What does ID theory say?

Paleyan Watchmaker thesis says design, organized complexity and contrivance (= adaptation) corresponds directly to the work invisible Watchmaker (= Genesis Creator) even though the Bible is not mentioned in Rev. Paley's famous work (1802).Current DI IDism says reality and nature reflect the work of Intelligence. Presuppositions determine interpretation. But the predominant fact concerning paleontology is stasis: species appear suddenly, endure unchanged, disappear abruptly leaving no descendants (= special creation supported). Question presupposes evolution. IDists see no similarity.Similarity is not falsifiable; it does support evolution. But Darwin refused to theorize about transmutation absent a causal mechanism because otherwise similiarity is just an illusion produced by Mastermind.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add last three words.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : add "Rev."

Good question.The designed unit is each species----the same are immutable based mainly on changelessness (stasis) established by paleontology and the appearance of design and organized complexity seen in every aspect of nature (= Divine or supernatural agency operating in reality).Evolution is impossible since it postulates unguided material causation (UMC) operating in reality. There is no evidence of UMC. Materialism is notorious for not producing any evidence in support of its main claim: the Emperor is naked.Ray

All true.We only seek to rescue science from the bad element: Darwinism, Materialism, Atheism. Most IDists are not Fundamentalists; Jonathan Wells, William Dembski and Michael Behe, for example. The comment above says ID will be slandered as Fundamentalism.Fundamentalists, by and large, are mostly YECs who accept microevolution, like all Atheists. False.ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature. Like I said this is a scientific claim. IF ID is a religious claim and not a scientific claim then evolution and Materialism are anti-religious claims, if we view the situation objectively.Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific. Darwinism, like Creationism-ID, attempts to explain the same database of scientific evidence. In other words science is neutral. But whatever paradigm best explains the evidence lays claim to science. Creationism-ID best explains the evidence; therefore the same is science and Darwinism is scientism or pseudoscience.Ray

According to a wide spectrum of polling data, half of all adults in the U.S. are antievolutionists; therefore it is evolutionists who have failed to convince the majority that their "science" is science.Ray

All this says is: agree with me or you aint intelligent. Half of all adults in the U.S. equates to tens of millions of persons. Evolutionists have no explanation as to why so many modern and educated persons reject their "science" so they invent reasons to comfort themselves.I see no insult in being insulted this way by persons who believe in human evolution. In fact, the rejection of these kind is a relief. Then why did you assert some stats above? I agree in principle. Religious persons disagree. Since we already know Atheists believe this, what is the point?Ray

We can safely assume I know the definition of "Atheist."This leaves "science," "logic," and "evidence."Subbie is playing the "agree with us (= evolutionists) or you are stupid" card. Said card, in this context, seeks to claim victory in the Creation-Evolution debate by defining themselves correct. This betrays a psychological belief that the actual evidence does not support evolution.Ray

Your explanation is synonymously true too. I have no idea as to what you are contesting. It appears to be nothing. This comment defines ID to not be science. Your belief is explained by your pro-evolution bias. We believe the same in reverse: evolution is not science and our belief is based on our bias. We, of course, disagree.There is only one database of scientific evidence and two major interpretations: Creationism-ID and Evolutionism. Yes.I have objectively admitted as much and I have said that since the evolution interpretation is false, having no correspondence to scientific reality, we have the right to say your science is not science. You do the same but not quite as objectively as I do it.I admit both views are paradigms attempting to explain the evidence. Then I say the ID view is true and the evolution view false. This renders ID to be science and evolution to be pseudoscience.Ray

I am certain that this "large portion" disagrees with you.You are not willing to accept that evolution is rejected because it aint true; and that the level of support by Atheists tells anyone with a thinking brain that evolution is Atheism ideology packaged as "science." Since Darwinism presupposes Materialism-Naturalism, which disallow pro-God interpretations and conclusions, the reason why evolution is rejected is invulnerably supported. Atheists have made so called Christian evolutionists their fools and buffoons----I am impressed.Ray

You agree that the comment defines your opponent to not be science----that was the context. Self-evidently absurd.You argue for evolution tooth and nail----that it is a scientific fact. Comments like these should be met with a 24 hour suspension. We disagree.There is no evidence that micro or macro evolution has ever occurred on this planet. The evidence plainly shows that Creationism is true. I completely agree. We don't see any evolution on any level. We see nature reflecting design on every level. Design corresponds to invisible Designer or Divine causation operating in reality, and not unguided material.Ray

Then explain why and how. This comment presupposes that evolution is science because it is testable and because it has tested positive repelling all falsification attempts; and that Creationism-ID is not testable therefore it is not science or scientific.Several things:1. Before 1859 the special creation hypothesis was held true by science; therefore Creationism is a scientific explanation-interpretation of evidence. Darwin was able to convince most of his scientific peers that the hypothesis was erroneous and that his transmutation hypothesis correct. This fact renders your blanket assertion that Creationism to not be testable to be false based on the fact that science before Darwin 1859 held Creationism to be true.2. ID never claimed to be a "scientific theory." ID is a scientific observation. It presupposes the observation of design and organized complexity to correspond----directly----to invisible Divine causation operating in reality. DI IDism would probably disagree with me.3. Evolution is not testable. Evolution is a supposition AND an interpretation of evidence. The supposition-interpretation is not on the table, eligible to be falsified. Only HOW evolution allegedly occurs is on the table, eligible to be modified (not falsified).You need to digest these facts.I will finish your reply ASAP.Ray

This opinion is representing Darwinian "science" correctly.Education presupposes gnosis or a sure way to know. Education does not presuppose Agnosticism or Skepticism. Honest-objective admission. This is certainly what evolution claims. This is basically true. Since my comment specified which Creationism I have not confused anything. And I agree that 19th century Creationism and 20th century Creationism have nothing in common. This is why I routinely sign my name saying that I am a Paleyan Designist or Creationist. I do not want to be lumped in with YEC Fundies.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : grammarEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

I agree.However, the remnant disagree. I am a scientific descendant of the remnant. Science was wrong to accept evolution. Pre-1859 science was and is correct. I am still writing a paper to prove these claims. I completely agree.Please remember what I said in my previous post.Ray

Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project.Ray

Let's suppose this is true, what is your point since my only point was that they are not Fundamentalists (= morons). Yes, if true they disagree. Again, what is your point? My point is that we agree that nature reflects ID. This fact means Divine causation IS operating in reality and not unguided material. Maybe Wells and Dembski could explain why they accept microevolution (assuming they do) and not Divine causation producing each immutable species? As it sits now they accept two mutually contradicting forces existing in nature. I would love to place both of them on the spot.Ray

False dichotomy.Question also presupposes IDists to be Fundamentalists. Acceptance of ID and Creationism means you are intelligent, informed. While plenty of Fundies accept both we do not apologize. Just like evolutionists do not apologize when racists and Holocaust deniers accept evolution. We cannot control the bad element. There are two major ID paradigms. Each, of course, has objective claims:1. Paleyan Watchmaker thesis (1802).Claims: the observation of design and organized complexity and contrivance (= adaptation) correspond directly to the work of an invisible Watchmaker.2. Current DI IDism.Claims: reality and nature reflect Intelligence and Design. God is sovereign.God is the Boss.God is the shot caller.Ray