Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

Peter,Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Time constraints forbid indepth reply at this time. Suffice me to sum (hand-wave) for now:1) The intonations may or may not be developemental vs. genetic; I'm not sure.
2) Intonations and music, in my less-than-trivial opinion, seem perhaps exponentially different in their complexity.
3) Intonations, I think, require a biological mechanism. Written words, thought-concepts, science-constructs, music, and music constructs exist SANS a biological mechanism. Rebut me, cause I may be wrong.
4) Computers, presently weak, have some characteristics of pattern recognition: Speech programs like Dragon Dictate for example.Respectfully,
Philip

Science-falsely-so-called is purpetrated by all of us? Even you Frank.Your response seems to manifest extreme bias in you last sentence. Obviously, you have a biased definition based on naturalistic beginnings and endings of the creation. I accept the definition(s) based on the search for mechanistic truth, even as stated on the bigotted talk-origins (ToE) forum.Why not go back to your older non-naturalistic dictionaries, Frank, and see what paradigm you are inferring with your biased modern dictionary definition of science.Respectfully,
Philip

John,Thank you for your indepth reply. Much of my own life has been as a professional student as well, with minors in art, philosophy ... Associate in electronics engineering technology; 13 or 14 different colleges; extreme academia, and an extreme passion for medicine, which prompted the redundant post-graduate and masters studies in biology, biomedical science, etc., and finally podiatry (I was too old for the preferred traditional medicine after doing time in the military, and my former vanities).I've found this forum the most challenging because, well face it; naturalists (and empiricists) are less-stupid than philosophers (in my opinion), and I evangelize better using in their clever mechanistic terms.Surely none of us are really that gifted here, except perhaps the Borg, whose mysterious ploys, I admit, sends me reeling in my bio-genetic ignorance. How long he can stand to play here (like Chase Nelson), and contend with our bigotries, I don't know.I find you empiricists vicariously and graphically stimulating in your use of language, albeit your empirical and gappy premises seem to me as insane as our sophistication can get.You already know I'm a fool. Hope we can continue the discussions as feasible.Sincerely,
Philip

John,Thank you for your indepth reply. Much of my own life has been as a professional student as well, with minors in art, philosophy ... Associate in electronics engineering technology; 13 or 14 different colleges; extreme academia, and an extreme passion for medicine, which prompted the redundant post-graduate and masters studies in biology, biomedical science, etc., and finally podiatry (I was too old for the preferred traditional medicine after doing time in the military, and my former vanities).I've found this forum the most challenging because, well face it; naturalists (and empiricists) are less-stupid than philosophers (in my opinion), and I evangelize better using in their clever mechanistic terms.Surely none of us are really that gifted here, except perhaps the Borg, whose mysterious ploys, I admit, sends me reeling in my bio-genetic ignorance. How long he can stand to play here (like Chase Nelson), and contend with our bigotries, I don't know.I find you empiricists vicariously and graphically stimulating in your use of language, albeit your empirical and gappy premises seem to me as insane as our sophistication can get.You already know I'm a fool. Hope we can continue the discussions as feasible.Sincerely,
Philip

Pardon my grammar (below):What Shraf, you'd have me debate like Spock?Shall I endeavor to hide my bias, like the Borg.Now you know I directed the term "cruddy" (or was it "nutty" professor to everyone but your husband; don't pin that on me, along with other paranoid accusations of my lack of scientific inquiry.You presently don't seem to want to accept science if it relates to metaphysics.True, I am trying to save face as I suffer what appears to be the death blows against my YEC scheme, cowering in my jilted semantics, as WaWa (my Mollucan Cockatoo), sleeps on my shoulder.Try reading my scientific inquirie(s) before hand-waving them. Give me the traditional unbiased definition of science, not the naturalists.As for hords of scientists crying mega-evolution; they're all nutty professors, gapping away in gleeful ignorance of their gaps in their grand scheme. I wouldn't appeal to their quantity or their majority. They are all not-so-brilliant idiots, and the world knows it. Face it. They are wrong about mega-Evolution.For evolution to design us (if you will): Each and Every supposed tiny new addition to a genome (mutation) must vicariously aid survival. You want me to believe that? Try manipulating the ionic force-vector on the active site(s) (i.e., experimentally) on any enzymes (or their families) that way. It seems logical enough that the active site will lose its catalytic effect with one supposedly insignificant atom out of wack; you will end up with an enzyme that is no longer an enzyme, no? (Any expert enzymologists wish to comment?)As for being cruddy; you know we are all guilty. I respect your respect for your husband. Are you betraying your feministic biases in order to overturn my YEC scheme? But, alas, I betray my YEC scheme (and other failures) continously; which is part of my resolve to post and learn (by you and others).You don't convince me that your resolve is to educate the lurkers. What kind of education are you ploying:
1) Live humanistically and die?
2) Redemptive observations are futile in determining the grand scheme?
3) Have fun, don't look for redemption during devastating heartbreaks?
4) Watch Star-trek and learn from Spock, Data, Kirk, and Jane-Way?
5) Don't whisper to much about redemptive observations; you might be thrown out of your science class, your (cursed) research grant, your medical school?
6) Never be inspired to mix faith with bias and bias with hypotheses?
7) And never, no never hypothesize a science of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-grave as a redemptive designer? The Supreme Court would fart you away into a McDonald's house of zombies.Give it up Shraf? The mega-ToE is a worthless crutch for a gappy and botched up science-falsely-so-called.I can't wait till someone comes up with a ToE mechanism to build a a mere kinase enzyme, let alone a repair-DNA-ase. What about you (-all)?Respectfully,
PhilipP.S.
In respect to the topic of "Exactly 'How' Intelligent must a Designer be?"; I apologize for our drifting? Yet, this seems perhaps to be doting question, anyway. I don't mind exploiting this thread talking about music, pysches, etc., if you all don't.

Pardon my grammar (below):What Shraf, you'd have me debate like Spock?Shall I endeavor to hide my bias, like the Borg.Now you know I directed the term "cruddy" (or was it "nutty" professor to everyone but your husband; don't pin that on me, along with other paranoid accusations of my lack of scientific inquiry.You presently don't seem to want to accept science if it relates to metaphysics.True, I am trying to save face as I suffer what appears to be the death blows against my YEC scheme, cowering in my jilted semantics, as WaWa (my Mollucan Cockatoo), sleeps on my shoulder.Try reading my scientific inquirie(s) before hand-waving them. Give me the traditional unbiased definition of science, not the naturalists.As for hords of scientists crying mega-evolution; they're all nutty professors, gapping away in gleeful ignorance of their gaps in their grand scheme. I wouldn't appeal to their quantity or their majority. They are all not-so-brilliant idiots, and the world knows it. Face it. They are wrong about mega-Evolution.For evolution to design us (if you will): Each and Every supposed tiny new addition to a genome (mutation) must vicariously aid survival. You want me to believe that? Try manipulating the ionic force-vector on the active site(s) (i.e., experimentally) on any enzymes (or their families) that way. It seems logical enough that the active site will lose its catalytic effect with one supposedly insignificant atom out of wack; you will end up with an enzyme that is no longer an enzyme, no? (Any expert enzymologists wish to comment?)As for being cruddy; you know we are all guilty. I respect your respect for your husband. Are you betraying your feministic biases in order to overturn my YEC scheme? But, alas, I betray my YEC scheme (and other failures) continously; which is part of my resolve to post and learn (by you and others).You don't convince me that your resolve is to educate the lurkers. What kind of education are you ploying:
1) Live humanistically and die?
2) Redemptive observations are futile in determining the grand scheme?
3) Have fun, don't look for redemption during devastating heartbreaks?
4) Watch Star-trek and learn from Spock, Data, Kirk, and Jane-Way?
5) Don't whisper to much about redemptive observations; you might be thrown out of your science class, your (cursed) research grant, your medical school?
6) Never be inspired to mix faith with bias and bias with hypotheses?
7) And never, no never hypothesize a science of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-grave as a redemptive designer? The Supreme Court would fart you away into a McDonald's house of zombies.Give it up Shraf? The mega-ToE is a worthless crutch for a gappy and botched up science-falsely-so-called.I can't wait till someone comes up with a ToE mechanism to build a a mere kinase enzyme, let alone a repair-DNA-ase. What about you (-all)?Respectfully,
PhilipP.S.
In respect to the topic of "Exactly 'How' Intelligent must a Designer be?"; I apologize for our drifting? Yet, this seems perhaps to be doting question, anyway. I don't mind exploiting this thread talking about music, pysches, etc., if you all don't.

Homology and correlation don't imply causation. This is an old debate dealt with on other threads.Not to hand-wave you off about the 98% genome sharing with OWMs and chimps, but this implies nothing against creation and nothing for mega-evolution, SANS circular reasoning.Not does mega-evolution explain the celestial and anthroplogical cursed-redemptive observations we (you and I) expect to see.(Welcome to the forum).

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Now you are simply babbling.

​

I suppose that is the only thing that you can do if you can't discuss specifics.

---

--Oh please pray tell; give me a specific and we'll try again if you wish.Philip

I regret I forgot your definition of psychology (a very subjective term perhaps don't you think)? My extremely biased definiton includes the psyche, humanism, para-pyschology, etc., as well as yours perhaps.I have nothing against your bias(es) whatsoever; or at least I'm not supposed to in a bigotted manner. When I am construed as bigotted, I've failed in the debate.Speaking of biases, Frank, the ToE would operate, methinks, in a unbiased naturalistic selection: ID would not be allowed, nor would a qualitative designer be acceptable in any gap of the creation.But it's the innumerable gaps, not just the one or 2 we can debate about, but innumerable ones (I've posted elsewhere if your interested) that also support a God-of-the-gaps if you will.The 2nd Law itself (assuming the universe is a closed system) seems to require intelligent intervention as well.But, the bottom line is, my own extreme faith-biases invoke a great deal of bias and error on this forum.I.e., I want to believe I have a soul, a God, a Redeemer, and eternal life. If I can realize science supports my extreme faith-hypotheses (e.g., YEC or peradventure OEC), than I will rejoice in the truth.Empiricism is fair science; I'm willing to use empiricism to disprove empiricism (e.g., the 2nd Law, fortuitous monster theories, etc.)Do you or anyone on this forum have any idea how an enzyme (say a simple kinase enzyme) could have evolved with its delicate active site force-vectors? I see IC written all over the phenomenon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frank:
As for your last question:

quote:

---

Do you or anyone on this forum have any idea how an enzyme (say a simple kinase enzyme) could have evolved with its delicate active site force-vectors? I see IC written all over the phenomenon.

---

​

For myself, no, I can't answer that question. But I am glad to read that you can see IC written all over it, as this would assume you understand IC. I have been following another thread on what is ID and must admit I am confused as to exactly what is ID/IC. Are they the same ? Perhaps you would like to post an explanation there.
Frank

---

ALL enzymes (I believe ALL) have active site force vectors that are peculiar enough to be ICs: they seem impossible to incrementally develop, lest their beneficial catalytic effects are rendered destroyed via every tiny mutated step along the way of evolution (any proposed ToE, that is).An IC by definition is something that is: irreducible in its complexity, requiring a high pattern of arrangement at the start.A fixed IC (FIC) is similar: the IC cannot be broken down without destroying the function altogether. Perhaps most ICs are FICs.ID is merely the cause of ICs. I have a hard time believe you Frank, and you other empiricists, if and when you equate cause with effect.But redemptive design (RD) under my so-called Gospel scheme seems even more conspicuous. Now, RDs are not necessarily ICs in your empirical sense, Frank. RD's may be speculated to have evolved via a God-of-the-Gaps ToE, or even by an atheistic ToE, and not just my YEC/ID scheme For example:
1) A super-enzyme repairs/restores deleterious events and/or sequences during DNA replication.
2) A carbon atom contains the precise quantum forces to negotiate all organic and biochemistry AD INFINATUM.
3) Light has billions of other functions besides eliminating darkness.
4) The earth with its precise proportion(s) of water, its distance from the sun, its tilt, its complex chemistry, atmosphere, geology and hosts of other coincidentals, enables it to sustain life. Such innumerable necessary coincidentals parsimoniously seem to cry out RD and ID.
5) The innumerable excellencies of astronomy, the patterns, arrangements, harmonies, symmetries, proportions, etc. of those shiny spherical orbs, cry out ID, RD, and perhaps IC, that is, if our empirical abstractions don't bog down our grosser holistic thoughts.--The times and seasons themselves seem redemptive paradoxes: The cold winter clears away insect contagions while the hot summer enables beneficial harvests.6) Oceanic and Zoological excellencies, with their complex and orderly arrangements of ecosystems, organismic functions, physiologies, sociologies, etc. fill the libraries and our psyche's with RD data.7) Man (and Woman) with psyches and minds that are as empirically and metaphysically mysterious as a phenomenon can get: Yet filled with metaphysical excellencies:A man's 10 fingers each has a harmonizing protocol (if you will) when it types, plays the piano, repairs computers, extracts cultures, drives the hot-rod, or whatever.So then, in sum; the data of these IC excellencies (in my less than meager hypothetical opinion) declare the glory of ID and RD, and their cause-effect relationship thereof.

S: How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system/structure and a naturally-occurring one that we either:don't understand yet, ordon't have the capacity to understand?P: Without begging defintions at this point. Intelligently-Designed system/structures, IDSs (if you will) and naturally-occurring system/structures, NOS's seem to obviously overlap in many of their apparent existences. In other words: A cow is a cow both because its gene pool was established (designed in my Gospel scheme) and reproduced. We are far from understanding physiological and microbiological phenomena of cows. Perhaps we have 1 or 2% of this knowledge in books at this time.But, Shraf, for me to tell you the difference between phenomenal IDSs and NOSs using necessary (?) empirical terms is vexing, since we don't understand them in empirical detail. I've always appealed (empirically or metaphysically) to cause-effect relations.IDS's and NOS's are kin enough: in the reproductive events of their evolution (not the mega-ToE) they reflect much of the original and wonderful gene pool. I say wonderful because all IDS/NOS entities are intriguing in many of their qualitative and quantitative arrangements, patterns, proportions, etc.Moreover, your empiricist faith vs. my metaphysicist faith is perhaps the only difference between IDS's and NOS's. Can we not admit that we are stuck with both schemes, Shraf? Are they not both real and valid, the empiricist and the metaphysicist schemes and their respective NOS's and IDS's.Why should I deny the affective component of your psyche's abstractions and call them empirical (which they certainly are not)? You, your psyche and spirit, are a real albeit empirically complex invisible entity in this world. I only know you by faith. I don't even care what you look like. Its you soul I would commune and reckon with; not the bio-mental phenomenon you'd perhaps have us to be.S: Saying something like, "Nobody knows how X could have happened naturally, so this has ID written all over it" is merely a God of the Gaps argument, and not meaningful.P: Who said the God of the Gaps argument is not meaninful. The OEC? the theistic-Evo? the YEC? Or the empiricist only? Or, perhaps, am I using the term God of the Gaps indiscriminately? I've been using the term God-of-the-gaps gleefully. Why not? A Christian name is grace.Though a YEC, EVERY event and object must have God's grace to explain its existence. Light, energy, quantum physics, etc., although somewhat predictable scientifically, are not really understood (as you probably agree). Do you think these phenomena will ever be understood to the point that they are deemed non-miraculous, non-benevolent, non-redemptive, non-consoling, non-mysterious, etc.?Is not the simplest piece of dirt a great mystery: its significant neutron forces for example. What really binds these carbonacious and inorganic molecules together in the soil, Shraf? Mere coincidental and fortuitous arbitrary empirical sub-atomic and quantum energies?Or is there a redeeming God in his grace holding it all together?The evidences require faith-biased hypotheses either way:
The empiricist will only logically abstract an event like Spock struggling against his emotions.
The ID'st will appear foolish to himself, to the stoic empiricist, and to his can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees contemporaries.S: It is exactly the same argument as "We don't really know what makes the sun go across the sky every day, so Apollo must pull it across in his firey chariot." ... So, how can we tell the difference?P: Scriptures are filled with vicarious illustrations of grace (despite our mis/understandings of natural events). The scriptures play on this Apollo-like God-of-the-Gaps, but in a more redemptive (Christ-like) illustration. Consider Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. (Ps 19:1-6).Shraf, the Greeks were wisest in their day; perhaps their Apollo devolved from this Psalm. Looks fairly correlated to me.But your point being that mythology, Christianity, Islam, religion, Buddhism, Voodoo, and all metaphysical explanations of life's mysteries are often a lie is not always true:A person's understanding (as you admit) is minimal, despite his/her Greek-like wisdom. His Apollo-like perspective of Christ, or Moon-God (Islam) perspective of Christ, or 'Jesus'-like perspective of Christ may more accurately depict the redemptive phenonenon of the sun in the sky, than the narrow-minded empiricist ever will at Guntersville High School.My question is: Who's description of the sun is the most redemptive, beneficial, inspiring, helpful, and loving, while respecting astronomical science, and is thus the most learned and/or appreciative?

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkenstick:
phil, do you mind if I say that what you've said is all very nice, but it isn't in any way scientific.

---

Don't mind; thanks for your reply.
Scientific implies hypothesis, data-evaluation, making deductions based on the data, coming to conclusions and discussions.What is your scientific way; and/or where did I violate your or someone's definition of science.

Without responding too indepth.1) We both know that scaffolding is a crutch term for enzymatic evolutions to become viable. I reject it as another irrational hopeful monster theory.2) Empirical reality is not rational reality nor metaphysical reality. Equating them in any way is fallacious.3) My metaphysical schemes are far more real than your empirical schemes in my reality of the cosmos. While your empirical scheme may in fact be more real to you, I reject it for rational reasons: Namely, there are too many excellencies (harmonies, symmetries, and proportions) that invoke a gospel-scheme, too many redemptive observations on all cosmic levels (which you clearly fail to see), and empirical entropic forces of devolution that must be rationally reckoned with.

I appreciate your candid and rapid response, incoherent in parts due to your haste, understandable.Science, I agree must follow empirical parameters, albeit it does not seem to care about excellencies (e.g., harmonies, symmetries, and proportions). Excellencies must be reckoned with, however, in any grand scheme.How concockted (forgive spelling errors for I too am in haste this evening), how fortuitous, and how wonderful that we exist! Empiricism fails to compute. Science fails (in its modern definition(s). Naturalism fails. The mega-ToE fails. Only the YEC model really makes sense regarding excellencies per se (in my metaphysical opinion).To state empiricism has all the answers is to try to perceive life's tangible effects in a non-redeeming, sadistically detached manner.Sadistic it seems to me because as creatures we become dreadfully aware of our loneliness and damnation enough without having empirical philosophies too be-cloud the metaphysical and spiritual ones. The realities are different.Modern science works as a tool only for our having dominion over our space-time events, but it doesn't always answer the 'why's, the metaphysical worlds, the primary causes, nor the reality(s) that you are.Empiricism will never explain the rapturous joy of a song, wife, oil-painting, out-of-body experience, redeeming love, redeeming observations in nature, excellencies, perfections, redundant virtues, etc., etc. Our real worlds (and those of our children) of your mind, heart, soul, and inner-strength, etc. defy most empirical inquiry.Rationalist: I have 4 science degrees (which I count as dung to explain the grand scheme of things): Psychology (B.S), Elec. Eng Techn. (A.A.S.), biomedical sci(M.S), and podiatry (D.P.M.). None of them come close to explaining the human psyche in empirical terms. Empiricism is merely a tangible method of science; I'm not sure it even stimulates scientific inquiry at all? What do you think?Does the mega-ToE stimulate scientific inquiry? If so, is the stimulous sadistically inspired? For how could anyone believe enzyme excellencies evolved at all, let alone your psyche, music, art, and all our surreal communications per se?Or is the stimulous for mega-ToE inquiry one of dominating our space-time events? I doubt that (unless there are grant dollars involved).Who would want to jump on a mega-ToE boat and why, rationalist? Give me a reason. Truth? Hope? or to be the enemy of truth and hope?

Peter, I'll agree with you that empirical attitude is appropriate for tackling life's knowns and attemping to tackle many of life's unknowns, in an attempt to have dominion over our environment, for example.But to deny the redemptive observations (A.K.A. via a Redeemer) as arbitrarily empirical is neither rational nor ethical (in my opinion).Because, you and I don't even know what light is, let alone music, psyche, really viable mega-ToE mechanisms, nor love in all its myriad forms: Empiricism seems to be gappy, incomplete, superficial, and in denial of cosmic orderly excellencies as described. Correct me and thanks for your response.Phil