Intelligent Design explains many follies

It IS a very poorly written article.Funny, it is just a newspaper article that tells nothing new, nor does it talk about one thing that science must have.. that is evidence.Very strange that you dismiss something because you don't agree with it based on a newspaper article, yet don't bother to look at the evidence.That is the I.D. movement in a nutshell.

Well, you have made your statement of faith.However, this is in the science section.How does your statement of faith show any evidence to the 'Intelligence design' movement? How is a piece of astrophysics related to biology?

what biological system is 'irreducibly complex'?

You say that 'I.D.' is the most pausbile explaination.How do we test this (an assertion is not enough)What is the evidenc for it (Saying things are too complex for it to be otherwise is not evidence for it)What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies I.D.

I am sure he did. Fred Hoyle was not a biologiest though. We also know a lot more about biochemistry than in his day.So, why should I worry about how an astrophysist from the 1950's tried to explain the 'mathematics' of biology? Plus, the 'mathematics' of evoution' wasn't published by him, but was a compliation of a number of notes he took.

That does not answer the question.Rather, that avoids the questions all togather.Give me an experiment. Show me how 'I.D' will make a prediction about how that experiment will fall out.

That is not an experiment. That can not be reproduced and mesured by everyone. That could very well be the placebo effect. Sorry, but that is not a test or measurement or an experiemnt. You mean, things like evolution.

And what does that have anythign to do with 'Intelligent design'?It is a statement of faith, but has nothign to do with I.D, or science.

So, your being an engineer, with a degree in 'Engineering phsyics' gives you so much insite into evolution that you know more about it than people who have degrees in BIology and biochemistry?Perhaps you can answer the questions people as of I.D> to make it a legitament scientific theory instead of pure speculation. What kind of
tests can you come up with to make I.D. make predictions that would distinguish it from evolution, and how can this be tested, and I.D. potentially falsified?

And you have my utmost sympathy. Define 'design' in that instance. Show evidene that this "design' was from 'an intelligent creator'. What do you have besides the arguement from incrediblity??

You are using some very obsolete information. First of all, Yockey, although he has written some article on biology, is a physist, not a biologiest.The error that creationsist make when quoting his work is that he is talking about how a sequence will randomly come up in a prebiotic soup. On the other hand, that is not how DNA and protiens form over time.CHemistry is not random. The formaton of a specific dna sequence is also based on incremental changes, with a filter for selection. That throws the whole probablity calculations out the window.It seems that engineers doen't seem to get this concept.From my observation, when soeone has a technical background, and they are pushing for I.D. or creationism, in the vast majority of times, they have either an engineering background, or are into computers, where this concept is not part of the way things are done. Unless, of course, they are using the genetic algorithems for design.

Your field is quite different.. to be sure.However, look at soem of the key 'creationist' players.Phillips is a laywer. Dembki is into mathamatics. Jorge Fernandez always give the fact he designed things for the army, and has a patenant has his scientific background.Duane Gish is a Chemist (no biologist). Henry Morris was into hydrolics.

Why should a theory that deals with biology have to explain anything that has to do with cosmology?That question is definately a strawman arguement. That is like saying nuclear engineering is worthless because it does not explain the origina of the honey bee.