What exactly is ID?

Hi traderdrew,
Thankyou for your kind comments. I realized I wasn't articulating my possition very well so I am taking some time to "circle my wagons" and regroup. I'll be back on the pitching mound.

I wasn't going to respond to any of you but your post is another issue. I retract it but here is something I will not retract. I have found no victory in debating people who do not wish to be persuaded. Just look at the video posted in message #753. Didn't I debate the first point of that video in this very thread? Those exact quotes were here posted by Dr. A. Many of you just don't get it and I suspect you don't wish to.I realize there isn't absolute concrete evidence for ID but this isn't the case either for materialistic causes for the existence of life. I have a certain respect for science but many people around here don't respect ID and I don't think many of them want to.

Who would wish to be persuaded? Are you confusing persuasion with open-mindedness? If someone can't be persuaded, they are close-minded? I've heard this from my brother-in-law. he said to me: "You are ignorant because you don't believe christianity." It appears you don't. ID is not science. It hasn't earned respect. It HAS earned a severe amount of disrespect due to the frivalous lies it portrays.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Well then what you are talking about is specifically the Christian led ID movement rather than the arguments and claims of evidence for ID as things that can be taken in themselves. That's fine if we are just talking about ID as a current social phenomenon. But I stand by the distinction in terms of claimed evidence and arguments in principle. Surely the arguments of ID are able to be applied to anyone who believes in any sort of magic being that created everything? But that magic being doesn't have to be the Christian god. Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design? - IslamOnline Well obviously all ID arguments are gonna invoke a magical designer of some sort at root. By definition. But it doesn't have to be the Christian God does it? But it still doesn't have to be Christian creationism does it? Yes they can. Here for the sake of argument let me try.There is evidence of design in nature (let's pretend I believe that). This is "proved" by irreducible complexity and the conservation of information.I declare the designer to be the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. I declare Christ and Christians to be false prophets duped by the great trickster the Ethereal Squirrel. I am an anti-Christian IPUist who would tear down all the churches of the world (the IPU hates worshippers and just wants us to get on with our lives free from deistic interference - I know this because she told me)So is my pretend persona a Christian creationist? Is he an IDist?

Well of course not. Because ID isn't scientific. But then concluding that a magic sky being is ultimately responsible for anything is difficult to reconcile with being "STRICTLY scientific". It is obvious that behind the current ID movement in North America (and no doubt to an extent the West in general) lies Christianity.But that isn't the same as the arguments of ID being the same as the arguments of biblical literalism in principle. I could be a moslem IDist, an IPU IDist or whatever. The current ID movement is highly prolific. But I wonder what we would find if we loooked up Intelligent Design in Arabic? Well doesn't a theistic evolutionist think that a superior Intelligence is guiding stuff behind the scenes in some way? The difference between a theistic evolutionsit and an ID proponent of irreducible complexity is what........? In terms of the mechanisms of evolution? Do both fully accept RANDOM mutation? Perhaps one more than the other but the differences don't seem to be as great as you seem to be suggesting.

Well that seems quite a limited view of things to me.We could refute all the purely Christian creationist arguments about floods and what-not and still never touch any of the arguments of ID which are, in princile, applicable to any supernatural designer one can conceive of.I think, in terms of arguments and evidence, ID needs to be tackled in it's own right regardless of the current conflations of Western biblical creationists.

So you are OK with following the moving goalposts? You are going to lend credence to anything they throw out? When they finally learn that ID is shit, there will be another dog and pony show to take IT'S place.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Can you show that it is wrong? I worded it very carefully. Floods and what-not are not a part of ID. ID is just a cover story, creationism stripped to it's barest essentials. It has to be that way to keep up the pretense that it is science. The evidence is clear that the modern ID movement in the US started after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was "designed" to replace creation "science" and get Christian fundamentalism back into the schools in the false guise of science. This was shown in detail in the Dover decision.If you disagree, show where this is incorrect. But be prepared to show how the Discovery Institute, and their tame creationist scientists, are promoting actual science instead of a narrow brand of fundamentalist Christianity. What is their research budget? Where are their laboratories? Do they employ any scientists who are not dedicated creationists first?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are arguing that _theoretically_ there could be an IDer who is not a Creationist.Yes, _theoretically_ there could be.But do we have real life examples?Islamic IDers are still believers in the Jewish Wizard, just like the Christians.I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a Hindi IDer, but I certainly have never heard of one.And, as we've seen repeatedly, no one in the ID movement can have any of their statements taken at face value. Certainly Creationists have demonstrated a strong desire to avoid the truth.So where does that leave us? Can we take any IDers claims to NOT be a Creationist on face value? I seriously doubt it.SO has demonstrated repeatedly that he's not a big fan of honesty. So, in my book, his protestations against being labeled a Creationist are EVIDENCE THAT he's a Creationist.

Flawed? Your claims lead to a very serious problem. You claim that an accumulation of mutations, filtered through selection, which lead to a more complex organism constitute a loss of information. What about mutations that result in a different function?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I don't understand the IPU's motivation to waste our tax dollars getting herself into science class then? I think she would much more interested in invading sunday schools and bible studies.. . .Let's face it, ID is a failed concept. Dover finished him. He needs a new name.As Smooth has demonstrated repeatedly, Dembski's methodology only applies to lifeforms. It won't help us distinguish lighthouses from pulsars, or broken rocks from tools. Nor can anything specific be said about the identity of the designer; it could be an alien, it could be a Jew / wizard, it could be an endless chain of turtles. It's not supposed to matter!So fine, let's call a spade a spade. Generic organic designer!

The ID movement will tolerate a few token non-creationists for PR value. They haven't thrown Behe out, despite his change of position, and I don't think that Berlinski is a creationist. On the other hand, I did run across the story of an ID supporter who says that he was asked to leave (by Philip Johnson, no less) - because he wasn't a creationist.

Which moving goalposts? The goalposts that say that disproving biblical literalism refutes ID? That is the goalpost moving I am objecting to here. I am not "lending credenece" to anything. I think that ID is as evidentially bankrupt as a theory as is scientifically possible. But that still doesn't make it identical in terms of argument or evidential validity to biblical literalism. Are you saying this is untrue? How can you show that "ID is shit" if you say it is the same thing as biblical Christian literalism? When it blatantly isn't the same in terms of arguments and evidential claims.

Wrong? No. Limited? Yes. Yeah I noticed. So did I. If by "ID" you mean the Christian creationist driven ID movement then - Yes. I am not disagreeing with that.But is ID simply a North American Christian creationist invention? Or is it something that transcends particular religions that present day Christian creationists have seized upon as a means to an end?I would say the latter. Do you really disagree? So the ID movement in North America is founded upon Christian attempts at social acceptance. Yeah - I don't dispute that.But does disproving Christian creationsit arguments refute ID arguments? That is my question. That is my point.We can both agree that the present social climate in the Christian West makes the two things socially indistinguishable and I won't argue with you. But does that make the arguments against ID the same as those against Christian notions of creationism? I say no. Because I can advocate the IPU as the designer of the universe, be totally anti-Christian and still make ID arguments.Which part of that do you not understand? So showing that all creationists support ID is the same as saying that all IDists are creationists? Is that what you are saying?I personally know people who if you ask them "is there evidence of design in nature?" will say quite possibly yes. Yet they would cringe in horror at the idea of being classed as Christian creationists.How do you reconcile that with your absolute assertion that the ID and Christian creationism are identically the same thing?They obviously are not. Whatever political fight you need to have pretending the two are evidentially the same serves no-one but the liars and evidence deniers that I would hope me and you are both against.

Her Pinkness has no desire to be mentioned in any science classroom. She abhors such things. And would ban them if not for the principle of non-interference. Legaly? Yes. Spiritually? Yes. IPUism is the true path to redemption. Why not? OK. So the IPU nly concerned itself with life-forms. What is your point? The IPU is the designer. Whether uou believe this or not the evidence of design is obvious and prevalent.You are in denial regarding the design that is all around us. Oh you fool! Believe and you will see. In the meantime trust us that have expereinced her pinkness and accept the logic of design in nature as being evidence of an immaterial supernatural designer no matter what you believe that designer to be. Call her that if it makes you happy. But the IPU is the majesterial intelligence behind the design of all nature.