What exactly is ID?

If you are not a Christian, why do you follow the Judeo-Christian wolf (Creationism) in sheep's clothing (ID)?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

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.

well then, here's a document written by actual ID people, clearly linking it to christianity and creationism.Will you accept that?

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

I'm not asking you for direct quotes. A paraphrase will do. Actually, no. Copyright law still applies unless it's explicitly waived. But that doesn't mean you can't paraphrase or use "fair use" quotations. As a matter of fact, I prefer to look at what ID proponents themselves say.Foe example, Phillip Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement, said on American Family Radio: William Dembski, perhaps the most prominent proponent of intelligent design, wrote a book entitled Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology.The term "intelligent design" was introduced in its modern sense by Charles Thaxton, the editor of Of Pandas and People, who then went through the draft of his book replacing the words "creation" and "creationism" with the words "intelligent design", and "creator" with "designer".When the Discovery Institute, the main clearing-house for ID, wanted to test whether ID could be taught in schools, their test case was the book Of Pandas And People.Now, if you're going to say that Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, the Discovery Institute collectively, and Charles Thaxton who coined the term "Intelligent Design", are wrong about what ID is ... isn't that rather like saying that J R R Tolkien was wrong about what a hobbit is? It's their phrase. They thought of it first, they have dibs on deciding what it means. You don't get to come along over twenty years later and declare that it really means something else.Let me remind you again. Here's Thaxton's definition of creation: And here's Thaxton' definition of Intelligent Design: If you want to talk about something different from what Thaxton is talking about, then I suggest that you call it by a different name.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Enzymatic activity is a subset of protein activity. Enzymatic activity depends on teh structure of the proteins. Therefore, if we know what amount of change will affect the catalysis, the same amount will affect whatever the flagellum is doing.

---

Of course we can't know anything of the sort. Different properties may be tolerant of differing amounts of change.

quote:

---

Explain why

---

YOU SAID SO! It is really very simple. If Dembski's measue of information is wrong - and you said that it was - the whole thing falls apart.

quote:

---

Yes, and that means that you have to measure the informational content that is expressed in the structure you are looking at. Int his case the flagellum

---

Well obviously to do the calculation you must do the calculation. What we mustn't do is to do a different calculation that will very likely produce an inflated result.

quote:

---

No, because we have a description called "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller", that is independent of the flagellum.

---

But you aren't using that specification in your calculations. What you are using is based directly on the actual structure of the E Coli flagellum. So it is a fabrication.

quote:

---

And how exactly are those otehr flagella different than this one? They aren't. That is why we are talking about the same thing.

---

You're just assuming they aren't different. Why don't you give me a source that actually supports your claim ?

quote:

---

You said it's a specification. That means that it has an independently given pattern. So go on, describe it,a nd tell me it's pattern.

---

I didn't say anything about snowflakes. You introduced them to the discussion for no apparent reason demanding that I give a specifciation. Therefore - since the reason is a complete falsehood - I decline.

quote:

---

No, because there are no regularities in flagellum's formation.

---

So we are back to assuming that flagella CAN'T grow. Sorry, but you are wrong. There must be regularities underlying the process of growth. Otherwise it would require an intelligent designer individually assembling each one as Dembski proved.

quote:

---

Really? Show me that evidence.

---

This is not the place for a detailed discussion of geology. Let's just say that by a numhber of methods (mainly radiometric dating, but others too) geologists have worked out dates for the depoition of many strata.

quote:

---

Than why the hell did you bring it up int he first place!? Yes, I know it doesn't help you. That's what I've been telling you all along.

---

Because you forgot to mention that you were only considering a subset of deleterious mutations. When we consider the whole set of deleterious mutations it DOES help, because many disadvantages may be offset by other advantages (this is even true in the case of single mutations, such as sickle-cell).

quote:

---

If I'm only counting a subset of all deleterious mutations, I would have to increase the number if I wee to take into account all of them.

---

No. Your estimate is for ALL deleterious mutations, but you ignore a lot of them so you have to reduce the number (which was too high in the first place).

quote:

---

The rate isn't important. I could ahve picked any number. Nothing would ahve changed.

---

That is also wrong. Because the slower the rate that dleterious mutations enter the gene pool, the lower the rate of removal that natural selection has to achieve to counter it.

quote:

---

1+1=2. 1+2=3. Does by your logic 1+3=2, or 1+4=1?

​

No obviously not. The more mutations, the faster the genetic meltdown occures. The larger the population, the slower the genetic meltdown occures. But it's still inevitable. It doesn't matter what numbers you include, the end is the same. Only differnece is how long will it take. A deterministic process has always got the same end result.

---

In other words, your evidence that deleterious mutations must inevitably accumulate to the point of genetic meltdown is your assumption that such must be the case.

quote:

---

It's possible that that happens sometimes. But that's not the rule. The rule is that mutations accumulate.

---

So you keep saying, but simply repeating the claim does not make it true. In fact in a large population rare events will occur, and natural selection can work with those rare events to spread the benefits through the population.

quote:

---

No, in all circumstances and in all populations

---

NONE of the papers makes that claim.

quote:

---

This here model shows that even large populations accumulate slightly deleterious mutations. Which are the worst because they do not get removed by natural selection.

---

By definition even a slightly deleterious mutation is "visible" to natural selection, and may be removed by it. And, of course, the less deleterious the mutation, the lower it's contribution to genetic meltdown.As for the quote, it simply states that a fragmented population is more like several small populations than one large one. Hardly a surprise - or something that helps your argument.

quote:

---

No. I'm not talking about statistics. I'm talking about evidence from nature.

---

Well, if you assume that the whole field of statistics is fundamentally wrong, how about the fact that genetic meltdown of a large population has NEVER been observed ?

quote:

---

No. It is true that because of sexual recombinations teh offspring will on average inherit only half of their parents mutations. That is true. But they do, and they have to add their own. That is just how it goes. All people have their own mutations.

---

It seems then that the rate DOES matter. Unless the average is well over 1 it is entirely possible that theThe vast majority of which will be neutral. Then there are the benefical mutations. Then there are the deleterious mutations which only carry a normal disadvantage. When we have eliminated all the mutations which your model ignores, how many are left ?

quote:

---

As you can see here, about 175 (nearly) neutral mutations are introduced in every single person born. And as I said before. These are the worst possible mutations becasue they have such a small effect on fitness that they do nto get selected out. Yet they still destroy genetic information, and sccumulate in the genome.

---

If they are neutral then they aren't deleterious. By definition.

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.

Because Newton made observations of the physical world and drew conclusions based on those observations.His observations were incomplete and as a result his conclusions were incomplete.However, the observations and conclusions he made were not in and of themselves invalid.So:
Observation -> ConclusionMeanwhile, the ID movement works in a RADICALLY different way:
Conclusion -> ObservationThey have their conclusion: "An invisible Jew Wizard poofs things into existence".Then they go looking for things to observe which they feel support their claim. They ignore things which dispute their claim.Further they repeat mistakes which they KNOW have been disproven.ID can't "change" sufficiently because it, at it's core, is a political movement, NOT a scientific one.

TRader, did you bother to read the "wedge document" which was linked for you?Can you name ONE scientific theory which had a political strategy document laying out a 20 year plan for its acceptance? In ANY field? In the ENTIRE history of science?No. You can't. Because it has NEVER happened in the ENTIRE history of science.That's because there is NO REASON to have a strategy if your claim is RIGHT.

Some of you have turned me off. So I am not enthusiastic in opening new cans of worms on this forum.To a certain extent, I agree with what is on that wedge document. I agree with their antimaterialistic views. Meterialism cannot explain the universe. In fact, it may surprise some of you that I think Creationism is based on materialism. As you can see, this is a new can of worms.Now, if you post to me again, I am not going to respond until much later if at all so leave me alone.

My 5 year old son acts in much the same way when I take a toy away from him.FYI: The wedge document is a pretty big player in the ID movement.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

So, YES you have read the Wedge Document and NO you can't name a single scientific theory which has needed a 20 year strategy plan.What does that tell you about ID and the people pushing it?

Just because Newton was a scientist doesn't mean that everything he wrote was science any more than everything Richard Dawkins says is science. Remember that Newton also wasted much of his life on alchemy and on trying to interpret the prophetic books of the Bible. He also denied the divinity of Jesus.In this case, Newton is just committing the God of the Gaps fallacy: "I can't explain this, therefore no-one can explain this, therefore there is no explanation --- therefore I can explain it, God must have done it by magic." This has never been considered science --- it has always, and will always, be the opposite of science, because it elevates personal ignorance as a source of ultimate knowledge.Now, the fact is that the regularities in the solar system that so puzzled him that he had to give their explanation over to God were in fact given a naturalistic explanation by other scientists using Newton's own theory. So his own bafflement was a blunder or at least an oversight.In fact, in a curious twist, the explanation for these regularities is now so well established that one can find modern creationists claiming that the exceptions to these regularities must have required divine intervention and so constitute proof of a creator. (They're wrong about that, too, but that's another story.)P.S: Have a happy Christmas. Which is also, now I think of it Newton's birthday, so have a happy Newton's birthday too.

quote:

---

No, you've denied understand how to count. You've claimed to not understand chronological time.

---

Now you're just being what you know how to be the best. An amoral atheistic liar. I never said that. I said that in order to explain to you how your ideas about fossils being evidence of evolution, we will have to go in detail about how this notion works.And when do you intend to leave the topic already? You said you do not want to play anymore?

quote:

---

That's not counter an argument, that's just being a douche bag.

---

This is just being an atheist.

quote:

---

You can't claim design if you can't explain how design can happen.

---

Yes I can. Because to detect design we do not have to know the mechanism. Even if we proposed the mechanism for the Rosetta Stone, we could be wrong about it. Yet we would infer design even without knowing the mechanism.

quote:

---

I'm going to write this slow. See if you can get a friend to help you understand.

---

Don't bother. I suggest to you that you should leave the topic.

quote:

---

Evolution ASSUMES that life exists because it is a fact that it does. Evolution does not need to explain where life came from because it does not attempt to prove the existence of life.

---

ID doesn't try to prove the mechanism of how design gets implemented because ID assumes there was a mechanism. Why? Because it's a logical neccessity. If we detect design, it means also that there was a designer and a mechanism that he used to implement the design.

quote:

---

ID ASSUMES that there is a mechanism through which design is done in order to prove that there is design. That's ASSUMING that there is design in order to prove design.

---

No. ID assumes there was a mechanism because we know from experience that designers implement design through a mechanism. ID does not assume mechanism to prove design. ID detects marks of design that reliably signal design to detect design.

quote:

---

That's a monumental fail.

---

If ID actually did that, yes it would be a gigantic fail.

quote:

---

By those standards, ALL suggestions are equally valid.

​

For example:
Intelligent Falling doesn't need to explain the force of attraction between two objects. The fact that there is a force is evidence enough that the Designer is pushing things together.

​

Only in THAT case we can ACTUALLY demonstrate that there is a force.

​

In YOUR case you can't even demonstrate design.

​

Pathetic!

---

Yup, pathetic. Building a strawman and putting so much work into it just to later find out that your whole argument was based on the wrong assumptions and misrepresentation.

quote:

---

So to the list of counting, chronological time, sexual reproduction and basic biology we can now add history and anthropology.

​

Sorry, Beavis but animism =/= evolution in any way shape or form.

​

Seriously, did you attend even a day of school in your entire life?

---

Chance worshipper, educate yourself.Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

quote:

---

So in other words, you can't tell us any of the science behind CSI. No surprise, because there's no science in Dembski's books.

---

There is a difference between me not wanting to show you something, and you not wanting to accept what I'm showing you.

quote:

---

As described in the Forum Guidelines, references should be provided in support of, not in place of, one's own arguments. If all you're going to provide is book titles and links then please stop doing this. If you've already provided the information elsewhere in this thread, then please provide a link. If you need help linking to messages, just ask.

---

Why should I stop? I rpovided my arguments plenty of times, and only thing I got back in return is that they are wrong, non-scientific, and other crap atheist like to throw out at others when they have nothing to say. Why should I bother to explain anything to you when I already did thousands of times before, yet I got no real response back?

quote:

---

This is just nonsense. If we consider the observable universe a closed system, then of course information is conserved. No additional information can be produced, and no information can be destroyed (the debate about black holes notwithstanding). This is a known law of physics, because of the equivalence that has been demonstrated between the laws of thermodynamics and information theory.

---

Wrong. Of course information can increase. Any written book is an increase in information. Unless you claim that information was contained in the paper and ink all the time.

quote:

---

But you can increase information in one part of the universe by decreasing it in another. The information in our part of the universe could have increased an enormous amount simply by taking it from another part of the universe. And in fact, the earth gains an incredible amount of information from the sun everyday. We also radiate a lot of information back into space.

---

And yes, if you define your information as Shannon Information, than yes, that's true. But if you define it as CSI, than no. And if you're going to tell me that CSI is false, than you will have to tell me exactly why.

quote:

---

Given the amount of information the Earth is gaining and losing everyday, as it has been doing for billions of years, it isn't possible to place limits on the amount of information that might have been gained, and certainly not a 400 bit limit.

---

True for Shannon information, wrong for CSI.

quote:

---

So no limitation exists on the amount by which information can increase locally, and more importantly, no connection has been made limiting the creation of information to intelligence. Information theory tells us that all matter in the universe is exchanging information with all other matter in the universe all the time.

---

Again, true for Shannon information, not true for CSI. When teh Sun sends out signals, it only sends out statistical information. It does not send out that information in any known syntax, no semantics, no apobetics or pragmatics. There is no code that information is coded in. CSI is always coded information and can be interpreted by an independent coding system.

quote:

---

Even worse for you and Dembski, no quantifiable definition of intelligence suitable for use in physics equations even exists, another reason why it's undeniable that Dembski is making things up. Of course, nothing else is possible since there's no body of scientific literature that was produced as a result of the research establishing CSI as a valid scientific concept, since no such research has ever been done.

---

What a retarded argument. Information defined as Kolmogorov Complexity is not computeable, so what? It's still a valid definition of science. It's just not computeable.

quote:

---

Then show your evidence. Show us one single application of CSI using Dembski's mathematics, just one little example, and we'll tell you what's wrong. Just take one little stretch of DNA and calculate the CSI, then do the same for a rock, and compare the two. But you can't do that, can you? Because if it could be done Dembski would have done it a long time ago, and you wouldn't have marched off unarmed into battle.

---

What drugs are you using? How many times do I have to say that rocks have zero CSI? Read NFL, you have a calcualtion for a flagellum there.

I'm not an atheist. Most people who don't agree with you are not atheists. Information theory is no more atheistic than any other branch of mathematics.As I said, if you've already provided the information elsewhere in this thread, then please provide a link. If you need help linking to messages, just ask. In a closed system information cannot increase or decrease. For example, if you're in a room and the window blinds are closed you could not write a description of what is going on outside. In that respect the room is a closed system. Only when you open the blinds and allow information into the room can you write down what is happening outside. Now the room is no longer a closed system because information is entering it from outside.That information in a closed system cannot increase or decrease is a known law of physics directly related to the laws of thermodynamics.That is why this description from your Message 105 is nonsense: Again, if we consider the observable universe a closed system, then because information cannot increase or decrease in a closed system the amount of information in it could not have increased by 400 bits, not by random chance or intelligence or any other means. If you can provide the mathematical equation for calculating CSI in the same way as I have done for Shannon information then I would have something concrete to go on. If it is contained somewhere in your 41-page link (http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf) then please copy-n-paste the relevant equation or equations into your message. Aren't you confusing Gitt information with CSI? The words "syntax," "semantics," "apobetics" and "pragmatics" appear nowhere in your Dembski link. But I wasn't speaking of Kolmogorov Complexity. I was speaking of CSI, an invention of Dembski. Dembski invokes Kolmogorov Complexity as a means of detecting randomness, but the sequence of nucleotides in DNA is not random. The sequence is a result of a lengthy process of consecutive selection over many generations across changing environments.Demski's CSI assumes that DNA nucleotide sequences are random when they are not. For this reason alone, CSI is bunk.--Percy