What exactly is ID?

I have been about 20 days since I was here and I was catching up on some of these posts and I see you came along and I see they ganged up on you as I would expect. You have some pretty good posts and I would agree with at least 90% of what you wrote.As far as those materialists around here, I will not post back to them and I do expect some of them to post to me. So I am going to ignore them for now. I already defeated many of them and some of their arguments are severely flawed but they just don't know it yet or never will! I want to talk to ID proponents.Back to the issues... Just to help you out a little, the snowflake our good Dr. A posted to show is is an example of information expressing itself in a symmetrical form. Objects such as these that are formed by natural causes are manifested into a symmetrical state. Language such as the code along the spine of DNA is asymmetrical. This was one of the missing links I was looking for and I recently found it.I would also agree with someone who stated much of the CSI in proteins is not really CSI because much of it tolerates mutations without altering the functions of cellular machinery. In my opinion, this was the result of foresight of an intelligent designer. This is my ID hypothesis. But there are certain aspects of the genetic code that need to be expressed in a way which bring coherence such as protein binding sites and cellular machinery working hand to hand with cellular machinery.Cells need to have a metabolism and they need a very good and faithful replication system. These are just two things that are hurdles to an origin of life senario.Another question would be, would all of these random mutations that have no expression in the genome really be enough to account for gradual evolution of something such as land animals to whales. Richard Sternberg has stated a case showing that it just doesn't add up to the evidence.~~~~~~~~~~~~~Edit:I must say that my paragraph above about defeating many of you was arrogant but I do have a sense of humor and I kept laughing as I was writing it. Unfortunately, I am probably the only one who thought it was funny so forgive me for me bad taste. On the other hand, there needs to be an element of truth in good humor so don't blame me. ID is correct in its basic form and Creationism is not. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Oh,... I do have good news for you Creationists. ID proponents can and probably should investigate and seek clues as who the designer is. There is light shining at the end of the tunnel. I promise to open a new topic on it when I am finished investigating it.

I hope you realise the arrogance of declaring yourself a victor in debate. I personally haven't witnessed your "defeat" of anyone on these forums, much less the "many of them" you claim.I am guilty of making bold statements in posts and having to retract them later. Would you care to retract your self-aggrandising declaration of victory, or do you stand by it?

I disagree. Fundie creos conflate the two at every opportunity for social purposes. But that is not the same as them actually being the same. But you are conflating those who make the arguments with the arguments themselves. ID as a position is not inherently Christian. Even if fundie Christians are advocating ID as a means to an end.
Are there not Moslem IDists? IDists of other godly beliefs? Even IDists of no particular godly belief at all?The illusion of design in nature is something that has fooled a lot of people over a vast amount of time. They have not all been Fundie Christians. Nor do I think they all are now. There are some people who just think nature is all too "complex" and intended to be "random". I would suggest that this view is far more prevalent in the world than pure creationism.Creationist IDists just get most of the press. But advocating that there is evidence of Intelligent Design in nature is not the same as saying that Noahs flood and Adam and Eve are also physically evidenced.I think you are conflating stated beliefs and the wider motivation for (specifically fundie Christians) advocating ID with the actual arguments of ID which could be made seperately to creationism.Fundie Christians make that conflation. But is that any reason for us to do so at the argument/evidence level? Just because they are?EvC needs to have some non-Christian strong believers. It would make the place much more interesting.

Dembski has said he believes in creationsim. The quotes make this abundantly clear.But has he said that he considers the stories of Genesis (for example) to be physically evidenced?All I have seen him claim physical evidence for is ID. Intelligent Design of a generic and not necessarily Christian type. Regardless of what he goes on to believe on the basis of faith in the bible (or whatever).If he is claiming that biblical literalism is physically evidenced then I will shut up. But if he hasn't made that claim and has only claimed ID is evidenced I think that distinction is being overlooked by you guys.

You make some good points Straggler, most of which I would have to agree.However, I must point out the *origin of ID. Can one truly believe that the ID movement was brought about simply on the belief in..ID? Is it not obliteratingly obvious that it was *created to mask creationism? Why is "Of Pandas and People", as pointed out in Dover, not sufficient evidence of this point?It may very well end up being wholly seperate from creationism, even to the point where there is a hard line between the two. I really don't think we are there yet, though.*pun intended

---

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

sourceIt's the god of the bible he is referring to as his designer.

---

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

The "ID movement"? As in the set of Christian fundamentalists who set out with the "wedge" strategy? Well of course, by very definition, they are Christian fundamentalists.But are we talking about the origin of the "ID movement" or of ID? If the latter I would say this has existed in one form or another ever since humans began considering such things way back in the dawn of humanity.I think it comes as naturally as breathing (I exaggerate somewhat) to us humans to look at something that appears to be non-random and come to the conclusion that it must obviously be the work of some invisible, magic skybeing of some sort. I would never argue that the "ID movement" is anything other than you suggest. But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"? I think the world is full of people who could be described as IDists of one form or another but who are not Christians. I think ID (as flawed as it is) can claim it's own evidentail philosophy entirely without any reference to the bible.But if we are talking about the "ID Movement" and the "Creationsit movement" then yes - They are absoluetly the same thing.I never thought I would ever be defending ID in any way shape or form............

I still don't see him saying that creationism is physically evidenced?There are numerous theistic evolutionsits who might describe God as "the prime instance of intelligent agency" but who are not creationists. No?The "I see science as the way of understanding how God did it" mob. Isn't that the position this quote suggests?

Fundie Creationists believe that a Jewish Wizard magicked everything into existence.Christian IDers believe that a Jewish Wizard magicked everything into existence.Muslim IDers (if there are any, can you name one?) believe that a Jewish Wizard magicked everything into existence.Non-Deistic IDers believe that a space alien magicked everything into existence, and that that space alien in turn was magicked into existence my a Jewish Wizard.If A = B = C = D, then they are all the same thing. But, we aren't talking about the illusion of design. We are talking about a highly motivated, profit producing, political movement which was Christened (pun heavily intended) by PR guys and who literally laid out their goals on paper to remove evolution from schools so as to re-introduce religion (ie Christianity) in its place. But it IS the same thing as saying that the Jewish wizard magicked everything into existence with magic jew beams.They don't have to be LITERALISTS to be Creationists, though clearly Dembski is a literalist, if an OEC. Honestly, they can't. SO has been trying to do so on this thread and has failed miserably.If you want evidence of this, note that I've asked him at least 10x to produce the MECHANISM of design (which is magical Jew Beams btw) and he repeatedly ducks and dodges the point.You can't advocate design without being able to speculate about the cause of design. Any speculation about the cause of design is inevitably going to lead back to the Wizard.Find me an IDer who has a different argument, and I'll be glad to debate them. So far, 100% of IDers on this forum and ALL other forums I've ever seen, have all poised the EXACT same argument: "It's magic!"."Magic!" _is_ Creationism.It is THEORETICALLY possible that there could be a Hindu Intelligent Design advocate who claims that it's Shiva Beams instead of Jew Beams. That would still be Creationism, it just wouldn't be Christian Creationism.However, I haven't found anyone holding that position, so for the two of us to speculate that they COULD exist is pretty worthless when we're dealing with a horde of Christian Creationists who actually DO exist.

Me either. I'm not exactly sure I understand what your perspective is.Is not "the ID movement" and "Intelligent Design" the exact same thing? When I say "the ID movement" I only mean to reference the group that is pushing intelligent design, which includes the wedge document. I do not see a disconnect.Intelligent design in any other context, likely any other non-English country, IS creationism (that is, if you are referring to the "act" of intelligent design). We, I think, only see a difference because there are proponents of both in our respective countries (U.S. and England).The line has been muddied by the ID proponents themselves, just by spouting off christian values almost in the same sentence as there ID shit.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

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

I see the problem.You are mistaking observation of things which are designed with ID's political tool to confuse the public which unfortunately goes by the same name.ID ONLY refers to those event taking place since the publication of the wedge strategy.ID does not include people looking at the late Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire and saying "Hey, that kinda looks like a face".ID does not include early religions which noted that the Sun and Moon seemed to cross the sky and developed myths to explain that.ID is a political movement, primarily located in and focused on the United States with clearly stated goals. One of those goals is to confuse the weak minded into thinking that ID has any merit whatsoever. Clearly, they have accomplished that goal as is evident in the number of posters who roll through here quoting Dembski and Behe.

I've yet to see any IDist that is STRICTLY scientific. It is bloody well obvious that behind ID is christianity. There are no 2 ways about it. Every ID website I have tortured myself into researching is draped in biblical quotes.{ABE} i did mention "oxymoron", only because I was typing out loud, so to speak. I only meant it to mean that what I took you to imply was that in some way, a theistic evolutionist could also be an ID proponent. That's the oxymoron.....sorta.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : typing too fast, I have work to do and I don't want to do it.

---

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

In the US, and currently -- yes.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Try COSMIC ANCESTRY: Panspermia's evidence and implications. , It may not technically be ID but many of the arguments are virtually identical.TTFN,WK