The design inference

It's called the design inference, not the materialistic naturalism excludance. It is evidenced by the CSI and apparent IC of living organisms. Mr. P has a point in that Dembski's filter can't detect random looking markings, but it sure could point out any accompanying text. (Sorry Mr. P but DNA and the cell are hardly random markings that may or may not mean something)All the filter wants you to do is consider the evidence and if you get to the 3rd box, use as much scrutiny of the evidence as technology allows before reaching a conclusion. ID was shut out when the a priori before the black box was even opened.Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines. We observe machines being designed. We observe biochemical systems being engineered (designed). The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multicellular organisms.So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference, based on what we observe plus the fact we have no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes, I would have to conclude that you are 6 cents short of a nickel. ------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 02-27-2002]

quote:

---

ludvanB:
I really dont get the fuss. I happen to agree with the concept of ID.

---

John Paul:
Good for you.

quote:

---

ludvanB:
Its actually as good an explanation as any for life.

---

John Paul:
Thank you for your support.

quote:

---

ludvanB:
But Design Inference does not prove YEC in the least.

---

John Paul:
That’s OK, it’s not supposed to.

quote:

---

ludvanB:
Its everybit as conceivable that God "spkinkled" the universe with basic DNA and then stepped back to watch it grow and become whatever it became.

---

John Paul:
That could be but from what we do know about DNA more than that (sprinkling) would be required.

quote:

---

ludvanB:
I actually consider this a helluvalot more INTELLIGENT than going through the pains of forming a whole planet filled with creatures only to murder most of em barely 16 centuries later un a fit of psychotic rage.

---

John Paul:
How do you know pain, or any stress for that matter, was involved when God Created? Perhaps it is your concept that is incorrect.

quote:

---

ludvanB:
The flood and all it entails is acutally the diametrical opposition of INTELLIGENCE.

---

John Paul:
That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.------------------
John Paul

joz:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzal:
1. a phenomenon or object matches some pre-defined meaningful pattern ("specificity")
2. the phenomenon or object has a low probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention ("complexity")joz:
Its this definition of SC that seems wrong to me it seems to cause fatal problems to the EF, after all from 2 above an object or event is complex if it has a low probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention. Note low not no is the word preceeding probability. Its origin, natural or designed, presumeably is independant of its specifity, therefore following these definitions a natural object can be CS....John Paul:
And to understand this you should read Dembski’s Law of small probabilities.joz:
We then look at what the EF has to say:
quote:......If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.Where did the possible natural CS go? somewhere between the original definitions and the filter it seems to have gone MIA.....
Also if it was included the filter would have to include a line that evaluated the probability of a possible designer exsisting i.e:
...... goto 3)
3)Does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If No we attribute it to chance,
if yes is there reason to attribute E to a designer?
If yes E could be the result of design OR nature,
if no then E can be attributed to nature.
Untill the EF contains the possibility of natural CSI it is spurious and circular.....John Paul:
Until you can come up with an indisputable example of CSI originating via purely natural processes, your point is moot. Also the filter says you can infer design. You do know what infer meansAre you telling me that when something is observed to exhibit CSI, it is apparently IC, we have never seen CSI or IC arising by purely natural processes, it is not safe to infer ID? Sounds like a pretty limiting PoV to me.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
No, it isn't, really.

​

No philosophy is a good explanation for naturalistic phenomena.

​

ID is a philosophy, not science. It is also dependent upon a lack of evidence, rather than evidence, which contributes to it's inability to be taken as science.

​

---

John Paul:
Yes it is, really.There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that life could arise from non-life via purely natural processes.The evidence for ID is abundant. It can be found in the CSI exhibited by life and the apparent IC of life. It is supported by the fact that no purely natural processes or mechanisms are known that would allow life to arise from non-life.Also knowing the genetic code is a product of ID could better aid us in deciphering it. Just like when we intercept an enemy's encrypted message, knowing there is a verifiable, readable message to decrypt aids us in decrypting it.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Muller, Nobel prize winning biologist, put forward IC as caused by evolution in the 1930`s (originaly proposed said IC in 1910`s) so IC really is not an issue for evolution, I have provided you with this information before, untill you show that his work was flawed and evolution cannot produce IC you cannot base an argument against evolution on IC...

​

The very definition of CSI permits it to occur naturaly, this possibility is absent from the EF, thus EF is inherrantly flawed by definition of CSI.

​

Untill you accept that it is possible in theory for laws acting on a system to produce CSI (as is permited by the definition above) and stop automaticaly gainsaying every proposed example there is no point asking for one as you will say it exhibits CSI and is thus designed.....

​

Which is wrong according to the very definition of CSI....

​

JP your arguments are eliptical with an eccentricity of 0.....

​

---

John Paul:
I still notice that you can't give us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes. Why is that?

​

Stop bitchin' and do it or admit that you can't.

​

Also you have got to be joking about someone in the 1930s refuting something from the 1990s (through this year). That's just absurd to postulate such a thing. ------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
I still notice that you can't give us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes. Why is that?
Stop bitchin' and do it or admit that you can't.Also you have got to be joking about someone in the 1930s refuting something from the 1990s (through this year). That's just absurd to postulate such a thing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------joz:
Us JP? are you royalty or schizophrenic? Your the only one over there...John Paul:
Yes us joz. As in the people that actually read your tripe, myself included.joz:
And I gave you DNA, you have to justify your position of CSI = design because it is in conflict with the very definition of CSI....John Paul:
Are you saying DNA is an indisputable example of CSI originating via purely natural processes? If you really think so, perhaps it's time you read this:Unraveling the DNA MythThis phrase caught my eye: "DNA did not create life; life created DNA".Time is not on your side joz. The more we are finding out the more obvious it becomes that life is the direct result of an act of intelligence- ie ID.joz:
Then you need to explain the fact that the EF is flawed by the ommision of this possibility of naturaly occurring CSI and repair said flaw...John Paul:
What flaw? That never has anyone observed CSI arising via purely natural processes? Sorry, that's part of life. Bring us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes and you will have exposed a flaw.But remeber, it it still the design INFERENCE. What criteria do you use for determining a purposely designed object to a naturally designed one?joz:
Because untill you do that and show that DNA is in fact designed it stands as a valid example...John Paul:
If the implications of the article I linked to are any indication, that is all but a foregone conclusion.joz:
Oh and the thing about Muller is that he described Irreducibly complex systems (remove one bit and it stops working) and also how they are arrived at by evolution.... In 1939....John Paul:
One more time- Muller did NOT know what he was up against. Maybe he asked Edgar Caycee...To even think that someone writing in the 1930's could have understood the complexity and specifity of life's biochemical systems is absurd.joz:
Which makes it really amusing when a jumped up biochemist with dellusions of grandeur states in the 90`s that IC structures exsist and are evidence for design as they could not possibly evolve....John Paul:
What is really amazing is that of all the people who have tried to refute Behe's premise, not one has brought up Muller to do so. Go figure.joz:
He should have done his homework.....John Paul:
Apparently he did more than Muller was capable of. ------------------
John Paul

schrafinator:
ID is an argument that relies upon the idea that evolution can only happen in a simple, linear fashion.John Paul:
That's wrong. From Behe's Darwin's Black Box: [/quote]Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant*.[/quote]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------from the next paragraph:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

---

*the same elephant is mentioned in this article: The BiologistI think you have IC confused with ID. All ID says is the apparent design observed in living organisms is real.------------------
John Paul

Mark:
Life on earth MAY be the result of alien design, but who designed them? If it's feasible that aliens evolved, why not us?John Paul:
ID says nada about the designer. ID only cares about the design. It'seasier to cross one bridge at a time. Once we fully understand the design in living organisms here, maybe that will tell us something about the designer.------------------
John Paul

schrafinator:
First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications.John Paul:
I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott.Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie ScottIt may not be a theory (yet) but it is in the very least a working hypothesis.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert1:
Um, may I also point out JP that RNA DOES have the ability to self-reproduce. Yup, thats right, it doesn't need anything else to replicate. How do you ask? Well the RNA itself serves as its own polymerase, and can provide all the functions of "specialized" enzymes. True, it is much MUCH slower than if it uses its enzymes, but the fact remains that RNA is capable of replicating itself. So the argument that "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" is incorrect. RNA created life which once specialized enough created DNA. *Sorry about the formatting of my reply, but I can't use HTML for the life of me.*

---

John Paul:
Are you suggesting RNA came first? I thought that idea was abondoned years ago. No one has shown how RNA could have formed before living cells were around to make it. (the same for DNA as pointed out in the article I linked to earlier) I guess it is accepted in some circles that RNA preceded DNA but that some type of living organisms preceded RNA. Life that we have no idea how it functioned. From what we know RNA based life needs DNA based life in order to survive.And we are still left with the FACT that biochemists can mix all the chemicals found in living organisms together and nothing happens.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
First of all, I must ask whether or not it really matters? ID should stand or fall on its scientific merits, not theological ponderings.

---

JM: Agreed, but it has no scientific merits and the theological ponderings are what seem to drive the majority of the arguments. John Paul:
Wrong again Joe. ID has scientific merits and no theological pondering. This is what Behe said in Darwin's Black Box:

​

quote:

---

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

---

​

quote:

---

"The notion of a perfect God must be rejected since not all designs are perfect. The knee or the lower back for example, could have been better designed by a 2nd year ME student."
How do you know that a perfect God would not make imperfect structures. How do you know the nature of God at all?

---

JM: I don't nor do I claim to. I am merely repeating the claims of fundamentalist christians who claim HIS perfection. John Paul:
But that has nothing to do with God’s Creation having to be perfect. That is what you are saying in your article- we must reject a perfect God since not all designs are perfect. What kind of logic is that? Who said a perfect Designer had to Create perfect designs that remained perfect? The Bible speaks of a "very good" Creation but not a "perfect" one.

quote:

---

"The last point I wish to make is that neocreationism (in the form of ID) is simply a clumsy new device try and reintroduce religion into the public science classroom."
I must ask you where you get the basis for this comment. The following comment is a quote from Orr that states that most ID scientists have widely varying views. I don't see how Orr's quote supports your notion. I also don't see how you could come to this conclusion when you admit that one of ID's chief promoters does not believe in God. Your next line follows:

---

JM: I refer you to the most recent case of ID in Ohio. Do a search and you shall see. While ONE ID theorist also claims to be an atheist is of little consequence. The majority are clear on both the nature and the identity of the ID'er. John Paul:
It doesn’t matter who or what IDists infer is the intelligent designer. That has no relevance whatsoever to the scientific merits of ID. ID says nothing about the designer and is focused only on the design. To say something other than that would be a misrepresentation. But isn’t that what being an evolutionist is all about?

quote:

---

"The characteristics of the designer are seldom stated outright, but one need not look far to find clues as to who the designer might be."
This statement is also not supportive of your notion that ID is a new attempt to introduce religion into schools.

---

JM: See Ohio's recent battle. John Paul:
For what? More blatant misrepresentations and a smear campaign against ID? That’s what I see.

​

Check out the petition they have. It calls ID,ID Creationism and judging from the uneducated comments people are buying the propaganda campaign against it. Check out signature 1413 I sent the author an email- no response yet.

​

Ohio’s propaganda campaign against ID

quote:

---

I find it relatively obvious that WHO or WHAT the individual IDer thinks is the designer is faith-based. One can make their own conclusion based on the implication of Intelligent Design Theory. The mere fact that most IDers believe God is the designer is not relevant at all to ID's scientific implications. Therefore, it is of no harm to introduce students to the concept of Intelligent Design.

---

JMf course not. ID is part and parcel of human endeavors. That does not necessarily mean it is part and parcel of everthing. ID is taught all the time. It simply has no relevance to biological systems. John Paul:
Scientists with more knowledge about that than you do think otherwise. How do you think this got started? By scientists opening up the black box (thanks to technology). [quote] Perhaps aliens (who themselves evolved naturally without having IC)are bombarding our planet with invisible and undectable rays of energy that allow Irreducibly Complex Structures to form in living things. This scenario may not seem very likely on a theological level, but that does not matter. The point is that it is possible to infer Intelligent Design without implying God. Any notion to the contrary, I believe, is a result either of ignorance or of wishful thinking. [/B]JM: Sure and pink elephants coulda done it. How does such a conclusion (as yours or mine) aid in the understanding of biology? Evolution explains the historical observations, it is predictive, retrodictive and testable. What does ID offer that is superior to evolution? John Paul:
Evolution does NOT explain how life got here. Evolution can’t demonstrate many of its proposals. ID explains the CSI we observe in living organisms. As for predictive power- how can anyone predict what a designer would design? I take it that you don’t agree with Dennett, who stated on the PBS series Evolution that there is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time.

​

As someone with a relatively strong background in encryption I understand the importance of differentiating between meaningful information and random nonsense. With the understanding the genetic code is from an intelligent source, I strongly believe it would aid us in deciphering it.

​

What does materialistic naturalism have to offer? ------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:
Ok, for sake of argument ( and I don't agree with you on this point ) I'll stipulate that 'nothing happens' when chemists conduct experiments.

​

How is this evidence that aboigenesis is IMPOSSIBLE ?

​

Does this mean we're made by *magic* because we haven't created bacteria in a test tube ?

​

Does this mean Volcanoes are supernatural - or Intellegently designed
since no Geologist has made a volcano on his desktop with his pet-rock and a zippo ?

​

Or does it mean we still have much to learn and much room to explore ?

​

Materialistic Naturalism has uncovered an enormous amount of previously unknown phenomena, mechanisms and explanations in the past 150 years, its absurd to give up on it because its philisophically convenient for your particular religious view. Why have you imposed this 'deadline' on science - that since it hasn't answered all biological questions by March 15, 2002 - then no Naturalistic answers are possible ? Are you sure we can't wait a day or two before we send the scientists home to farm mushrooms ?

​

Add to this the -FACT- that your religious view is quite an unsatisfactory and insufficient explanation to the rest of us.

​

We all aren't blessed with your level of naivete. We need a more convincing reason to abandon science.
...and ID is just THAT: The abandonment of serious scientific inquiry.

​

Regards,

​

jeff

---

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz Yawn shrug, sigh ZZZzzzzzzzzz ------------------
John Paul

My apologies to Mr. P. I meant to respond earlier. Stuff happens... [QUOTE] Originally posted by John Paul:
It's called the [b]design inference, not the materialistic naturalism excludance. [/QUOTE]Mr. P:
Ok. Let's get one thing clear. Scientists and many others infer design in many ways. What Dembski is claiming is that
: he has identified a technique for inferring design which does not give false positives;
: this technique underlies design inferences that are made in other fields.John Paul:
I think he is still developing/ refining it. I haven’t read his latest effort, No Free Lunch.Mr. P:
Let's kick off with an interesting question regarding Dembski's claim to have formulated a logical filter for inferring design that does not give false positives. Is this filter now knowingly applied in any of the fields Dembski refers to as using design inferences? Let's take SETI and Forensic Science: now that Dembski has codified this tool is it actually being used in these fields?John Paul:
I am not sure. Like I stated above, I am under the impression he was still developing/ refining it. Isn’t that how it goes? You have an idea, document it and then develop and refine it.
But anyway, both of those fields rely on our ability to detect design. The ID proponents are just saying we can apply similar reasoning to living organisms.Mr. P:
This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer and would genuinely be interested to see practical applications of Dembski's filter in real-world situations where decisions have to be made on the outcome.John Paul:
I am not saying this to be a smart a$$ but have you considered going to the International Society for Complexity, Information & Design and posting there? I know it costs $45 to become a member, but that is less than 90 cents a week.When you say or imply that biological ID isn’t a scientific endeavor, you are saying our ignorance is grounds for believing and dogmatically asserting that life arose via purely natural processes and no other avenue can be explored by our narrow vision of science.

quote:

---

It is evidenced by the CSI and apparent IC of living organisms.

---

Mr. P:
I can't imagine what you mean here. At the most this sentence can mean:
If FW then (if LC then LD)
LC
Therefore FW.
(Where F = "The Filter Works", LC = "Life is complex and specified", LD = "life is designed".)
This is clearly bunk.
BTW, I presume that having read Dembski, apparently approvingly, you don't mind me using completely superfluous quasi-symbolical forms in his manner?John Paul:
Behe puts it like this: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

quote:

---

Mr. P has a point in that Dembski's filter can't detect random looking markings, but it sure could point out any accompanying text.

---

Mr. P:
Well I wound't want it to detect them - I would want it to help me decide whether they were designed or not.John Paul:
It may do just that. What it can’t do is to tell you the meaning of the design. For example I could use the EF to determine that a Chinese character was designed but the filter wouldn’t translate that character for me.The EF is not a mind reading device that can determine what the designer’s intent was. Nor can it decipher any hidden code.

quote:

---

(Sorry Mr. P but DNA and the cell are hardly random markings that may or may not mean something)

---

Mr. P:
O don't be sorry, just tell me how DNA is specified in Dembski's sense.John Paul:
From what we know about DNA not just any ordering of nucleotides will give rise to a living organism. The sequences that do allow for life would then be considered specified. Pretty basic actually.

quote:

---

All the filter wants you to do is consider the evidence and if you get to the 3rd box, use as much scrutiny of the evidence as technology allows before reaching a conclusion.

---

Mr. P:
If this is the case then the filter is totally useless, because in the third box you are back to Paley's old argument that this thing looks like it might be designed, and Hume's rejoinder questioning what could be "sufficiently like" to justify the inference.John Paul:
If something looks designed what would be the criteria for determining it is not? In the case where design is initially assumed a priori you could run the filter in reverse to falsify that premise.However, I nothing wrong to call a duck a duck. Especially when that organism quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and gives all the appearances of being a duck. And yes, in order to convince me otherwise you have your work cut out for you.Mr. P:
Unless the filter can actually get you to the point of saying "this is designed" then it is as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.John Paul:
I see you want the filter to do everything for you. I don’t believe that is how it is supposed to work, but again I am not Dembski. I do know once E gets to the third box decisions must be made. In the boxes before the third box, each required a decision to be made. So it would stand to reason that external input is required. Accurate input would require research.The EF is a basic process flow chart for inferring design. His book is called The Design Inference.

quote:

---

ID was shut out when the a priori before the black box was even opened.

---

Mr. P:
I don't understand. Can you clarify? Thanks.John Paul:
Paley’s arguments for design in living organisms were dismissed before we had the technology to actually see how complex a living cell really is. Paley hurt his own cause for not fully understanding the magnitude of the specified complexity that resides in living organisms.

quote:

---

Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines.

---

Mr. P:
Analogy isn't going to do the trick, mate.John Paul:
Explain why analogies won’t do the trick, mate. Analogies are used in many instances. Why all of a sudden is my use not doing the trick?Mr. P:
What about the other way round? Let's say I compare the claw on the production line robot to a human hand. I remark how similar they are - how they have "fingers", "joints", how they move, how they grasp, how they have "tendons." I ponder on how they came about ... Does the hand help me accurately guess that the robot claw was made from cast and machined steel parts, that it was wired and soldered? Does the robot claw help me accurately guess that the hand was formed by cell division? Analogy clearly doesn't help in pondering their manufacture - why do you think analogy is going to get you any further when considering if they are "designed"?John Paul:
Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck- what do you think it is?Perhaps we can take the analogy even further and by experimentation we learn we can deal with a biological virus in a similar manner that we deal with a computer virus.

quote:

---

The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multi-cellular organisms.

---

Mr. P:
Same thing. The human mind likes analogies because it enables us to reuse existing knowledge - but argument from analogy is illogical.John Paul:
Maybe to you it is. Just asserting that it is doesn’t make it so. The parallels are uncanny and should not be ignored. But I guess that how you can get around the design inference, ignore it. BTW, mind correlation is part of the process when determining design.Read this:http://www.creationequation.com/Archives/TheBiologist.htm> The Biologist

quote:

---

So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference

---

Mr. P:
Science does not have to exclude the design inference, it is purely that so far no one has come close to showing how it applies to living things in a way that helps scientists to understand them better than other methods.John Paul:
And just how has theorizing that life isn’t the product of design or Special Creation added anything of value to science?What is the justification for dogmattically asserting life arose from purely natural processes? There isn't any evidence to support the claim. What gives?As someone with a relatively strong background in encryption I understand the importance of differentiating between meaningful information and random nonsense. With the understanding the genetic code is from an intelligent source, I strongly believe it would aid us in deciphering it.Mr. P:
The really sad thing about Demsbki's work is that, rather like Goss's in the 19th century, it is irrelevant to the work being done in the field.(Which brings back to wondering if there are examples of his work being explicitly used in fields where it is of immediate relevance.)John Paul:
What is really sad is that you won’t take your discussion to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design discussion board.http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=10> The ISCIDYou may have some good arguments that may drive their refinement of the concept of ID in biology. And you just may find the answers you seek.------------------
John Paul

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cobra_snake: [b]"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?"That would be more appropriate. [/QUOTE]schrafinator:

​

LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God? John Paul:That is irrelevant. ID is not concerned with the designer only the design.

quote:

---

"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."

​

If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.

---

schrafinator:

​

Nobody has explained how to recognize the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one we don't understand. John Paul:
That is why it is call it is called the design inference. Inference is how science is conducted.Why would infer purely natural processes when there isn’t any evidence to substantiate that claim? Actually it is not inferred. It is dogmatically asserted.Then we have this from Behe:

quote:

---

Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant.

---

Why is OK to attribute something to an alleged natural process we don’t understand and not OK to follow everything we know about design and how to detect it?schrafinator:
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all. John Paul:
Been there, done that.This message is a reply to: [QUOTE] Originally posted by John Paul:schrafinator:First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications.John Paul:I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott. [b]Is Intelligent Design Testable?A Response to Eugenie ScottIt may not be a theory (yet) but it is in the very least a working hypothesis. [/QUOTE]schrafinator:
What positive evidence, not a lack of evidence found in another theory, supports ID? John Paul:Again from Behe:

quote:

---

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

---

------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Hey, JP, did you ever get around to telling us who designed the designer?

---

John Paul:
I didn't know I was supposed to. The designer is irrelevant to ID. But you would have known that had you researched the issue.------------------
John Paul