|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, it's not a strawman. It is THE definition of CSI used by the ID movement. It is THE CSI that is allegedly problematic for evolution. Other definitions of CSI simply aren't. More to the point in out previous discussion I specifically stated that I was talking about Dembski's CSI. If you chose to ignore that (ironically accusing me of blindness !) then that is your problem, not mine.
quote: If the evidence really did lead to ID then it shouldn't be THAT amorphous. There's no agreement, for instance, on the extent of common descent - or even the age of the Earth.
quote: Of course, what Behe is demanding is that we reconstruct past events at a level of detail that the available evidence cannot support. As I said, if ID could do better, Behe would have a point. As ID cannot even do as well, then he is employing an obvious double standard. And so are you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
But how does the design for the "intelligent Designer" get implemented? As I have said, and you ahve refused to address, by stating their is a designer, you imply there is a creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence. Where is the research that shows this? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I can only show anecdotal evidence that a designer was present at the time. Anecdotal evidence? You are basing it all on anecdotal evidence? I can find anecdotal evidence that Elvis is still alive. I can find anecdotal evidence that aliens have experimented on people. That doe snot mean that either of these have any basis in reality. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence. Where is the research that shows this? It uses the same evidence as science, but its research is dedicated to shoehorning that evidence into a framework acceptable to religious belief. The main method used by ID is arguing against the theory of evolution, as if that would prove ID. The scientific method is not used at all in ID, as it leads to the wrong conclusions (i.e., common descent, evolution, old earth, etc.). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined:
|
Creationism attempts to shoehorn the evidence into a Biblical framework. Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence. and then shoehorns the evidence into the biblical framework. ie what the Discovery Institute does. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use. Flawed in what way? IC was constructed by deliberately disallowing evolutionary pathways that allow an "IC" construct to evolve. In addition, IC systems have been shown to evolve. It's done with.
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers. Don't Darwinian evolutionists play with numbers? I think they orgasm over natural explanations and are automatically turned off by any thought of design.
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use. Flawed in what way?
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers. Don't Darwinian evolutionists play with numbers? I think they orgasm over natural explanations and are automatically turned off by any thought of design.
You second sentence is false and shows a misconception and bias you have. There are many biologists who are just as much believers as you are. The deal with numbers is you actually have to show your math. In all the cases I've seen of ID math it is bogus. The problem is that math looks very impressive to those not familiar with it a bit. The bad news for IDers is that math is very much clearer than baffle gab can be and therefore has been shown to be crap. If you have some that is not then a thread on that would be great and very interesting. Classic example; the chosen of one result out of very many (often an unknown size of many) and calculating a probability of that one occurring. Using exactly this math proves that no one can win the lottery in 1,000,000 years. This is the kind of crap put forward by the leading lights in the ID movement like Dembski.
1. Things are so wonderful/complex they obviously have to be designed. I agree this doesn't cut it. On the other hand, you must explain how certain things came to be by random processes. Since this thread is about ID we both agree that the "it's obvious" argument does't cut it. Calling evolution random is just another one of the infinitely repeated (and by now deliberate lie) errors of the ID movement but that is for another thread. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
More to the point in out previous discussion I specifically stated that I was talking about Dembski's CSI. If you chose to ignore that (ironically accusing me of blindness !) then that is your problem, not mine. Ironic because I have not read "Design Inference"? I have read your posts to me and I have not read Dembski's definition in any one of your posts. We have been going around and around with it and it is time to stop since it is not going anywhere.
If the evidence really did lead to ID then it shouldn't be THAT amorphous. There's no agreement, for instance, on the extent of common descent - or even the age of the Earth. With Darwinian evolution, common descent has to be all or nothing. The age of the Earth is something Creationists can debate over. I am willing to change it based on what science says and remain somewhat flexible on it as science should be.
Of course, what Behe is demanding is that we reconstruct past events at a level of detail that the available evidence cannot support. In other words, the details can never be reconstucted in labs???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
But how does the design for the "intelligent Designer" get implemented? As I have said, and you ahve refused to address, by stating their is a designer, you imply there is a creator. And so I am a Creationist according you this? I already explained the differences between 'to make' 'to assemble' and 'to create'. People design and assemble things but they don't create things with supernatural abilities.
Where is the research that shows this? How long have you been seaching the net and this forum? Are you sure you want to find it? After 1,000 posts around here I would think you would have found some if you were looking for it but still you apparently haven't. If you don't know it by now you probably will never ever ever know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I did it again to you Ned. I wrote a message and I lost it. Maybe later when I have more time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:No, ironic because your accusation of "blindness" is based on your own blindness. quote: Not formally stated - but I've said enough about it that you should at least have an idea.
quote: If you're prepared to stop using an argument you clearly don't understand then that's fine by me.
quote: Wrong. Darwin himself allowed that there might have been more than one origin of life. It is the evidence that points to a single origin (at least for all currently existing lineages).
quote: Your personal opinions are only relevant to the point if you have the authority to impose them on the ID movement. SInce you do not, the point remains that the ID movement is quite happy to accept Young Earth beliefs within it's ranks.
quote: Adding lab tests to a theoretical reconstruction only imposes an extra burden. How is that supposed to be an improvement ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
You seem to be trying to dissemble here. You make all these claims for an intelligent designer(supernatural would seem to be the only choice for this), but think you can divorce that from a creator. A design is worthless if there is no creation of that design. Without the creation of the design we would not know there was a design in the first place.
Lets put it this way. How did this Intelligent Designer implement the designs? There has to be a mechanism for the designs to be implemented. Can you explain the mechanism?
How long have you been seaching the net and this forum? Are you sure you want to find it? After 1,000 posts around here I would think you would have found some if you were looking for it but still you apparently haven't. It has been shown to you numerous times that you have never presented ANY evidence for a designer. There are natural explanations for everything you have presented. Please show us one piece of evidence that points to a designer. Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
IC was constructed by deliberately disallowing evolutionary pathways that allow an "IC" construct to evolve. In addition, IC systems have been shown to evolve. It's done with. Irreducibly complex systems have undergone some change. I am familiar with this. Some flagellum have some extra rings or maybe have lost some. That doesn't disqualify ID. I.C. structures are subject ot forces that may alter them. (causing mutations). Where are the novel structures due to these mutations? Have we induced them in labs across the world? This is not a perfect world Ned, it is a chaotic world. If you are referring to the Barry Hall experiment, I remember you posted to me in that thread, even Barry Hall told us that E. coli has limited evolutionary potential. He took one part out of a five to six part system. E. coli has dozens of operons. If those operons are loosely connected through some kind of integrated system this could mean they are not really irreducibly complex. This does not necessarily disprove an argument from design although I can understand why science would wish to settle for the natural explanation. The designer could very well have known (foresight) that bacteria such as E. coli have the need to adapt to different circumstances. Jason Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering could have been part of the original design.
You second sentence is false and shows a misconception and bias you have. There are many biologists who are just as much believers as you are. Gee, I wonder why they are not overwhelmed by the evidence? Maybe they understand the strengths and weaknesses of science?
Calling evolution random is just another one of the infinitely repeated (and by now deliberate lie) errors of the ID movement but that is for another thread. I don't see eye to eye with you on that. Perhaps natural selection isn't random. It is more aligned with chaos. Even randomess generates temporary sequences of what might appear to be order. Random mutations preside over natural selection since random mutations occur first in order for natural selection to act upon them. Unless you believe the mutations are not random. If this is the case then you are leaving Darwinism. Smooth Operator told us that natural selection selects for fitness. I don't entirely agree. The "reality" is, it selects for anything that gives an organism an advantage whether it is fitness, size, color, shape and mutations, etc. My goal is to be more in tune with reality. The energies of our paradigms tend to interfere from that goal. I think the process you refer to (random or not) really depends on where it applies. Let me ask you some questions. Can your processes build complex biological machinery? Before natural selection, there were the first life forms. The question is, could random processes arrange left handed amino acids into chains in the right order to ensure the first living cell? Can the amino acids be assembled in any order in a cell? I don't believe they can considering the sheer complexity of the cell. It must have parts that work together coherently. And another thing, ID may or may not be science. If it is a science it is part of the historical sciences not biological sciences. Just because ID isn't scientific doesn't disqualify it as an explanation. The statement, "Science is the only begetter of truth and the only thing that can find it." in itself cannot be proven by the scientific method. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
could random processes arrange left handed amino acids into chains in the right order to ensure the first living cell? Why would the "first" living cell require even amino acids, never mind just left-handed ones?
Can the amino acids be assembled in any order in a cell? I don't believe they can considering the sheer complexity of the cell. The complexity of the first-living cell, or the complexity of modern cells? What do you know of the first living cell, and how do you know it was "complex"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
You seem to be trying to dissemble here. I'm tired of the debate.
Lets put it this way. How did this Intelligent Designer implement the designs? There has to be a mechanism for the designs to be implemented. Can you explain the mechanism? How do designers make a book or cook a dinner? You see there maybe more than one way and more than one tool to use. Mutations (not random of course) are probably one way to do it.
Please show us one piece of evidence that points to a designer. The cilium, the flagellum, the minimum complexity threshold of the first living cell. It is repeated in the above questions to NosyNed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024