What exactly is ID?

Hi Son, I am pretty new to this forum so bare with me. ID theory doesn't try to answer what the age of the earth is, or list exactly what the designer created, nor does it even attempt to reveal who or what the designer is. Intelligent design theory, simply stated, is the theory that highly specific and complex information requires an intelligent intentional source. The theory suggests that since all biological organisms exhibit complex specified information (csi) they therefore require an intelligent source. ID proponents further argue that all attempts to explain csi by purely random processes fail upon closer evaluation. You also should note that most of the confusion surrounding ID usually stems from the fact that uninformed creationists and evolutionists alike, refer to ID and creationism interchangeably.(Could someone please tell me the process for posting hyperlinks?)

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

I would say that it is based more on the most logical conclusion than on a prediction...wouldn't you? We make any and all conclusions base on already existing human experiences. We know the temperature that water needs to be below to freeze, by previously observing that temperature over and over. And we can spout off its boiling point. We can put together a pretty accurate model of where stars and planets will be at certain times and dates in the future based on previous human observation. We developed the theory of gravity based on observation of its effects on objects. The most logical conclusions are always the one's that are based on the most observed events. When I hold a book out in front of me and release it I don't expect it to float away into the sky because I have observed earths gravitational pull, pull things down all of my life. Therefore the most logical conclusion would be that the book was going to fall down.Likewise in all of our human experience, no one has ever observed anything with complex, specific, information, form by random processes, but it always requires an intelligent source. So the most logical conclusion, when csi is observed, is not that it was formed by some random process but rather that it likewise required an intelligent source. ID proponents don't care if you are not comfortable with the ramifications of this fact. We merely think that the most logical conclusion is the most likely conclusion.

Dr Adequate, I am so sorry that you resorted to this kind of name calling so soon in our conversation. I had been looking forward to a spirited conversation with you. But alas, my policy is to immediately disengage any and all communication with someone when they employ such childish, abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. However you should know that I am very forgiving and a good heart felt apology will make it all go away.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Again it depends on what meaning you pour into the term "evolution." I am sure that you agree that those 99+ scientists (I question it being that high) all start with the assumption that only natural causes can account for biological life. I remember hearing about a murder in a rural county where a sheriff's wife was found stabbed to death. In most murder cases like this the husband is always one of the main suspects. However all of the investigating deputies in this case started with the notion that no matter what, their boss was not the killer. Therefore they eliminated one of the chief suspects before the investigation even started, and greatly skewing the outcome. So when you say that 99+ scientists conclude evolution (ie naturalism) to be the only explanation for biological life, I can't help but wonder if science is really best served by majority rules?

Well you can call it a mistake if you like, but I should tell you that I am well versed in the scientific definition, and my use of it is completely intentional. You see I have found that while scientists (which only make up a minute portion of the entire population) love to cling to there little narrow definition, the rest of the working world have adapted the term to mean much more. So I always like to clarify what meaning you pour into the term. If by evolution you only mean observed change in a population over time, then yes evolution is an absolute fact. But if you pour into the term the concepts of abiogenesis and universal common decent then no it is at best only a really neat'o back drop for cool sci-fi movies.Those changes you refer to in the genome are not changes that take place as a result of added information to the chromosomal DNA as a result of random mutations. The changes are the result of natural selection "selecting" already existing alleles within the gene pool of a population. The fact that any given species can have well into the trillions of different varieties of offspring from already existing genes in the gene pool selection, actually can be interpreted as evidence for a designer rather than evolution. At the very most, this type of adaptation process only explains the survival of the population and not the existence of the population.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

I'm terribly sorry Iblis, if you thought I was wining. I was just trying to answer the question raised about 99% of scientists accepting evolution(universal common decent). I was pointing out that when you exclude one possibility from the start (without good cause), you are left with only trying to find answers that work with what is left. But what if the exclusion turned out to be the answer Iblis? Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot? I think so.BTW, ID people actually are doing "that"

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Great comeback Coyote. If you didn't want my comments then why bother engaging me?

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Actually I think that would be a crystal, which is classified as a natural pattern. As beautiful as a pattern may be to look at, it still is not specific, nor is it information necessary to perform a task. I said that no one has ever observed complex specified information form by random processes.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Well I should let you know I have never heard Dembski's version of csi. I did likely pick up the term from one of his associates though. But common sense should tell you that just because something has a visual pattern that we can recognize, does not equate to information. Ripple marks left by waves on a beach or beautiful crystal formations in the depths of a cave do not transmit bits of data that can be received and used. The precise arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA strand however do transmit bits of data that are received and used. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins has even been quoted as saying that the information in the DNA of a single celled amoeba is greater than that of a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannica.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Here's a recap of something I posted on another thread. See if this helps.Richard Dawkins has been quoted as having once said that the DNA of a single celled amoeba has more information than a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. obviously in order for him to make such a claim, there must be a meaningful way to identify and measure information. Wikipedia says: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information." The article also explains that information can be measured by measuring "the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021" Therefore in DNA, information refers specifically to the measurable algorithmic patterns in which the nucleotides are arranged, and specifically the number of bits of the shortest program that computes that sequence. It is also important to note that it is not necessary for information (in this case) to be mentally received and appreciated by a receiver in order to be classified as information. Another example of information might be when scientists study the signals sent by a honey bee to others in the hive (by way of his dance), or those sent by a dolphin (with its movements and high pitches), they determine the complexity of the information in much the same way. SETI researchers likewise conclude that if a single string of prime numbers were to be detected being transmitted from deep space this would also be a much higher algorithmic measurement then regular space noise. So much so that they would deem such a transmission as being intelligent in origin. Likewise the information in DNA is considered more and more complex as the bits of computable data become higher and higher when computing the algorithm patterns of the nucleotides of the genes in the DNA of an organism. When we compare that information measured in DNA, with say the information found in one book like an Encyclopedia Britannica, we find it is truly much more complex. One thousand times more complex, according to Dawkins. This brings me back to my original question. In order to transition from fish to creatures with legs, there would have to be a tremendous adding to and building up of information in the chromosomal DNA of an organism. So in order to biologically prove this was even possible we would have to have at least one observed example of a mutation adding new information to the DNA. Not just "copies and repeats" but actual new information that forms a new and novel function.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Yes I am going to talk about complex and specific information which does rule out natural patterns.

No, your absolutely right Nuggin, it doesn't mean that. Very good. I'm so proud of you.Buuuuuttttt it does mean that the best and most logical conclusion based on the whole of human experience so far, is that it was formed by an intelligent source. But you gave it away in your own words Nuggin. They are recorded "patterns" that we humans can use as information to tell us what might have been going on, but it is not complex specified information that was put there for the sole purpose of our use. That's not the case with DNA code. It's specific arrangement is for the purpose of building cell structures. But you aren't suggesting that that is why that information even exists are you?Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

Actually Nuggin, if someone were to reasonably present to me one example of a mutation that added new information to the chromosomal DNA of an organism, that had a positive effect on it's ability to survive, OR just one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils demonstrating smooth transition between two major forms, then that means that the Bible would be wrong. Specifically the book of Genesis. But if the book of Genesis were proven wrong then that would mean that, because in the New Testament Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the book of Genesis (creation account), therefor Jesus would in effect be wrong. And if Jesus was shown to be wrong in even one thing, then that would mean He is not Lord of all and my faith in Him was in vain.If you present me with the above evidence, as asked, then I will toss my Bible in the trash and never again darken the door way of another church. I would become a hard line evolutionist and atheist. But let me just say that I have a personal relationship with Christ and know beyond any doubt that this will never happen. That would be like someone trying to prove to me that my Dad was never born. The fact that I know him and have a personal relationship with him proves to me that there is no possible way that someone could prove he was never born.

Yes I do and I have already given those examples several times and demonstrated why. If you have a rebuttal I am all ears.

That would be a person who "not only is a customer, but also owns stock in the company."