What exactly is ID?

My quotes demonstrated that Dembski stated for the record that the "designer" is the Christian God. AND that he believes that Adam and Eve were literally real people.If that's not Creationism, then there are NO Creationists at all and we should remove the "c" from "evcforum"

Got it. SO gets to do whatever he wants, I've got to watch my mouth.Fine.

Thanks,
I particularly like his last bit in the 1st quote: So, _not_ a creationist, just a believer that God _CREATED_ everything.

Really, there is no difference between the two.All IDrs eventually, when cornered, admit that the designer is the Christian God. The term "ID" is nothing more than political cover - as it was "designed" to be in the first place.Renaming "racism" to "ethnic origins preferences" doesn't make a KKK member any less racist.

Typical run down of this thought process:Creationist: "I believe there was a designer"
Scientist: "Who was that designer"
Creationist: "The Christian God"IDr: "I believe there was a designer"
Scientist: "Who was the designer"
IDr: "It could be the Christian God or Space aliens."
Scientist: "So, space aliens can evolve without special help from a designer but humans can't?"
IDr: "Well, err, no, they were designed too."
Scientist: "Okay, who designed the space aliens?"
IDr: "The Christian God"

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.

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.

ID is a Christian political movement created because the term "creationism" wasn't winning court cases.The Discovery Institute and the "cDesign Proponentsists" that work with it, including Dembski, are actively pushing a Creationist agenda.They've even published the Wedge Document which OUTLINES their strategy.They are all Creationists. Find me some prominent ID proponents who are not Christian. People who are published and recognized in the field. Not "My cousin Larry". Real people. And round and round we go.No. It's not. You know it's not. I've explained to you why it is not. You've commented on my explanations.You CAN NOT check something against itself for verification.I can't give you a newly manufactured ruler with a "1 foot" marking on it and have you VERIFY that it is 1 foot long by simply reading that it says "1 foot".That's NOT verification.Likewise, your "magic Creationism Equation" can not be used to VERIFY ITSELF as proof that the Jew Wizards Jew Beams are zipping around poofing everything into existence.And you KNOW that I'm right.That's why you are so busy ducking and dodging. If you thought that your explanation worked for other examples, you'd be trotting them out left and right.But you aren't.Instead you are hiding.So here's the situation. You are wrong. You know you are wrong. I know you are wrong. Everyone reading the post knows you are wrong.So, just admit you can't come up with any more examples cuz you're making it all up

You are arguing that _theoretically_ there could be an IDer who is not a Creationist.Yes, _theoretically_ there could be.But do we have real life examples?Islamic IDers are still believers in the Jewish Wizard, just like the Christians.I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a Hindi IDer, but I certainly have never heard of one.And, as we've seen repeatedly, no one in the ID movement can have any of their statements taken at face value. Certainly Creationists have demonstrated a strong desire to avoid the truth.So where does that leave us? Can we take any IDers claims to NOT be a Creationist on face value? I seriously doubt it.SO has demonstrated repeatedly that he's not a big fan of honesty. So, in my book, his protestations against being labeled a Creationist are EVIDENCE THAT he's a Creationist.

I do. The idea that maybe somewhere there might be someone who is arguing ID without invoking Creationism is a nice game of speculation, but what we see day in and day out are people who are true blue Creationists shrouding their goals behind the label "ID".These are people like SO who, though they know they are arguing that Jesus did it with "Magic!" refuse to own up to "Magic!" being the mechanism because they know that once that is revealed it's just a hop, skip and a jump from uncovering their true anti-education agenda. Not "now". That's exactly what I've been saying all along. There are no Islamic ID proponents who are not simply Creationists. Lest you forget Islam and Christianity are both bastard children of Judaism. All three hold Genesis as the basic outline of Creation. Because they are not IDers. They aren't on here arguing FOR ID. They are people who, if you cornered them and asked: "Do you believe that things look designed", they say, "Um, sure."Just like "Do you believe there is life after death?" "Um, sure."However, dig a little deeper. Start asking them WHO designed it, HOW the designed it, WHAT EVIDENCE they have that it was designed and you'll find that this group of friends of yours quickly breaks into two groups.1) "I dunno, I haven't really thought about it. I guess it's not really designed."
2) "It was Jesus." Christian creationist? No. Creationist? Yes.Islamic Creationists are not Christian. They are Islamic. You can tell because they are called "Islamic".No one has honestly put forth a single argument for ID which has not boiled down to a Jewish Wizard did it with magic.You've SUGGESTED that someone theoretically COULD. You even outlined it. But you _don't_ believe it.Find me someone who HONESTLY believes that the designer is a pink unicorn and you win.In the meantime, we've got to look at the numbers. 100% "It's a Jewish Wizard". Not much more we can say about that.

Are you claiming that the simplest lifeform is more complex than the most complex crystaline structure?On what basis are you judging this?

I took your friends quote and I put it through the internet anagram finder.It came back with 31,252 combos in English. It doesn't do other languages.Yes, the letters your friend used in ONE specific order carried a specific meaning. However, those SAME letters in a different order carry 31,000+ different meanings. Some make more sense than others, but they all express SOME information.You are assuming that because letters form a sequence which YOU are witnessing, it is the only or best sequence possible under all conditions at all times and therefore it must have been made by a magical wizard.Clearly you must realize that there are MANY different kinds of combinations which do MANY different things. There is nothing particularly special about any given one. No wizard needed.

I'm sorry if you feel that your religion is on par with children's fantasies.Just because the Harry Potter books use the word Wizard, that doesn't mean that all wizards are for children.Just like the existence of Casper the Friendly Ghost doesn't mean that your "Holy Ghost" need also be "friendly" or for children.I use the term wizard to mean: "Any individual who is allegedly using *magic!* to accomplish their goal."Even the most rigid fundamentalist must admit that their religion is all about *magic!* and therefore is about a wizard.

Unfortunately for you, SO, it's absolutely true. Look it up. Or better yet, page back a few pages and read the dozens of posts where people lay this out for you in painstaking detail. You are confusing the "modern ID movement" and the term "ID" as though they were the same thing. They are not. Just like modern medicine is not the same thing as original medicine.There was NO ID movement 100 years ago. It wasn't until Creationism was handed a number of resounding defeats that they simple copies and pasted the word "Creationists" with "Design Proponents" and pretended it was a different term. "CDesign Proponentsists" -- Look it up. Because you saying "I know a guy who's Hindu and an ID supporter, but you don't know him - he lives in Canada" isn't evidence.You are claiming that ID is NOT a wing of Christian Creationism, therefore there should be PLENTY of NON-Christian ID supporters. Learn to read a little before you post. The wiki page that labels him as this references an article. Here's the ACTUAL quote from the article. THAT'S your great "non-Christian" ID supporter? LOL. A guy who admits to supporting Christian ideas and labels himself a secularist to provoke a response.Talk about fail x fail.You got HOSED on this one. So, according to you, ANYTHING which say "1 ft" on it is "1ft" in length whether it is TWICE the size of the next object, or HALF the size of the next object.Because, so long as the object which says "1ft" is the same length as itself, it is valid.THAT'S your basis for reasoning.And you want ME to drop it because you can't be bothered to offer a RATIONAL reason why this is a valid method of evaluation tools.Brilliant.Face it, Smooth, I've owned you up and down these boards for about a month now. Let's check the record:1) Can you name the mechanism of your Creationist/ID claims? NO
2) Can you name ANY other examples of ANYTHING designed where we have no mechanism? NO.
3) Can you name ANYTHING in which your design detection technique can detect design where we don't know how it was designed? NO.
4) Can you name someone who supports your claims who is NOT a Creationist? NO.So, what do you have? You have a "system" created by Dembski, a self proclaimed supporter of Christian Fundamentalism, and a defacto Old Earth Creationist which, as has been pointed out by other posters, doesn't even work INTERNALLY, and as I've pointed out doesn't work EXTERNALLY EITHER.And that is your ONLY source of evidence whatsoever.This isn't just weak sauce, this is nothing but evaporated water.

But what is the DATA SET.You are saying that the BRMDP is unlikely to the order of 10^20.Let's pretend for a second that you are correct.If we said, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, what will it take to make a BRMDP. The answer would be 10^20.However, that's NOT what's happened.What's happened is we have an ENORMOUS DATA SET called: "Everything which has ever been produced by biological life billions of years it has existed on Earth".So from the data set of "EVERYTHING EVER" you are taking ONE item and saying "Wow, it's improbably that this one item existed".It's improbably to 10^20.Okay. How many items are there in the "Everything Ever" data set? 10^50? 10^500?If it's equal to or greater than 10^20, then the result is INEVITABLE and therefore nothing to even bother taking note of.