|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
A second generation fertility test as in the first paper does not go as far as I was thinking about the different probability space in ID. It may still exist where one attempts to reveal the art by forms only as in this citation but I suspect ID if it has an author will be most successful by using the 01 probablities of migration vs mutation vs selection rather than just providing a new statistical basis for seperating clusters in morphospace. If ID starts to ask what the topography is biogeographically for it will enter a realm that strict blind chance can only vainly suspect.
Thanks for the links- on to link two...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: I would just like to point out that ID having nothing to do with creationists is not the same as creationists having nothing to do with ID. If the tables were turned, Im sure you would agree that atheists having something to do with evolution is not the same as evolution having something to do with atheists. I would also like to point out that ID may be too small yet to deal with both the political issues and continued development at the same time. Could be years before we see anything. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-07-2005 01:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I would also like to point out that ID may be too small yet to deal with both the political issues and continued development at the same time. Could be years before we see anything. ID began as a political move, before any development. If it will be years before anyone sees anything from ID why is it being pushed at kids using power politics? One of the first signs that it is not actually science is that it has been married to political agendas and issues since its inception. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Isn't this a 'chicken or the egg' type thing? I would certainly be interested in seeing a detailed time-line of the development of ID!
quote: I guess I should have been more specific. I meant it could be years before we seem anything NEW...of whatever it is you're looking for in your OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi Limbo,
Limbo writes: it could be years before we seem anything NEW Perhaps you could describe some of the research projects that may take years to complete? In a different thread, Jerry Bauer has suggested that the SETI project is a good example of intelligent design research, in that it seeks the signal of intelligent design in the physical universe. Are we awaiting the results of a "bio-SETI"? Does such a project exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
Im hardly qualified to speculate on what the ID leadership may or may not have in store for us. But I can tell you what I WOULD like to see!
A weekly cable program specifically for the ID vs Evolution debate. Each week influencial people from each camp could debate, and update the public on current developments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Im hardly qualified to speculate on what the ID leadership may or may not have in store for us I thought it was science, not a cult!
A weekly cable program specifically for the ID vs Evolution debate. Each week influencial people from each camp could debate, and update the public on current developments That wouldn't quite constitute research now, would it? In any case, what developments do you have in mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Isn't this a 'chicken or the egg' type thing? No, science has no connection to politics. If it were a scientific enterprise it would not have first began as a political movement. If you want a timeline, just start researching the text of ID founders. The task of what would have to be proven or the kind of thing they'd have to not talk about (in order not to be considered creationism by law) was discussed before scientists ever got involved.
I meant it could be years before we seem anything NEW...of whatever it is you're looking for in your OP. But they haven't showed anything yet. Even Behe, who is arguably the only one who has tried to keep things within the relative bounds of science, admitted there is no conclusive proof of where, if any, design occured, more work had to be done and thus there is no model for ID. Why has a theory, even if logically possible, been thrust into the educational system by politicians if it has as of today no working model? Teaching kids to think of science as containing no primary model regarding species diversity, because one day a bunch of religio-politico affiliates may one day get some scientists who will provide a model, does not sound like a good way to teach science. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
A weekly cable program specifically for the ID vs Evolution debate. Each week influencial people from each camp could debate, and update the public on current developments. Are you serious? You just got done saying it may be years before ID turns out any new research, and yet you want a weekly program discussing developments? My guess is this would turn out to be a weekly propaganda platform where the same arguments are heard over and over, with no additional merit from the ID camp. Without a working model, ID is nothing but a phantom of a theory. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
New research is one thing, developments are another. By developments I mean news...ya'know, things like this:
Archives – Uncommon Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How is that a development in theory or even the moving towards some coherent thoughts on the matter? a op-ed piece?
Is that really the best thing you can put forward to us? Doesn't that tell you something? This message has been edited by General Krull, 08-May-2005 07:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
/sigh.
Are you trolling me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I take the smiley in the spirit that it's intended but you've lost me?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-May-2005 07:50 PM Literalistic young earth creationism is an insult to God, suggesting that he would arbitrarily and capriciously break his own exquisite laws whenever it suited him. Worse, the evidence for the fact of evolution is so knockdown overwhelming that we can reconcile it with young earth creationism only by assuming that God deliberately planted false evidence, in the rocks and in the genetic molecules, to trick us. Could a cruder blasphemy be imagined? Bishop of Oxford
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
New research is one thing Yes, that's called science.
developments are another. By developments I mean news...ya'know, things like this: Yes, that's called a kangaroo court, or power politics at its worst. You devise a court that is inherently biased to your position and have them "review" both sides, then pronounce your side the victor. When the other side refuses to play that game because science is done in the field and lab, not in a board room, the first side says they are trying to hide something. Yeah I love it, evolutionary scientists with loads of published documents and more on the way are trying to sneak something past everyone... And Dembski's opinion on all of this means what? If you cannot see from your dramatic illustration, whether ID is science or politics, then there isn't much more that can be said. You will do what you will. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi holmes,
You guys may already know about this, and I haven't read through every post on this thread so it may already have been discussed, but i came across the "Origins and Design" journal published by ARN, which contains a few articles (mainly comment but a couple of "science" articles as well). Recent issues identify an irreducably complex system (bacterial cell division) and a hypothesis explaining why the mammal eye is not badly designed. This latter article is very silly. The argument, boiled down is
Michael Denton writes: If the non-inverted retina works so well for the cold-blooded cephalopods why did evolution go to such trouble to invert the retina in cold-blooded vertebrates? In other words, inverting the retina is such a silly thing to do that it must have been directed by an intelligent agent, because there's no rational selective explanation for it. It appears that inefficiency is now also evidence of intelligent design. It's all pretty laughable stuff, to be frank, and they are extremely defensive. Most of the articles are "darwin versus ID" rants. Mick
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024