Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}

quote:

---

Have you noticed that no ID supporters have responded to your post so far?

---

Um...Mick, does it occur to you that the reason no one is responding is that the OP is a load of horse hockey? Who ARE these people? Anyone can put up a Web Site.There's simply nothing true in the entire thread, so far. So why would you think an ID theorist would waste their time with it.You also might want to watch the name calling. It detracts somewhat from the opinion I had formed earlier of you.

---

Design Dynamics

Well there ya go then, whoever the heck that is. Run with it. But you won't see me in here discussing that nonsense.Enjoy your thread. I won't be cluttering it up any further.Thanks

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

I patiently await your explanation of this Theory and what it actually is Jerry.Please proceed.

---

I could, but it would just be a repeat of the *foundations of ID* thread and the *intelligent design in the universities* thread where all of that is already laid out in detail. Hate to bore everyone silly on here.You can read the (major)points that have been made thus far HERE

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

That's right, challenge that theories shortcomings and you get ID theorists pouring in to lament how they are abused and state that the solution is continued debate on the subject. Actually say "all right let's sit down and explore this field" and they disappear.

---

But I haven't disappeared.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Most certainly you have not appeared in any thread dedicated to discussing actual progress or methodology of ID

---

Gee. Well I'm new here so there probably are many threads I haven't visited. And, I have a creedo not to post in anymore threads at once than my schedule allows me to handle.You know what, Holmes? I have this sneaking nag in my gut that you guys haven't had any real ID theorists in here, well versed in its science aspect and prepared to go anywhere you wish to go in the field.Want to see the ID-detractor PhDs in every subject scamper away from the discussion? Now's your chance.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

You may be right. Often self-proclaimed ID theorists turned out to be creationists who believed that life was created by something intelligent, which is different than a person who is pursuing a system for detecting the marks of intelligent design.

---

Correct. If they 'believe' anything without evidence, that is their religious views rather than science.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Hello again Jerry. If you would be so kind as to establish here the theory of Intelligent Design then I will use your version to continue the debate rather than the website in the OP.Perhaps you could start with defining what intelligence means in this application and how does this intelligence operate?

---

Hello Sidelined. I would be glad to establish the theory of ID here for you if I could. I'm afraid there is no such thing as that, anymore than there is a theory of chemistry, anatomy or neural surgery. That's just a myth.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

As simply as I can put it, the criteria that the ID theorists are using to "detect design" does not require any information about who did the designing.

---

Designers have not a thing to do with design after the fact. They are two separate subjects that do not logically lead from one to another.If a man has surgery and needs it repaired 20 years later, the new physician need not know the name of the old one before he proceeds to fix what is wrong with the patient, that's just silly.You're hairdryer will work just fine without you knowing the design engineer or even the nature of that designer. That designer could have had the nature of Mother Teresa, an axe murderer or Elvis and wouldn't make a lick of difference to the way you interact with the hairdryer.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Why are you posting this to me, that is what I was telling everyone else, specifically in that quote you cited from my post

---

Um...Because I misread the post? Yep, that's the ticket. Sorry.Mick, take some time off, man. We all get snippy from time to time as this is emotional stuff for some reason or another I have never figured out.I used to lash out (and still do occasionally, in spite of an effort not to) these days I try to just close the laptop and go for a swim.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Jerry, I read some of your posts on the other thread that was closed down. You obviously have some good mathematical skills and a knowledge of information theory, but I am still a skeptic like Mick.

​

I joined this forum around the same time as you, so I guess we are both relative newbies on similar footing when it comes to posting.

---

Ahhh...I did not know this. I think it was the face that made you blend in. In any case, I have certainly enjoyed your posts to me.

quote:

---

Without getting into questions of designer identity and such, I would like to debate the 'utility' of ID theory for solving problems in applied biology. We can dispense with all the abstract reasoning and mathematics - just show me it's actually good for explaining some tangible, *biological* phenomenon.

---

I read your entire post, but I can stop right here to answer it:I cannot do anything you request, EZ. You see, ID is not a separate science from biology and since it is not, I could not quote anything in ID that would explain something biologically, either better, or worse. I can only explain biology by using biology.ID in itself is not even a theory. It's a scaffolding for examining the theories and laws in science with a different paradigm. While you may see only the quirks of nature in a complex biological system, I may look at that system teleologically and see purpose in it.Of what good is it? It is only useful if one is curious about the origin of the system. Darwinism has always fell short in logically explaining this. I decided this as a young biology minor over thirty years ago in college. And did you know I can produce a poll that shows only 10% of college graduates that study this accept it without throwing a god in there somewhere?That's one reason I have devoted my early retirement to educating people in this area. ID is logical and it is the only view of origins out there that will stand in science and math until the cows come home. I would have no other choice but to espouse this over other options if I care to be honest with myself.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Since we have established that there is no theory of Intelligent Design as there is a theory of eveolution could we perhaps impose upon you to explain what the nature of intelligence in the term Intelligent Design entails?Thank you.

---

Well, there is no real theory of evolution either as theories of science have to be taken though the scientific method to become theories. But that is another thread.Intelligence just denotes purposeful design from natural design---A house, from a mountain range. That's it!

quote:

---

I am sorry I did not make this clear.What is the structure by which this intelligence operates? Human intelligence is dependant upon a brain as structure in which electrical and chenmical process allow the thought processes by which intelligence manifests itself.I would like to understand the equivalent nature of the strucre by which intelligence operates in Intelligent Design.

---

That structure would be quantum mechanics. You will have to do a lot of study to understand that. If you care to, I will point you there.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Can I quote you on that?

---

Sure. This is true, but it may get just a tad deeper.

quote:

---

Because it seems that the kind of ID that they want to get into the public school curriculum is of a very different ilk.

​

It is promoted as an 'alternative' to neo-Darwinism, and to be truly alternative in my books, it has to provide *functional* explanations as good as, or better than ToE in order to be afforded that status.

---

Why? There is no such thing as the ToE. Theories of science are taken through the scientific method from observation, then experimentally to a hypothesis, then through experiment by the researcher's peers to theory. Darwinism has no theories that have ever been through that rigorous method to rightfully be taught as theories. So how could we hope to replace something that does not exist? Don't you think your kids should at least know the truth?Yeah, I peeked. You had to be from Kansas. I would think you were my old buddy Jack Krebs but you are too nice! (I really do consider Jack an Internet buddy, believe it or not, we go back years)

quote:

---

If you admit that, then ID theory can never replace Darwinian evolution as a functional model for biology.

---

But Darwinism is not a model of anything. Models have to be based on something. Evidence, math....something. What would you think a Darwinian model would be based on? Supposition doesn't get it in science.

quote:

---

ToE does not address the ultimate origins of life, only the mechanisms by which it has changed and can be expected to change, so ID is not an alternative to neo-Darwinism in this sense either.

---

Darwinism HAS to have something to evolve, so that's really just semantics. ID offers a credible scenario of origins. Unless you believe in UFOs and little green aliens, it's the only one out here based on science and math. So why do you have a problem with us teaching this as a possibility along with Darwinism and all its problems--yet potential possibilities? Isn't this just basic honesty?

quote:

---

The adaptationist approach of ToE would say that the apparency of purpose in morphological designs is evidence of adaptation without the requirement for teleology, but I am sure you already know that.
Hey - thanks for answering.
I guess I will have to take my beef elsewhere

---

Hang around. You may evolve more beef.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Well since nobody does understand QM I doubt that will be the case.However if you wish to make your case we will give that a try.

---

You can start here and take it as far as you want. Please read this post and the one below it.http://EvC Forum: Foundations of ID

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Perhaps you'd elaborate on why you think it does support the ID case. At least, we'd have a reference to discuss, so there would be none of this business about being too far from a library.

---

Just cannot stay out of these addictive conversations? I made all the argument using that paper that I wish to make. Rebut it.

---

Design Dynamics