Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].This implies that the coding and structure of DNA was carefully assembled and put together by a designer; an intelligent Creator.

There dosent seem to be anything that accurately explains "accidents" and "just because" that seem believable.
Is it possible for biotic life to emerge from abiotic life?

Did we invent Artificial intelligence by accident? the CPU by accident? Even if we did we were THERE to make it happen, even if by accident.

There are seven days in a week, seven colors in a rainbow, seven layers of the atmosphere, seven continents, seven seas, seven miracles that Jesus Christ performed in the gospel of John. Seven seems to be God's favorite number since He rested on the seventh day.

Living breathing organisms have DNA, a double helix; rocks do not.

Our world is so beautiful, it was created for us. We have dominion over every living thing on this planet. The sky is blue and the trees and herbs are green. Those two colors, pyschologically, are the two most soothing colors to the eye(in the visible spectrum)

If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.

This follows through in the field of education. In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.

Then let's use this as an example of what I am talking about. What evidence, if found, would falsify your proposal? What observations, if made, would falsify the sudden creation hypothesis? If you are incapable of producing the null hypothesis THEN YOU HAVE NO HYPOTHESIS. No hypothesis = no science.

ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design. No other or more involved examination is required to produce this very scientific factHowever, if one does choose to examine closer or over and over the results will be the same

To deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involvedAll you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or model

clear, obvious, observable and demonstrable order are not "I know it when I see it"

...if mine is not a model then show howA. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SM

What do geophysicists say caused the phenomenon?

I am interested. I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits. You tell me. Perhaps then I can give an objective answer to the questions. What's the big secret? You''re the geophysicist.

No taq you misunderstand the nature of a conclusion in these respects. the conclusion of evolution is not evolution, but must be the conclusion of, was created or is the result of soley natural causes.

The evolutionary model regaurdless of how complicated you describe it is but an examination of physical properties. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the validty of ID. If evolution were true, it would not invalidate ID. ID stands on different ground, but uses the same process for its conclusion.

One would need to demonstrate in logical form why IDs process is not science, since it employs the self-same methods for its immediate conclusions concerning order and law

reality and rational thinking explain what ID and creationism are, not websites

Of course scientist dont use ID, its a conclusion of a process. They ofcourse do use the procees and model established by order and law in the natural world, which is the process for ID.

What physical experiments could let you know for sure, it is not the result of a designer. Of course you could conduct no such test, which means one of sevearal thingsYou are incorrectly evaluating the IDs methodologyYou are requiring of IDs methods something you dont for yours, because:You are confusing the conclusion of ID with your processYou are misapplying the principle of falsifiabilty to ID, when it should be applied to its processYour ignoring the fact that some physical principles (order and law) dont need to be continually retested if theve been demonstrated to be true and validYour ignoring the fact that order and law are as valid as change and natural selection to any conclusions concerning the origins of thingsAnd finally you are ignoring the fact that any processes (models) that accurately (by scientific examination) explain the causes for the natural world and its origins, are scientific and should be taught in the science arenaSince the ID process (model) follows any logical and scientific examination process, it would follow logically that it has nothing to do with religion and should be taught as science.

Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards

Dawn Bertot writes:Perhaps you could post a few of the points that demonstrate this from the Wedge document. Im going to bet, it or them have nothing to do with the process or rational behind ID and creationism. Atleast not in its realistic senseAnywho lets see it

INTRODUCTIONThe proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and artThe cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Governing Goals* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Dawn Bertot writes:Speaking of the wedge document he provided Coyote writes: Of course not and that is exacally what I predicted, it would be. remember me saying it would not represent the design argument accurately, so I was correct, correct? What you quoted is and was not meant to be an argument, but a statement concerning the affects of humanistic doctrine, not a formal argument

No its not apologetics, its a formal statement on the affects of humanistic doctrine and its 100 percent correct, in that respect. Does the Wedge document have something of a formal argument concerning design you wish to take issue with

Unless you could produce something in it that accurately reflects the position od ID as inaccurate as I have presented it ,then Ill let you have your issues with this paper and its exponents.