What exactly is ID?

Yah All Trippin'

You must be billions of years old.! I don't think so. I think pointing to an intelligent designer makes it easier to explain. It may raise different types of questions. Those would be the type questions you may not like.I appreciate the beauty found on this earth. In school I found biology boring. I think biology is interesting now since it has room for an intelligent designer. Other people believe or feel just the opposite but that is fine.If Wounded King comes out with a book that proves evolution through embryonic development and it has nothing to do with intelligent design, well then, all the power to him. Maybe he will help science advance. However, that still doesn't answer every question.I would have to be introduced to a theory that goes something like this: The fifth dimension has a cyclical interaction with our dimension every few thousand years and is the cause of punctuated equilibrium and new CSI. It has nothing to do with intelligent design but is a part of the natural state of the universe. My hat would be off to that person who can prove it.

I believe in evolution. Evolution is a robust term. (The following sentence is somewhat speculative but I have had a lot of speculation in my mind which I don't post.) We make the mistake of seeing evolution through the prism of our own perspective. If time is irrelevant to the designer, you can take the entire evolutionary development of organisms and play it back in 10 seconds, you have nothing short of a miracle. It depends on your frame of reference. If you are using the book of Genesis then yes. If you are using history itself, the trend for intelligent design is up for sure! We knew nothing about punctuated equilibrium or irreducible complexity or CSI 20, 30, or 40 years ago. The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow. What if? What if? What if? Don't trip.

We have gone at this before PaulK. Please show me a link of some scientific work which proves CSI has insurmountable practical problems.Information: (this is just one definition) "The attribute inherent in and commiunicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects."I believe this definition can describe the information used by software programs.I believe the information in crystals is not CSI. It is specified in order to produce a specific effect but since it is "redundant", it is not CSI.So what we are looking for is the "exact" place where information becomes CSI or not? Is this not the problem or the essence of the controversy here? Then again, why should I be that naive to think it boils down to this?

You have me thinking. I don't think science works like that. I think science advances by explaining the evidence better than the other theory did. So the previous one seemingly explained the evidence well but in the light of new discoveries, the existing or previous theory didn't explain things as well as it once did.Anyway, here is the one that I popped into my mind:"A Third Way" by Jason Shapirohttp://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=genom...Look at this quote from the link: But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.Human nature doesn't change, does it?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I have already stated in this very thread that it is not science. It belongs under philosophy or metaphysics or metascience.Science cannot prove the existence of the God of the Bible anymore than it can prove the existence of Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster.If that last statement proves there is no God then, science is the only begetter of truth and the truth can only be found through science. However, this statement, in itself, cannot be tested with the scientific method. Do you see now why science has its limitations?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Dembski applied it to the flagellum. See the following link.Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design | Discovery Institute Am I the only one who consistently gets the impression that you twist things around in certain ways? Do you do it to preserve your fragile viewpoints? In other words, we need to test what the designer would or could have done? Yes, fragile indeed.

And you never even asked. The bible says God is hidden. So the evidence seems to match up with this piece of scripture. Obviously there are other parts which don't. Obviously the original Hebrew term which translates into "hidden" doesn't mean absolutely hidden 100% of the time. I don't think aliens would have the patience for 3.8 billion years of development and research. Maybe the aliens are not physical beings but they are outside of our physical reality. It can drive me crazy to think about it. Whether the bible is correct or not is the subject of investigation for me. Obviously, the bible is not compatible with science but it was written in a pre-scientific age and it has been reinterpreted and translated into other languages. CSI in language loses its exact meaning when it is translated because particular words may have slightly different meanings. I don't know about failing but I could apply my time more adequately rather than participating in debate with Darwinists and atheists who seem to be almost as dogmatic as the religious are. Yes, you are dogmatic but in a different way. Your dogma insists your way is the way or the highway.

The book "Signature in the Cell" lists twelve intelligent design predictions! And yes, I see many of them are falsifiable. I choose not to post them but they are available to the person who wishes to visit their local bookstore.

That doesn't seem to be punctuated equilibrium unless, it is in the way you interpret the fossil record. I see your point. The fact is, it isn't! I suspect if the information in DNA was either digital or analog, neo-Darwinists still attempt to explain the devolopment of life. And then you accuse Jason Shapiro of a strawman in your next post!I picked your post because it was the hardest to refute than the other ones in the past few hours. The five of you don't really win the debate against me. You people just wear me out.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I respect the work of Dr. Meyer and he didn't give me permission to post a gem like that, not that I have been in contact with him.

Is there a hair's-breadth between what he's saying and what Darwin said?[/qs]Why did you fail to post I that saw your point? At least one problem with your evolutionary algorithms is that they were "designed" and contained information in the first place. And it shows no matter what the evidence shows, Darwinian conjecture can and will bend and stretch to fit the evidence. What was missing from your analogy were (1) the steps necessary to make an irreducibly complex structure and (2) the hidden problems of a possible scientific explanation for its evolutionary development. Not from bias participants. Another strawman. Creationism does not = ID. You do demonstrate it profically. If I had help from three other ID proponents, I think we would be kicking your ^(&%$ around the moon by now.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

By the insertion of three nucleotides? This is another case of something that I hope lurkers see through. Things like this happen to my posts all of the time. Smooth Operator couldn't have possibly implied this.A real refutation would have been to show how 400 complimentary bits of novel information would have been inserted into a genome. We can assume this has been done if you wish to like so many other things we can assume around here.My heart isn't into this and I really need to do some studying up on this. I obviously am not defending my position nearly as well as I could. I would be willing to discuss these things with people without even mentioning ID but that is not going to happen around here. There are questions that I can think of but I think I will just turn into something else.You all have a nice holiday!I keep thinking of things to add to this post. Theoretically, we can add and add information to the genome. Either natural selection or neutral mutations have to preserve it. Consider first, insertions, deletions and substitutions roughly happen at the same rate. Secondly, almost no set of mutations has produced a new protein binding site in any lab in the world. Only one new one has been documented in a human. So have organisms bulit new sets of coherent machinery in labs across the world? Thirdly, organisms have been known to shed their genetic patrimony including E. coli's ability to make some of the building blocks of RNA. Why? Apparently it saves the organism energy.What is happening in our heads is one thing but what happens in the world, could be something entirely different.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

That is your opinion. "Signature in the Cell" is still in my local bookstore. If anyone wishes to post from it around here then, they can cut and paste it.I don't know if Smooth has taken a series of direct quotes from "Design Inference". Whatever Dembski puts on the net is obviously free information.And back to that other post of yours, here is something for you from Fallen below but you won't accept it. You would rather believe the definition from a judge who probably has never read a book on ID before that trial ever began and probably never will. How convenient of you.EvC Forum: "cdesign proponentsists" (Fallen and subbie only)Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You seem you have a good argument. You quoted recognized names in the ID movement and I believe the depth of their understanding on subjects like biology is far better than mine. However,...I will show that science apparently wasn't always defined in the same way. Look at this quote from Sir Issac Newton."Though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet could by no means have, at first, derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.Mathematical Principles of Natural PhilosophySo if Newton was considered to be a leader of the sciences during his time, then I would say science has changed since then. So why can't ID change?I also went to the discovery.org and found this short article where Casey Luskin believes a definition like mine is a good one.Philly Inquirer Associated Press Article Has GOOD Definition of Intelligent Design | Evolution News Design proponents simply refer to an "intelligent cause" because the available information from the empirical data don't allow design theorists to scientifically infer any more than "mere intelligence" as a cause.The problem I have with supernatural definitions of ID (although they may have occurred and I cannot absolutely rule them out or prove them) is it automatically disqualifies a definition following design through natural laws. Perhaps the designer used quantum physics impressing it upon a Newtonian world where organisms slowly responded (at Newtonian speeds) to the quantum tools.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.