Intelligent Design Creationism

quote:

---

IC systems exist

---

Where?I think that they do exist, lots of them. There are systems that "break" if you remove any part. That isn't the issue. The claim that there is no way for them to evolve if they are IC is the one which is unsupported.

Please go to Message 1 to supply what you mean by a transitional.I'm sure, by the way, that you didn't mean to include "species" in there. Since species is only a little fuzzy there are, of course, not many or any "transitionals" betweent them. I think you meant something else? Genera? Family? "kind"?

You know WT, there isn't much use talking if you're not going to click a link now and then.There is NO argument in the link! There is a request for some literalists who use the word "transitional" to define it. It appears from what they post that they don't have a definition so I wanted to get that cleared up.As for your quote:I'm not aware of that the researchers in origin of life are suggesting that it arose by pure random chance. Not any of it that I've seen anyway. What they are attempting to understand is the chemistry involved and just what the limits on it are.To use the rather stupid math arguments used by a number of creationists only demonstrates that the user doesn't understand statistics.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 10:02 PM

A chance to be a pro-science activist!This thread started to head a bit off course to a more purely ID topic.I've copied the last view posts into here. Discussing whether ID should be taught or not.Then NosyNed at:
Message 7suggests that there isn't enough evidence to warrent time on ID.Commmike37 at
Message 8
argues for some time for ID and lists scientists supporting it as a reason.Ned at Message 9
again suggests there is not enough evidence and is not convinced by list of scientists without seeing reasons behind their views.Commmike at
Message 10
suggests that there is an alternative that supplies purpose.I'll start the flow at this point in my next posts.

It seems one argument is that there should be some balance with time apportioned between different scientific ideas.One question might be how you would calculate the porportions of time?If we took Commikes list of scientists supporting ID we could arrive at a porportion based on votes of biological scientists perhaps.This would give maybe 1/100 of one percent of the time to ID and the rest to the current biological consensus. (rough calculations only).Another way would be based on hard evidence and amount of testing done. This would, I think, make the disparity larger.What measure would you suggest Commike?

This is a comment of Commikes from:
Message 10Commike, could you comment on why you think that is?It was in answer to: Do you agree that ID proponents have agreed that evolution of life on earth has occured? But that they disagree on the mechanism for it in some cases?Remember there is, for this discussion, the need to separate what has occured from how. I know that some if not many ID proponents are agreeing that life has evolved in the sense that it has changed over a few billion years. What they disagree with to varying degrees is how this happened to occur.What are your views on the "what" part?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-22-2005 10:30 PM

In msg 10 of the followed thread: Ah, I need to sort this out a bit.I think there may be a number of different schools of thought in ID. Perhaps you can clarify which one you are talking about.It seems to me that what is being put forward here is one which says that none (or not very much , or only part) of evolutionary change (which we have agreed has occured right?) is caused by mutations acted upon my selection.That is all has a purpose supplied by some unnamed 'designer'.If that is the case there are two issues to deal with:There is a heap of evidence that mutation and selection can produce a wide range (maybe not all but we can leave that aside for the moment) of the kind of changes we see in living things over time. How is that taken into account here?The second is "purpose". What makes anyone think there is any purpose? How would I recognize it's existance? How is this defined exactly? How is it tested?In other words where is the evidence and science supporting "purpose"? This is what would support including it in science classes.

After this evening I will only be able to get on a very little bit until very late saturday. (And I should be packing up now).And was it a good days skiing today at Whistler.

I won't be around much for a few hours.I did ask a number of what I thought were specific questions in the series of posts. Could you answer each post individually and be clear as to which question you are answering. It would help to quote the question.It doesn't appear to me that you have explictly answered any (or at least only a few) of the individual questions. If you think you have could you clarify a bit? Thanks.

You have not given what method you would use to arrive at a division of time.The number of supporters amoung biological scientists may not be able to be tracked to the last individual but since we would not divide the classroom time down to the last 5 minutes anyway wouldn't a count within 5% be reasonable? We can, you know, come to such an estimate.How about evidence volume? I've asked more than once for some of the evidence for the ID side. The 'nitpicking' is simply part of understanding what theory is being put forward and what basic facts are being agreed with or not. I would still like to get that clear.As noted I think that the consensus ID view is that:
1) Earth is old
2) Life has changed over time (evolved in a general and not a Darwinian sense).
3) The underlying mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are there.
4) There are many, some? cases where these mechanisms can produce the changes seen.
5) There are things for which neoDarwinian theory can not account for.Do I have the consensus view? Do you agree or disagree with any part of it. If it is not the consensus view what is? Which famous ID'ers agree and disagree with which bits?I would like to know just what is being discussed in the science class before carrying on with setting up this "balanced" curriculum.Now aside from all that:
Is all you are asking for the inclusion of a line saying:
"There is a purpose behind all this."As noted in Message 125 I asked why we should claim there is a purpose. Wouldn't a reasonably bright student ask for this right off the bat? S/he might also ask "What is the purpose?" and "How do I know that is the purpose?"Since you now say the major difference is purpose or not does that mean you agree with all the rest of the description of evolution of life on earth including the mechanisms behind it but add a purpose to it?If you disagree with what happend then we don't have to worry about ID yet. We can just discuss the input data that tells us about the changes in life on earth.If you agree with the what but disagree on the mechanisms we couldn't give equal time in the class room untill those mechanisms are elucidated. Has any of that been done yet?If we agree on the what and the how but you want to add "purpose" would you please offer a few paragraphs that would describe the purpose and offer the reasons why that particular purpose is the one arrived at?ABE
There is, as far as I am concerned, no rush in answering these (that's true any time actually). Others might be interested.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-24-2005 01:36 AM

Of course, some of the questions might take a bit of time but it seems to me that there is one which you should be able to rattle off a few paragraphs on without any trouble.You have agitated for some time to be given to ID in the classroom.Several questions here are asking, in so many words, just what it is that you would have taught.Your last suggestion seems to be that "purpose" should be introduced. You were asked some questions on that. Could you describe what the students would be taught and what reasoning and evidence would be laid before them?Then you can get back to the other hanging questions. Thanks.

Since commike seems to be away for awhile are there any others who could answer the questions about what would be taught?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2005 08:46 PM

Post 133 left you with what I thought was the simplest thing for you to answer.You requested time in the classroom for ID. You suggested it was all (or is that 'only') about purpose.Post 133 asks that, since you wanted time for something in the classroom, you tell us what that is. I would think that would be something that you would have all ready to post.

I will lose my connection next week for a bit (another move!).Meanwhile, there was this issue of what should be taught in the science classroom.

You wanted something taught in the "equal time"?Have you forgotten this thread?