What exactly is ID?

So the 1st number is not a telephone number.
The 2nd number is not the accurate population of microbes in the puddle on the street, while the 1st one happens to be.You are applying a SPECIFIC filter and then proclaiming because ONE filter works ONE way, ALL filters must work the same way - that's a load of crap.Just because you ONLY understand the numbers in ONE particular way does not mean that that is the ONLY or even BEST way to examine them.

GATTAC -> GATGGTACWhere were the 2 "G"s before I just typed them in. And don't say "on your keyboard".Inserts into the DNA are NOT bits that were floating around. They are errors of assembly. Claiming they were there before is like claiming a spelling mistake existed on the page before it "made it's way into the sentence."That's just silly "magic!" thinking.

It is my position that you can not argue that there is evidence of design unless you can tell the mechanism of design.For example:
If I present you the mathematical equation describing a series of interlocking rings - that's information.However, you can't tell me if that information is describing the rings in a pond after two droplets hit or that information is describing a pattern of circles I've drawn on a piece of paper.The droplets in the pond are not in any way "designed". They just happened. The circles on the pieces of paper are entirely "designed", they were put there by me with tools for a specific purpose.So we have the EXACT same information and the only thing different between the two scenarios is how that information came to be generated.People arguing FOR ID are claiming that it was a "designer", but when pressed for a mechanism it always falls back to "magic!".Well a "designer" who is using "magic!" is the Jewish Wizard the Christians are claiming Created everything.Trying to pretend that they are making an argument without invoking the Jewish Wizard is dishonest on their part. Right, because most people are pretty stupid. But, even the stupid recognize "You have to worship MY religion" is gonna be a problem.To take it to an extreme, it's the difference between "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". "Oh, we're just washing away the bad people? Sounds lovely." Just because they don't think they are in the Creationist lobby doesn't mean they aren't.If they aren't standing up against ID, they are, in essence, helping to push Creationism into schools.If it makes "vaguely ID supports" uncomfortable when I point out that they are Christian Fundamentalists who hate the Constitution, then GOOD. It SHOULD make them uncomfortable.They are holding TWO DIFFERENT ideologies in their head at the exact same time and compartmentalizing. Allowing them to label the compartments whatever they want rather than forcing them to rationalize their dissidence is not going to solve this problem or move us forward as a society. The problem here is that the ID people are essentially the same people who run FoxNews - Christian Conservatives.They've demonstrated time and again that NO amount of evidence is sufficient for them to change their argument.Behe ADMITTED UNDER OATH that he was wrong yet continues to present the information as factual in speaking engagements even after Dover.Expecting the general (profoundly uneducated and generally disinterested) public to understand the facts when one side can literally say ANYTHING they want regardless of the evidence is completely naive.There is a reason Creationists win in open debates and we win in court. That's RULES OF EVIDENCE.

But you are claiming that ONLY those functions which you are interested in matter and all others don't.That's the sharpshooter fallacy all over again.

So people keep claiming, but we haven't found any yet. There are all these THEORETICAL non-Creationist ID supporters and yet every ID supporter we find turns out to be just another Creationist.

The Hindu link you provided talk about how their religions are in AGREEMENT with evolution. That's not Intelligent Design.Intelligent Design is "Evolution didn't happen and could not have happened. It was done by magic instead."The Hindus are saying: "The universe started because of X, then evolution occurred."X =/= the "Intelligent Designer" since they are not saying that X had specific guided individual input on life.Meanwhile SO, Dembski and his cronies are saying the exact opposite - that the Jewish Wizard used magic Jew beams to specifically guide evolution from point A to point Z.Having some vague notion of a greater power is not "ID".Further, your claims about people who are very "non-religious" and were happy to accept design is really on par with people who are "non-racist" but don't want black people living in their neighborhood.They need to take a harder look and resolve the conflicting ideas they have compartmentalized.Corner one of them and have this conversation:
You: Are you religious?
Them: No.
You: But you believe that there was a power which designed the universe.
Them: Yes.
You: What was that power?
Them: I don't know.
You: Was it a human?
Them: No.
You: Was it in the Universe when it designed the Universe?
Them: No. It couldn't have been.
You: Did it use normal powers we find in the Universe to create the Universe?
Them: No. It couldn't do that either.
You: So, it pre-dates the Universe and has powers beyond that of the Universe.
Them: Yes.
You: Immortal?
Them: Well, if it predates time, then I guess it has to be.
You: So, immortal, limitlessly powerful and outside of the normal realm of existence.
Them: That about sums it up.
You: And how would you describe "God".
Them: Well, he'd be immortal, limitlessly powerful and... hey! Wait a second, I AM religious after all.

No. Again, it is about the _mechanism_.These people are not saying that "magic!" is the source of change. They are not saying that "magic!" directs change. Behe is, works for, sells books and speaking engagements to, Christian Fundamentalists. His claim is that Jew Beams from the great Jew Wizard are responsible for assembling the genetic code.He may word it _SLIGHTLY_ different, but the argument boils down to that very quickly. So, "Dark Blue Jew Wizard" sums up their position. No. If there is design, then there must be a MECHANISM of said design. If that mechanism is "Magic!" be it "Blue Magic" or "Jew Magic" it's Creationism.Anyone out there claiming to support design but NOT support Blue/Jew Magic is simply lying to either you or themselves. Yes. Because the people making the arguments are completely disinterested in any sort of factual logical basis behind their arguments. They are making the arguments for socio-political reasons. They are making them under the assumption that Lying for Jesus is OKAY and therefore it doesn't matter what they make up.Trying to confront someone who has no basis in reality with facts is just a waste of time. You'll never convince them. You'll never even get them to actually acknowledge any of your facts as being facts.Their political goal is: "Spread confusion and misinformation".The public is too stupid and too lazy to sort out fact from fiction.Since you are obligating yourself to the slower, harder path of fact, you'll quickly find that you've been left in the dust.Basically, you are saying: "Let's put out the fires with water."
I'm saying: "Let's find and kill the idiot who is starting the fires."

Well, I live to be helpful. You tell me which ones believe which mechanism apart from "Magic!" and I'll give them each a different label.However, so long as their default answer to everything is "Magic!" there's really no point in differentiating them. It's all the exact same argument.A reworded fallacy is still a fallacy. In the case of Creationists it's "Magic!"
In the case of scientists it's "No one is directing change, therefore there is no mechanism." So your entire point boils down to this apparently:
"You shouldn't pick of Creationists for believing in a Jew Wizard because some believe in a non-Jew Wizard.""Jew" is not the important word in the sentence. It's "Wizard" that's the problem. I am posting this message and it will likely be #873 or 4.In the nearly 1000 messages on this thread and the nearly half a million messages on the forum, how many times would you say that the "Evidence" for ID has been refuted?100? 1000? 10,000? 200,000?Has it made even a dent in people like SO? His been refuted about 300x on THIS THREAD alone! Hasn't changed his argument at all.You know what DID get through? Pointing out that he is attributing everything to "Jew Beams".You want to play nice because you think you are in a debate. You aren't. You are in a PR war. Facts have little to no meaning in a PR war. That's why science (which has ALL the facts) keeps losing ground to ID (which has NONE of them). No. They do it by making shit up. They are completely unburdened by having to support their claims so they out and out make crap up.Have you seen "Religilous" by Bill Maher? In an early scene he's talking to a trucker Creationist who insists that the "blood on the Shroud of Turin has only XX chromosomes and therefore Jesus was born to Mary without input from a human father."Can you count the facts wrong in that statement? No blood, Shroud is fake, no XX chromosomes, no Jesus, no males with XX.Do you think that ANY of those facts would make ANY difference in this guy spreading this story?Nope. None at all.You know why? It's EASIER for him to say that one sentence and leave than it is for you to explain how you know the shroud is fake.People are stupid. Easy = True in their minds."Jew Wizard" crystalizes the claims in an easy to understand term. Plus, since many of the Fundamentalists have a streak of anti-semitism running through them, it makes them bristle. No. It can't.There was a study done, and I'll edit this with a name and link once I find it, which examined what happened when you explained to someone why a claim was false.The basically took a claim like "Magnets cure disease" and walked the people through why this was false then checked in with them a few months later.People were MORE likely to remember the _CLAIM_ and think that it was TRUE!!!Think about that. The method you are advocating sounds responsible BUT it results in MORE Creationists. And since the evidence and facts don't help our side except in places where there are rules, I'll win as many battles as I'll lose - putting me well ahead of the curve.

Close. By my definition anyone who attributes any "direction" in reality to the magical powers of an undetectable entity is a Creationist. Tell you what. I'll give you a 100:1 ratio.For every post you can find where a Creationist says: "Wow! You're right, your facts have convinced me that my position is wrong. I admit Creationism is wrong." I present 100 posts where Creationists openly deny facts they can not dispute.

No, what matters is sway. You believe your arguments have sway because you live in a society where theoretically having the facts on your side makes some sort of difference.Here in the states the facts don't matter _AT ALL_.The VAST majority of people here couldn't give a crap about the facts. They couldn't follow the facts to a logical conclusion even if they accepted the facts in the first place.You seem upset that I'm lumping people together rather than allowing them to label themselves.Let's break it down further.There are:
Fundamentalists Creationists - the people who either know or don't know that they are wrong but are NEVER going to change their opinion no matter how much evidence piles up. -- status: Unchangeable.Ignorant Creationists - the people who think that they are right because they don't have 2 cents worth of education and for them a "simple" answer like "It was magic!" is easier to swallow than having to actually learn something. -- status: Unchangeable.Deliberately Deceptive "ID" supporters - the people who wrote the wedge document. They know that they are lying and are truly just a subset of Fundamentalist Creationists, but you want to take their word for it that they believe something which they don't. -- status: Unchangeable.Ignorant "ID" supporters - these are the people who are just slightly more educated than the Ignorant Creationists. They really think that ID isn't Creationism because they haven't bothered to run down the logic in their head. They can frequently be heard saying things like: "I doesn't necessarily mean God, it could be space aliens". They DON'T want to label themselves Creationists because they don't like that label. -- status: Changeable.By forcing this last group to confront the fact that they are making a Creationist Argument, they are put into a position where they have to decide. "Am I a Creationist -or- Is my argument wrong."You seem to think they will all just decide to be Creationists if I force them to take a hard look at their argument.If that's the case, then ALL four of these types are unchangeable, and my calling any and all of them Creationists or describing their arguments as "Jew Magic!" really makes no difference whatsoever.

You seem to think that people who are not a part of the debate will somehow catch wind of the debate.I would be amazed if even 10% of the web traffic at EVC was unaware of what "EVC" stood for.

These terms each have different meanings which can be used in conjuction with evolution or independently."Natural Selection" within evolution is, at it's most simple, "If you die before you reproduce, you don't reproduce." People often mistake it as selecting FOR something when in fact it's really selecting AGAINST. Natural Selection isn't "picking winners" it's picking off losers. The ones who don't get picked off "win"."Instinct" within evolution, generally refers to behaviors which are hardwired into genetics. You would need to be trained to make an igloo, however a bird does not need to be trained to make a nest. Nest building is an instinct."survival of the fittest" was originally an economics term which evolutionary biology has coopted. It describes the same function as Natural Selection but from the "cup is half full" side. The best suited for their niche survive and reproduce.As for "why" it all happens? Who cares? Really.We don't ask "why" the Earth orbits the Sun. Not on a philosophical level. Any answer given would be at best a wild guess and at worst a part of a religious agenda designed to control people.

That claim makes absolutely no sense given the context.You are claiming that an ALL POWERFUL being with INFINITE KNOWLEDGE and TIME who created LITERALLY EVERYTHING, including the RULES by which things work is forced to "constrain" his design!!!That's a load of crap and it flies directly in the face of the entire basis of your argument.

And you know the difference between the vague notions expressed in the past and the political movement of the present. So, let's stop with the pretending. I can call myself an African American to get on black people's nerves. However, by any real standard, no outsider would call me African American because I'm not.Fuller ADMITS that he calls himself a secular humanist in order to get on people's nerves.Now YOU are being just as dishonest by repeating the claim. Because it makes testable predictions which non-atheists can confirm.Also, the Pope isn't Atheist. This sentence is non-sense. You can not detect design without determining mechanism. I've demonstrated why this is true. You've failed to offer a single example to refute my demonstration. All you have is a vague notion that you think you can refute it with an equation written by an admitted Creationist. Sure we do. It is markings carved in stone using tools, it was made by a human.Contrast that with the claim - "A magical wizard used Jew Beams to poof things into existence via Magic Juice!"Can you tell the difference? You claim that it is "detected design" because you assume that it is designed. You assume that it is designed but you "detect it" as being designed.That's circular and false. Publishing work in support of Christian Creationism DOES make you a Christian Creationist. Here's a quote by Brad Monton on his website discussing his book: His argument is NOT that ID is valid, but rather that the debate over it is valid. I disagree, but that's neither here nor there. You are citing him as an example of an atheist Creationism supporter. He is not.That's 0 for 2. Wanna keep trying? I'm going to pretend your math is right and STILL show you how you are wrong.The unlikelihood of the flag is X (we'll use your number) ONLY in comparison to a singular predicted outcome.What is the likelihood of getting a "6" on a die that I roll. 1 in 6.
What is the likelihood of getting a NUMBER on a die that I roll. 100%.Same action, different results.A die was rolled. (the universe is here)
A number came up (molecules arranged themselves in a particular way)
What was the likelihood of THAT happening?100%The fact that YOU are now reading the number and declaring it unlikely doesn't change the facts.You are saying, "Wow! A three! How unlikely!"
But if it were a different number you would say: 'Wow! A one! How unlikely!"In the case of the flagellum, you are saying "Wow! Look at this ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME! How unlikely!"However if the flagellum never existed and instead some other outcome occurred (let's say a donut shape) you would say "Wow! Look at this ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME! How unlikely!"You are drawing a bulls-eye around the bullet hole. That's the Texas Sharpshoot Fallacy.By the way, I know ABSOLUTELY that you are going to completely take all of this out of context or simply ignore it. Why? Because this is like the 5th time someone here has pointed this out to you and you STILL keep making the same false claim.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

"It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS."Still clearly scientific? There is an infinite number of things which can be supposed and not ruled out. None of them are scientific. A Creationist. Your accusation is that ALL humans are a member of this conspiracy except you. Ridiculous.Anyone from ANY culture can do the experiments and get the predicted results. YOU could do the experiments and get the predicted results.Is this a conspiracy of REALITY then? I absolutely do. I was chisseled in stone. If you have _EVIDENCE_ that it was created by some magical means, let's see it. Sharp precussion tools. One blow at a time. Because all such objects have been created solely by humans. I don't need to know his identity apart from "Egyptian, Human circa 196BC"Since I'm not claiming that the individual was extraordinary in any way, I don't need to prove more than the presence of others like him at that location at that time.On the other hand, your claim of a fantastical Jew Wizard who lives outside of the Universe IS extraordinary and DOES require evidence. Other things exhibit CSI which are not designed. That's been demonstrated. Only because it's true. ID is simply renamed Creationism. If you support ID, you are a Creationist.If we renamed the KKK to be the GGG, it wouldn't change the fact that the people are racist.I'm going to address the rest of your post in a new reply because it's that important.