A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

Percy:
I think Schraf is saying that the tendency of ID adherents to attribute to God that which they don't understand or cannot explain has strong parallels in human history. Evolutionists believe that such an approach is unscientific and are therefore trying to understand how, for example in the case of Behe, attributing poorly understood microbiological evolutionary pathways to God is any different.John Paul:
But IDists, including Behe, don't attribute anything to God. See the following link:IDers are from Mars, ID critics are from Venusmost notably- When ID proponents say- "I do not propose or think the designer was God"ID critics hear "I am hiding my religious convictions and motivations"What Behe is saying (yup my conclusion from reading his book and articles) is don't say something evolved from something else without knowing whether or not it could.------------------
John Paul

schraf:
Since you used the word "kind" in your reply, I was thinking that you must be able to define the word and tell me how I can tell what "kind" an animal is.John Paul:
Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet?Please tell us if you think that this is not a valid scientific research avenue, why it isn't and why searching for the originating organism(s) under the materialistic naturalism framework is.schraf:
How do you tell the difference between, "It's impossible!" and "We don't know yet", or, "We don't have the brain power to comprehend it."?John Paul:
Like all scientific theories, they change when new evidence comes to the front. Until such evidence comes up to substantiate the materialistic naturalism PoV, why is saying the apparent design in living organisms is illusory more scientific than saying the apparent design in living organisms is NOT illusory?------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:John Paul:
Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
Conclusions have been reached, reptiles & mammals won't be in the same baramin, fish & amphibians won't be in the same baramin, & Homo sapiens won't be in the same baramin as other primates. All this was concluded before they lit the bunsen burner.John Paul:
First, when taken in context. I was referring to specific conclusions that schraf appears to want. As for reptiles & mammals not being in the same baramin- it's that way in the classification system we use now. The same goes for fish & amphibians. Humans and other primates hasn't been finished yet.Mark:
It is according to scripture. The nuber ONE consideration.John Paul:
Yup, it's called conducting research under a Biblical framework------------------
John Paul

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"ROTFLMAODid " Behe forget to do some reading?"
--Don't start the belly laugh yet, this sounds conceivable, but can it be applied?[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter if it can be applied!The whole point is that Behe and ID proponents say that it is impossible that these systems could have arisen naturally.It has ben demonstrated that it is, indeed, possible to produce these systems naturally, so the argument that it is impossible is rendered false.[/B][/QUOTE]John Paul:
Nothing has been demonstrated that would falsify IC. If you think it has please refer us to the peer-reviewed journal and article. The best I have seen is Miller's write-up on blood-clotting, but that wasn't peer-reviewed.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
To put it bluntly the work that refutes Behe`s arguments centered on IC for a designer was published about 60 years before Darwins black box by a nobel prize winner.....

---

John Paul:
This appears more like a hypothesis than anything. I hope there is labwork in the book that bears out this hypothesis. If not it is just more 'wishful' thinking than anything. Is something demonstrated in the book? The book came out before the double-helix was discovered so I doubt it gets into detail- the detail Behe says is missing to begin with.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I'm new to this discussion, but have read with
some interest the previous postings.

​

It appears to me (and please explain if I have missed something)
that your assertion that Intelligent Design MUST be the case
is an inference based upon absence of evidence to the
contrary.

​

I'm not convinced that the absence of evidence is a sound foundation
for infering anything in any subject area.

​

Is there something very specific that you could put forward that
evolutionary theory cannot be used to explain ?

​

I have seen many references to drifting off into fantasy in
relation to evolutionary explanations, but no reasoned arguments
against the possible explanations put forward.

​

---

John Paul:
Actually Peter there is more to ID than just lack of evidence to the contrary. Design is detected in biology pretty much like archeologists, forensics, arson detectives et al. detect design.Also explaining something and demonstrating that explanation to be indicative of reality are two different worlds.If we have absolutely no substantiated evidence that something, like life, could originate via purely natural processes, is it OK to infer purely natural processes are responsible for its origin?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLP:
The coffin door creeps toward being shut completely on poor Mikey Behe's 'hypothesis'...

​

http://bio.com/newsfeatures/newsfea tures_research.jhtml;jsessionid=LYVCFH3UUACCLR3FQLMCFEWHUWBNSIV0?action=view&contentItem=17816666&Page=1

---

John Paul:
Well SLP, thanks for the explanation. So we have found "A gene that makes human blood clot also is found in bloodless fruit flies and helps venomous cone snails produce an experimental drug against epilepsy."Interesting, but there is more than just the clotting of blood that is at issue here. It's the blood clotting cascade. What good is a blood clotting gene if it goes unchecked?That brings us to:
How did that gene originate? What makes it do different things in different organisms? Could be that system architecture talked about by JA Shapiro in Mike Gene's article:ID Friendly EvolutionI don't see how this affects Behe's position at all.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mark24:
Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me.Mark--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....John Paul:
Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mark24:
Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me.Mark--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....John Paul:
Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh------------------
John Paul