationism has no basis, no consistency and no track record in the lab or professional literature.John Paul:
On that we can agree seeing there isn't any such thing as Intelligent Design Creationism except in the feeble minds of detractors.Until you get off of your lazy butt and actually learn what ID is I will gladly throw your trash back in your face.take care

LM:
Being that 90% of all species to ever exist are extinct, I would say yes. You can also see incremental changes in morphology, such as the mammalian middle ear and the legs of horses. We can also see the incremental increase in brain size among homo species over time.John Paul:
Nice try but that is FAR from reality. No where in the fossil record do we find a partial wing (for example). Mammalian middle ear? You do realize there is more to being a mammal than the middle ear. All we could be seeing is a better hearing reptile. Horse legs? The horse is still a horse (even foregoing the arguments against the alleged horse evo).LM:
First of all, IC systems can evolve through the pathways of coaption and subtraction. That is, unrelated parts can slowly be improved, step by step, until they are a cohesive unit. Or in the case of subtraction, the bridging step between non-IC and IC is due to the removal of "scaffolding". As an analogy, without scaffolding it is impossible to build certain types of buildings. If we see a tall building without any scaffolding around it, should we assume that the impossible has been accomplished? Of course not, since the scaffolding has long since been removed.John Paul:
Assertion not substantiated with evidence. Scaffolding has been rebutted.LM:
Evolution has shown that design and information within biological systems can be attributed to a blind algorithm called random mutation and natural selection.John Paul:
LoL! IF it has it has done so with rhetoric and not evidence.LM:
Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.John Paul:
Too bad phylogenetic analysis shows IF ANYTHING the type III evolved from the flagellum. Also only what 10 proteins are homologuous? That nleaves quite a bit unaccounted for.LM:
Vision: incremental improvements from photosensitive spot to lensed eye, of which all steps can be seen in extant species.John Paul:
OK where did the photo-sensitive spot come from? And just because different eyes exist in different species does NOT mean the vision system evolved or could evolve.LM:
Blood clotting: Duplication of serine protease genes that coapt into a clotting cascade, and the cascade is different in quite a few mammals which is what we would expect from the branching tree that is evolution.John Paul:
Refuted by Behe.LM:
Cilia: can't say on this one right now, but if you want to discuss this one further I can study up.John Paul:
It looks like you have quite the work left with the other three.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No.
John Paul:
Neither ID or Creation state that happens. Go figure...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
If an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology, why are you using morphology as evidence for an intelligent designer?John Paul:
Can any evoltionist read? I NEVER said an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology. I said, tried to imply, that the IDer doesn't come down and change the morphology.Why is it that evolutionists think they can debate a topic they are obviously oblivious to?

You do realize there is more to being a mammal than the middle ear.Perdition:
What describes a mammal? Three bones in the ear, hair, and mammary glands.John Paul:
Keep going. The list is much longer than that.Perdition:
Seeing as how hair and glands don't preserve very well, the middle ear is all we can find in fossils to determine whether or not it's a mammal.John Paul:
If that is the case then we really don't know what the (fossil) organism is (with the mammal-like middle ear). BTW there still isn't any evidence that mutations culled by selection led to the alleged change in the middle ear.

what mammals have that reptiles do not:
warm blooded (red blood cells without a nucleus); birth to live young; number of chambers in the heart; different eye sight; different hearing; hair; mammary glands; jaw is different; hip joint structure is different; kidney function is different; and brain size is differentThat is all I can remember off the top of my head. I would ask for a refund on that course...

LM:
Of course, I have yet to meet a creationist that will put forth a potential falsification of special creation.John Paul:
I have and so have others. To falsify Creation AND ID just show that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes.LM:
Also, what we find with Archaeopteryx is a full wing and fully developed feathers. What we also find is about 15 characteristics only found in reptiles and not found in any extant bird. This makes it a transitional fossil.John Paul:
Really? Gould called it a mosaic. Just because it appears to have characteristics of birds & reptiles could be a testimony against how we try to define organisms. The fact that all of its features are fully formed makes it a poor candidate for a transitional. Besides it didn't transition to anything and embryology questions it being a bird at all.Using computer simulations as evidence for real-world biology is a stretch. especially simulations that have been refuted, as has Tom's EV.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.
John Paul:
Too bad phylogenetic analysis shows IF ANYTHING the type III evolved from the flagellum. Also only what 10 proteins are homologuous? That nleaves quite a bit unaccounted for.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
So it's not an IC system.John Paul:
How did you come to that conclusion?LM:
If you take away everything but 10 parts, it has a new function.John Paul:
Actually those 10 parts have to be modified also. Do you even know what IC is? IC does NOT say that the parts of the IC system have no function by themselves or groups of parts can't function, all IC says is THAT in that system the removal of one or more parts causes THAT system to stop functioning.LM
The rest of the proteins are not specific to the flagellum alone. Actin, for example, is also used in other places in the cell. Sorry, but the flagellum is hardly a mystery to evolutionary scientists.John Paul:
I will believe that when I read about the evolution of the flagellum in a peer-reviewed journal. Lip service, as above, is all evolutionists can muster at this point in time.LM;
Photosensitive proteins are not that uncommon.John Paul:
How they originated is the question.LM:
All you need is for a specific dermal cell to express a mutated protein that happens to have photosensitive characteristics. Even single celled organisms have photosensitive spots. The fact that we see every step of the evolutionary pathway in extant organisms adds considerable credence to the theory of evolution and the eye.John Paul:
You, as with Dawkins before you, are guilty of generalizations and gross anatomy. IOW you have NO idea if the eye could evolve. You have NO evidence that mutations culled by selection could do this.Bllod clotting:
http://www.discovery.org/...
{Shortened display form or URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}LM:
1. Does an Intelligent Designer affect morphology? (yes/no)John Paul:
The designer would design the DNA and all the instructions needed. So in that sense the designer could affect morphology. However the designer does NOT design a human knee and then that part gets translated to the DNA's instructional code.LM:
2. If yes, how does the intelligent designer affect morphology? What are the mechanisms?John Paul:
Design is the mechanism. The designer affects (rather could affect) morphology by designing in the instructions to do so.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-10-2004 02:20 AM

MrH:
Instead of dedicating so much of your wonderful posts feigning ignorance at the IDC tag,John Paul:
The reality is that I am NOT feigning anything. The reality is IDC exists only in the minds of the ignorant (willful or otherwise) and malicious detractors who can't help themselves. Which are you?MrH- I have read the evolutionary literature. I even have several college courses in biological sciences as well as over a year of field work. There isn't anything in it that shows that mutations culled by selection can do what you want us to think it did.You, on the other hand, know little if anything about ID or Creation.Non-natural mechanisms- anything man-made would be non-natural. Anything that nature couldn't do by itself including a beaver dam, would be non-natural. Investigative teams and scientists already have processes in place that allow us to detect design- inteligent, ie no-natural, design. Go figure...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything that nature couldn't do by itself including a beaver dam, would be non-natural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
I'm impressed that you are so certain of precisely what Nature is able and unable to accomplish.John Paul:
I am so certain because of observation. IOW not once has nature been observed building a dam for a purpose. Nowhere has nature ever been observed creating specified complexity.MrH:
I'm astonished that Nature is able to produce a baby from a fertilized egg without the direct intervention of an Intelligent Agent.John Paul:
LoL!!! Nature didn't produce the baby, the baby is the result of the itelligent design of living things. The ToE can't even explain sexual reproduction!MrH:
Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly why Nature is unable to produce anything having the attribute of IC, when such things seem abundant in the biosphere. Hint: Behe doesn't mention why either.John Paul:
Why do I have to explain what nature can't do? It is up to you to show what nature can do. Why is it in all the years we have observed nature we have NEVER observed nature create specified complexity?MrH:
I submit that intelligent agents are unable to create ex nihilo cells that reproduce themselves, so your mechanism is not a possible explanation for the phenomenon of biological life.John Paul:
No one says the cells were created ex-nihilo. Maybe you can create another strawman to knockdown.

Nature didn't produce the baby, the baby is the result of the itelligent design of living things.CF:
Wait... what? JP, do you need to be told where babies come from?John Paul:
Well I know nature had nothing to do with mine.

Well I know nature had nothing to do with mine.CF:
Your baby didn't gestate in a uterus?John Paul:
Yes, my wife's, not nature's. I am unaware that nature even has a uterus.

Arach:
it's nice to romantically look at things and declare them miracles and testaments to god.John Paul:
I haven't done that here. But I could. Ya see my daughter was born 10 weeks early @ 2 lbs 8 ounces. By rights I should have lost them both (wife & baby).Arach:
see, that's genetics. alleles. from one generation to the next. which, i do believe is the definition of biological evolution, one generation at a time.John Paul:
Actually that is the deception of biological evolution. Evolutionists want people to believe that just because allele frequency changes over time and traits are passed down to future generations that a land animal can evolve into a cetacean. That is like saying since I can run a mile I can run a marathon.Methinks you don't know what Creationists say about the change in allele frequency over time, ie biological evolution.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am unaware that nature even has a uterus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
So your wife designed her baby?John Paul:
Only someone like you could come to that conclusion by reading the posts.MrH:
Her intelligent agency was necessary to sequence the baby's genome and conduct the entire process of cell division that nature is unable to facilitate?John Paul:
Where was nature during her pregnancy or during copulation? I didn't see it in our bedroom. I didn't see it in the hospital.Please show us where nature can bring life from non-living matter.