Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Virtual particles and radioactive decay are two. Our experiences in the macro world are a poor basis upon which to judge the true nature of the universe. Actually, I think the message people are trying to give you is that scientists don't honor a position because they like it but because they respect the process by which the position is arrived at. Positions arrived at via the scientific method, one that involves data gathering, hypothesizing, predicting, validating and replicating, are imbued with more credibility than those derived from uninformed speculation or, even worse, revelation.So it isn't your mistaken positions that call your other positions into question, at least not directly. Rather, it is that your mistaken positions tell us that you're using a flawed process for arriving at your conclusions.So when you say things like, "Everything which has a beginning has a cause," we question the process by which you arrived at this conclusion, because this seems a position drawn from casual observations of the macro world and not from the scientific method, the same as your "All earth's creatures have two eyes" declaration.The way to arrive at conclusions that are likely true about the natural world is the scientific method. Any other method you employ will be more error prone.--Percy

Right click on the video and select "Download This Video To RealPlayer". Tomorrow watch the downloaded video.But someone should explain the video anyway.--Percy

There is no shortcut to success in this debate. The equally fallacious reply to this argument is, "No, it is you who have the philosophical predisposition..." Now what?There is no way to avoid the hard work of uncovering and analyzing evidence. If others think your evidence insufficient then the proper next step is to find better evidence. It is not accusing them of "philosophical predispositions".You don't actually need evidence that convinces the precise people you're debating with. Concessions of "Oh, you're right," rarely happen in discussions. All you want is evidence that is based upon the best approach we know of for figuring out what is likely true of the real world, and that is the scientific method. Evidence gathered in this way that has been analyzed, replicated, put in an interpretative framework that has made successful predictions cannot fail to convince a preponderance of scientists. That's the kind of evidence you want for your designer.--Percy

True IDists must shudder every time they see declarations like this from those like yourself who for some reason claim the ID label. The whole creation/evolution controversy in education is about whether or not creationism and its more recent incarnation IDism are religion or science, and here you are declaring, "God is not out of the picture." People like you must drive true IDists crazy.There is an honesty in your position that is not reflected in true IDism, but because of that honesty it contains no threat to education. I'm sure most evolutionists are perfectly happy if you want to believe that life was intelligently designed and that God is the designer, and they would have no concern whatsoever were you to present your position to boards of education while arguing that ID be taught in schools. No board of education, no matter how religiously conservative, would ever be so dense as to think they could teach that God created life in science class. Rewording your fallacy, the one I noted in Message 156, doesn't make it any less a fallacy. The equally fallacious response is, "No, it isn't we involved in self-deception but yourself."As I said earlier, there are no shortcuts to winning this debate. There's no way to avoid the hard work of uncovering and analyzing evidence. Obviously the most productive science will be built upon the most accurate model of the real world that can be derived from the evidence. One way ID could prove it is better science than evolution is to produce better insights and advances. Declarations that God is in the picture and that evolutionists are deceived are not scientific arguments.--Percy

Of course you can be an IDist who believes in God, just as I can be (and am) an evolutionist who believes in God. But if ID is really about "the scientific evidence for a creative intelligence," why do you keep talking about God and evolution instead of evidence for ID? Whenever you're ready, go ahead and put your evidence for the designer on the table. The problem is, quoting here the rest of your paragraph: You seem to have no evidence for ID, just expressions of skepticism of evolutionary interpretations of natural history that are based upon highly skewed misinterpretations of evidence.As I said before, you need to uncover and analyze evidence for your IDer and put it into an interpretive framework that yields accurate predictions. It's called the scientific method.--Percy

By "alternative framework" RickJB means something more detailed than just "the designer did it." He's referring to a framework of supporting evidence for ID. This is the evidence this thread is supposed to be discussing. You don't have to "submit a paper", but presenting some of your evidence for ID would be nice. Does this common fallacy even have to be explained anymore?--Percy

Any chance of touching on the topic at some point?--Percy

Evidence for creation? Can I assume you actually mean evidence for creation by an intelligent designer?If so, then that's a good start, but you have to keep going. What is it about the Cambrian explosion that is evidence for an intelligent designer?By the way, congratulations on getting several people to digress with you onto evolutionary topics.--Percy

You're again arguing against evolution instead of for ID. It is definitely not the case that there are only two possibilities, evolution and ID, and that if one is shown wrong then the other must be right.At heart, evolution is a valid scientific theory because it is knowledge gained via the scientific method. For ID to become science it, too, must practice the scientific method. But rather than conducting scientific research IDers instead declare that we can never discover anything about the nature of the designer or how he designed. This is inherently unscientific. One cannot invoke a mechanism about which nothing can be known or discovered and still be considered science.The Discovery Institute's way around this dilemma is to declare the modern conception of science bankrupt and has set a goal of changing science to include the supernatural as an assumption. The only way this will ever happen is for the field of ID to adopt that view of science themselves and then produce better scientific results. When scientific advances start flowing out of ID research centers then science will change to incorporate the improvements in scientific methods.But until that time you've got nothing. You're certainly not going to get anywhere endlessly repeating arguments that simply ignore how incredibly rare the three events of fossilization, preservation for millions of years, and eventual discovery are.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

RickJB proposed this thread to discuss the nature of the designer, and his opening post quotes Beretta saying, "We don't need to see the painter to know that there is one."There's a lot we can know about a painter from just one of his paintings. Visual analysis of the painting itself reveals a great deal of the artist's skill with composition and color, and the brush strokes reveal much about his style, even whether he was right or left handed. X-ray analysis can tell us the order of the various layers of the painting and even give us a history of the painting's growth, even of changes and corrected mistakes. Analysis of the paint itself can often tell us when the artist painted and even where he lived.So to the IDists out there, what does the universe tell us about the nature of our designer and how he designed?--Percy

The Ediacaran fauna also possessed a wealth of complexity and diversity, and they predate the Cambrian. And there are many, many other instances of sudden appearance n the fossil record.What does the disappearance of the Ediacaran fauna tell us about the designer? What evidence leads you to conclude he designed ex nihilo?What evidence leads you to believe that the Cambrian fauna were perfect? And if they were perfect why did they go extinct? And isn't "perfect" an unscientific and ambiguous term anyway? How is the absence of "half-baked ideas" in the fossil record evidence for a designer?--Percy

Actually, there is only one option, evolution. In order for ID to be considered an alternative to evolution it would have to uncover and replicate positive evidence and employ it to make accurate predictions. Only then could it be considered science and an alternative to evolution, and only then could evidence against evolution strengthen the position of ID.So under current circumstances where ID has no supporting scientific evidence, arguing against evolution does nothing to strengthen the position of ID, and arguing ignorantly against evolution (for example, simply ignoring the rarity of the three events of fossilization, preservation and discovery) can only weaken the position of ID by association.The existing arguments for ID are not designed to have any impact on the scientific community. Most IDists understand this and make no attempt to introduce their ideas in scientific venues. ID arguments are in fact designed to win a public relations battle, but convincing a largely scientifically inept public that ID is science and that scientists are dogmatic and biased is not going to make ID science.Doing science is the only way for IDists to make ID science, which is what we're trying to encourage you to do in this thread. Find some evidence for ID.--Percy

Hi Beretta,You're again arguing against evolution instead of arguing for ID. I don't want to turn this into a thread about evolution, so I'll just correct the most major item in your message: Evolution does not postulate "entirely new systems" arising suddenly. Sudden creation of either features, systems or whole organisms is an idea from creationism and ID.Evolution postulates gradual change. Each offspring is a not-quite-perfect copy of its parent or parents. The reproductive process is rarely perfect, so change is inevitable, and change combined with natural selection keeps organisms adapted to an ever-changing environment.I think you keep saying things like this because you somehow think that evolutionists must misinterpret the fossil record the same way you do, but they don't. Organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record not because they actually appeared suddenly on earth, but because the fossil record is incredibly spotty.IDists who misinterpret the fossil record as you are will always have a difficult time being taken seriously. It isn't like this is rocket science. If fossilization and preservation were as common as you'd like to believe then we should be awash in ancient bones today, but we're not. You can't even go into the forest and find a single squirrel skeleton. You can dig holes all over the forest and you won't find a single bone, and that's because the fate of almost all organisms after death is predation, scavenging and decay until nothing is left.If you're going to have a viable scientific theory then you have to incorporate the facts of the real world, and the facts say that fossilization is incredibly rare. If you truly believe that isn't the case then a necessary prerequisite before you can make the arguments you've been making in this thread is to make a convincing case that fossilization is common, because without that there's no way to convince anyone that sudden appearance in the fossil record indicates actual sudden appearance on earth.--Percy

This isn't the right thread for getting into a discussion about the evidence for evolution, so I'll just say once again that if your goal is to convince a (for the most part) scientifically ignorant public then these kinds of arguments will work fine, but for people familiar with evolution all you're doing is demonstrating your ignorance of the evidence.You need positive evidence for ID, for two reasons. One, it's positive evidence along with correct predictions that allows a theory to carry the day. Two, it's the topic of this thread.--Percy

You're arguing against evolution again. This thread is about 5/6 used up. You're running out of time to offer any positive evidence for the designer.--Percy