What exactly is ID?

Quicker maybe, in the short-term; but not nearly as efficient. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that 100% efficiency isn't achievable, because energy gets lost due to the way it spreads out, and getting it back itself is a use of energy, which costs more than it pays.A good example is Maxwell's Demon, a pin-dancing "thought experiment" from the good old days when people knew what thermo- meant. A stove loses heat, can't be helped, so you have to fuel it. If it didn't lose heat, reduce in caloric content over time as it were, then it ought to stay hot forever and you wouldn't need to fuel it. What use it would be, I don't know, we use them to heat things, but let that pass for a moment. Can it really not be helped?Let's postulate a demon, there in the stove, who chases the little hot air molecules for us, and grabs them, and drags them back into the stove, so the heat doesn't get lost. In a case like this, do we have 100% efficiency? No, because the demon is doing work, work requires energy, and energy is what he is supposedly saving for us, we have to fuel him somehow. So now instead of wood we have to burn sinners or something. Still fuel, energy still lost.Only applies to information, particularly genetic information, in the sense that "a lot of work is done." Even here, all it means is that there has to be a fuel source. There is, the sun, both directly and through secondary manifestations like hot lava, radioactivity, chemical reactions, and the endless spinning of Rudolf Clausius in his grave. Nothing to do with emergent systems like evolution and intelligence being unable to develop on their own, they result from the inevitable increase in complexity among large stochastic systems, and represent increasing entropy overall, not decreasing, not ever.

I don't understand the IPU's motivation to waste our tax dollars getting herself into science class then? I think she would much more interested in invading sunday schools and bible studies.. . .Let's face it, ID is a failed concept. Dover finished him. He needs a new name.As Smooth has demonstrated repeatedly, Dembski's methodology only applies to lifeforms. It won't help us distinguish lighthouses from pulsars, or broken rocks from tools. Nor can anything specific be said about the identity of the designer; it could be an alien, it could be a Jew / wizard, it could be an endless chain of turtles. It's not supposed to matter!So fine, let's call a spade a spade. Generic organic designer!

I've decided to agree with you. In the course of researching something for a different discussion, I staggered into this article which discusses the fundamental differences between ID and genuine creationism.Page not found – New Dawn: The World's Most Unusual Magazine There's lots more goodies than that there. Essentially, if we take the design hypothesis at face value, instead of letting evangelical fraudsters shape the argument, it shows clear evidence not for the Biblical creator but rather for a chain of Gnostic demiurges.

To clarify: if we allow that design implies a designer, then the design we see points not to one perfect designer, but rather to numerous incompetent ones in direct competition with one another.Which part of that doesn't sound serious?

Your singlemindedness is interfering with your clear thinking. Because I point at comparisons to a Gnostic model, you reject my logic, while at the same time opening the door to an aliens model, the only real difference between the two being that one is already at the root of what is wrong with the creationist appeal to design while the other is a more modern nonsense fantasy. Von Daniken's gods are no better than Marcion's or Matthew's.The fact that none of this stuff can stand up to evolution is a fine viewpoint. But from a "design" standing, fundie creationism can't even stand up to its own ancient enemies. This is important. The Intelligent Designer is even more clearly a false idol than the historical Jesus or the omni-Trinity or the pantheon of Catholic saints. Even if you grant its pseudo-scientific premises, it still doesn't say what they want it to say without their direct immediate supervision to keep it out of trouble!

My pleasure. Before they ever come to blows with real science, even on their own terms, they are an epic failure. Did you read the stuff about Dembski's creationism? He is having to dance like a chorus girl to keep his own congregation of Baptists from coming after him. He "talks too much like one of them science fellas", as it were. Beating at him with science is only valuable in that it allows someone objective who is following the argument to learn some actual science. But it won't stop them, their audience already hates science.We don't need to do much to stop them, they are ready to betray and devour one another at the drop of a hat. Occasionally, apparently for entertainment purposes, we let them get far enough to be able to force them into court under oath, where they promptly reveal themselves to be liars and fools. In the meantime, teach the brighter people following along as much science as you want. I think pointing out that their idol doesn't even do the tricks he is supposed to, is at least equally useful, in that it will alert the inquisition in their own faith that what they are doing is "funny stuff".Again, Intelligent Design is drawing attention to the idea of a God who is not perfect, not benevolent, and not even necessarily singular. It's giving us dozens of times as many chances to ask Well then, who designed the Designer? It's putting Jesus in the same category as crap like Chariots of the Gods.They are heaping hot coals on their own heads. Don't object if some of us want to fan the flames while you handle the process of adding fuel

And this is a much better analogy for the actual informational content of the genetic "code" than his sentence en espanol. The vast majority of our DNA has no meaning at all. Drawing attention to the small part that does code for things is, as no one has mentioned for more than a hundred posts, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.Here's another analogy along the same lines. Take a box of Scrabble and dump it out haphazardly on the floor. Count up all the words that appear in every language you know. Give each word a probability score based on 26 to the power of the word length. Add all the scores together to produce a total massive improbability. Act amazed, assume there must be a dump designer. Pay no attention to the low percentage of words vs nonwords.

This debate is pretty noisy, isn't it? There seem to be a lot of different agendas working back and forth. In a case like this, where there may be too much information and not enough organization, a good strategy to reduce the noise level and find out what's really going on behind the riot is orthogonal filtering on perceived bias.Let's use the OJ Simpson trial for an example. It's a pretty confusing issue still to this day. Hard to see who is saying what, and for what reason. So let's go ahead and look at the perceived bias. The side that say he is innocent claim that white people are prejudiced against him. Never mind whether you agree with this or not. Let's go ahead and filter orthogonally. First, let's look at the "Guilty" side, and remove all white people. This may seem unfair, but it doesn't matter. Any good arguments being made by whites on this side are going to be repeated by non-whites on the same side.Now, for the rough part. Let's look at the side who say he is "Innocent". And let's remove all non-whites.. Wow, that really clarifies the argument, doesn't it? There are still people talking on both sides. But there are a lot of agreements now. Pretty much everyone concurs that he knew much more than he ever told about what happened. A big part of the question of guilt is now whether he knew before or after the fact. Those who think he didn't do it, tend to think he is protecting whoever did, likely his son. The nonsense about a police frame-up has vanished altogether, both sides tend to agree the police actually screwed up the prosecution, whether intentionally or through incompetence.Wasn't that amazing? Admittedly, this isn't the sort of thing that will stand up in court. It's a method of getting a better approach to truth, not proof. But it's still well worth doing, if you want to know what's really going on. Notice that it's a little counter-intuitive, in that you go ahead and take the minority view of perceived bias. But it works, it works great!So, let's do this with the Intelligent Design controversy. The proponentsists say that there is an atheist bias towards teaching naturalistic methodologies. Let's take them at their word. Let's look at the "e" side and temporarily filter out every single atheist. Wow! Things got a little quieter, a little more reasoned. There seems to be a bit less ideology, it's easier to hear the ongoing debates about actual science, real hypotheses based on real data, testable predictions, experiments that have been or could be done, new data in the form of replicable results. Dawkins is gone, but Darwin is still there.Now for the really fun part. Let's look at the "c" side and remove all non-atheists. Yep, you. No, Chandra, blue gods do count. See you after the break. Don't forget your purse, sir.(Crickets chirp. A pin drops. The voice of the turtle is heard in the land.)Noise reduction complete.Edited by Iblis, : and let Reason prevail

Why not?Seriously, the deep meaning you are looking for isn't the business of the class you are trying to insert it into. Science can tell us what, how, even when and where. But it isn't its job to tell us why, not in the sense that you mean. The best "why" science can come up with is, which particular aspect of mutation or natural selection caused this change or that extinction.Complaining about this is like complaining that theology doesn't tell us how to get to the moon, or that social studies doesn't give us a good understanding of square roots. Part of the problem is that the theology you have been exposed to is a very bad, ignorant, illiterate kind. Study some real theology, step away from the people who claim that any God who doesn't fit their limited interpretation doesn't count. They are idol-worshippers, that's all. God is smarter than them, he won't fit inside anybody's head the way they pretend he does. They are really just worshipping their head. Anathema maranatha.

Didn't work. Page is still broken in Mozilla. The deep nest is just a distraction from what is doing it, basically tables stop functioning thereafter. Cavediver's post has his avatar in the middle and checkboxes centered and so on.

Yes, all good.. . .Sorry for the delay and Sorry For The OT Everyone, Carry On.