Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 46 of 112 (200776)
04-20-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by CK
04-20-2005 8:33 PM


Re: Some recent ID Research!
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by CK, posted 04-20-2005 8:33 PM CK has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 112 (205856)
05-07-2005 1:53 PM


quote:
Given that ID theorists have been steadfast in denying that they have anything to do with creationists, that link is a pretty interesting piece of counterevidence to that claim. A veritable bone in the wrong strata.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2005 3:08 PM Limbo has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 112 (205865)
05-07-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Limbo
05-07-2005 1:53 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 1:53 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 112 (205884)
05-07-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
05-07-2005 3:08 PM


quote:
ID began as a political move, before any development.
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:
If it will be years before anyone sees anything from ID why is it being pushed at kids using power politics?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2005 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 05-07-2005 5:11 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 05-08-2005 4:57 AM Limbo has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 50 of 112 (205886)
05-07-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Limbo
05-07-2005 5:08 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:08 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:30 PM mick has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 112 (205896)
05-07-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by mick
05-07-2005 5:11 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 05-07-2005 5:11 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mick, posted 05-07-2005 5:39 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 05-08-2005 4:59 AM Limbo has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 52 of 112 (205898)
05-07-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Limbo
05-07-2005 5:30 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:30 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 112 (206058)
05-08-2005 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Limbo
05-07-2005 5:08 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:08 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 54 of 112 (206059)
05-08-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Limbo
05-07-2005 5:30 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:30 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-08-2005 6:50 PM Silent H has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 112 (206223)
05-08-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
05-08-2005 4:59 AM


New research is one thing, developments are another. By developments I mean news...ya'know, things like this:
Archives – Uncommon Descent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 05-08-2005 4:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by CK, posted 05-08-2005 7:37 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 05-09-2005 3:45 AM Limbo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 56 of 112 (206234)
05-08-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Limbo
05-08-2005 6:50 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-08-2005 6:50 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Limbo, posted 05-08-2005 7:44 PM CK has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 112 (206235)
05-08-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by CK
05-08-2005 7:37 PM


/sigh.
Are you trolling me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by CK, posted 05-08-2005 7:37 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by CK, posted 05-08-2005 7:46 PM Limbo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 58 of 112 (206236)
05-08-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Limbo
05-08-2005 7:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Limbo, posted 05-08-2005 7:44 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 112 (206352)
05-09-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Limbo
05-08-2005 6:50 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-08-2005 6:50 PM Limbo has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 60 of 112 (212177)
05-28-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
01-22-2005 10:32 AM


Origins & Design journal
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2005 10:32 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by CK, posted 05-28-2005 8:09 PM mick has replied
 Message 63 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-30-2005 10:44 AM mick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024