Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory

Motorhead, be careful with blanket refutations like that. There are recent "scientific" developments in ID. There are people out there who use the scientific method to obtain results in support of their idea. The problem I often run into is that their results do not exclude alternative interpretations (which is a requirement for forming a theory). However, some of them come up with stuff that I have trouble refuting with my primitive knowledge.One such example comes to us from John Baumgardner, PhD, from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). It's called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), and consists of several papers dealing with geological dating techniques. It concluded in 2005. That's about the most recent real research I've seen. It's supposed to be definitive proof that radiometric dating doesn't work. I don't know enough about geology or spectrometry to actually refute it. Maybe y'all could take a look at it and tell me what you think.RATE | The Institute for Creation ResearchMy understanding is that John Baumgardner (PhD) for the ICR had reputable spectrometry centers date several samples of rocks from the Grand Canyon, and that the dates produced varied wildly, even between samples that were supposed to be from the same geologic stratum.A man named Kirk Bertsche, claiming to be an AMS physicist, made a sharp rebuttal, claiming that the variation in dates were due unavoidable contamination sources, but Dr Baumgardner turned it around and said that Kirk Bertsche was clearly a novice. It then becomes a scenario of credibility--"who do you believe: me or him?"--and isn't actually about the subject at hand. What I find intriguing about this tactic is that Dr Baumgardner has made it explicitly clear that his purpose in life is to tear down the theory of evolution. Does he expect us to just overlook this bias in determining credibility?I haven't heard much about this project since then, so I don't know if it's already been refuted. And, I don't know if it fits your (Silent H's) criterion of "recent." And, I'm not an ID proponent, so I'm pretty sure I don't fit your criterion for posters, either. Still, I'd like some feedback from other people.Edited by bluejay, : No reason given.

I figured it was something like that. Of course, Baumgardner wrote a book on this stuff, and he's arguing that our reason for thinking isochron dating is inaccurate is because it doesn't support our theory. I guess there's no way to really persuade such people, is there?

quote:

---

However age doesn't really have anything to do with ID

---

I guess that's true, isn't it? They weren't putting forth new data, just disputing existing data.Thanks for the data, RAZD

I don't think this is actually an IC system evolving here: it's the last link re-evolving into place after an "IC" system was destroyed. It shows, however, that proteins can evolve to compliment the function of existing proteins.With a liberal interpretation, this may suggest that the independent emergence of part of an "IC" system could catalyze the production of the rest to complete the system, but I think that's giving it a little too much credit.In response to your information theory commentary, I think the flaw is really basic. The usage of the theory assumes a creationist background to start with (i.e. a belief that everything has an assigned purpose and meaning, and therefore can't change).As an example, I offer the timeless analogy of the scientist locked in a room with 20 wooden blocks, which he must draw randomly from a box and produce a six-member combination to open the door and get out of the room. The inherent flaw in this argument is the assumption that there is only a single right answer. They would have a hard time explaining how there exist dozens, probably hundreds, of variations on the hemoglobin molecule, all of which work, not to mention the presence of (multiple varieties of) hemocyanin, chlorocruorin, pinnaglobin and other types of oxygen-transport blood proteins.Edited by Bluejay, : Typos

I agree with you completely, RAZD: I was just arguing semantics.Also, I don't think it was an IC system, because I don't think an IC system can exist. But, that's just bias speaking, so don't pay it any attention.