TheMystic writes:
You seem to find design distasteful, I don't.
You continue to ascribe base motives to those who reject ID as scientific. The rejection has nothing to do with distaste for the idea, nor with spiritual suicide or wanting to find disorder as you claimed in another thread. It is related to the lack of scientific support for the ID concept. Those of us who value science as a way of understanding our universe do have a strong distaste for efforts that promote ID as if it had already fulfilled the requirements of science when it has not, and this is perhaps what you are sensing.
ID concepts like CSI (Complex Specified Information) have no formal definition. By way of contrast, Shannon information does have a formal definition, to the point where you can calculate precisely how much information can be contained on a computer hard disk or in human DNA. While there can be a very precise answer to the question, "How much Shannon information is in human DNA?", because CSI has no formal definition and no standard of measurement there is no possible answer to the question, "How much CSI is in human DNA?"
Put another way, CSI has no more substance than the "aura" that spiritualists claim they can detect. If a spiritualist told you that you have an aura and I don't, you could never determine whether this were true or not because there's no way to measure. And if an IDist said humans have more CSI than rabbits, once again, you could never determine whether this were true or not because there is no way to measure.
When IDists start writing papers with titles like "Measurement Methods for CSI" and "Calibration Techniques for Measuring Irreducible Complexity" then you'll know that ID is starting to place itself on a scientific footing by creating the possibility of testability and replication. But ID lacks these qualities at the present time, and for this reason, and also because of the obvious religious ties that you make so clear with your references to God, ID could not possibly be considered science.
--Percy