Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

Shraf: Nope, sorry. Creation science isn't science.
Phil: You mean not naturalistic science; a problem you and I keep butting heads about. Psychology is both an art and a science, yet hardly naturalistic science. The same with Creation science.

---

Very clever ploy Phil, but wrong. Psychology is very much naturalistic. Pschologists theorize, experiment, record, analyze and conclude like any other branch of science. What would make you think otherwise? The same can not be said of "Creation science". Shraf has it right, creation science isn't science.Clear Skies !Frank

quote:

---

Frank, I have a B.A. in Psychology! Not a B.S.! Much of psychology, Freud, Adler, Horney, Jung, etc., is metaphysical. Freud, for example, gives us concepts of the psyche, the sea of the subconscious, libido, and hosts of other metaphysical concepts. Psychology is essentially another conglomeration of humanistic and naturalistic cults (if you will), bent on demeaning humanity via quantitization and other naturalistic ploys. Yet, Shraf speaks of her husband doing research psychology that seems perhaps to fit naturalistic behavioral psychologic science: a more focused and disciplined endeavor.

---

Phil,I have a B.S. in Psychology, perhaps this is why we differ in opinion. Interesting that you pick the names you do but avoid Pavlov or Skinner. I would not define psychology as you do but prefer to simply say it is the study of behavior. I see you will grant that "research" psychology is a naturalistic and disciplined endevour, and this is the context I meant in my earlier post. Trying to elevate the status of creation science by comparing it to modern psychology is still a ploy and it is wrong. Creation science aint science.Clear Skies !Frank

quote:

---

Your response seems to manifest extreme bias in you last sentence.

---

Bias? Opinionated? Having firm convictions? Phrase it however you like, I can agree. Maybe a reason for participating at this site. So, exactly what do you have a problem with here?

quote:

---

Obviously, you have a biased definition based on naturalistic beginnings and endings of the creation.

---

Not so obvious at all Phillip. Forgive my "bias" for assuming you have absolutely no idea at all of what my thoughts on creation are. Please present some form of coherent argument.

quote:

---

I accept the definition(s) based on the search for mechanistic truth, even as stated on the bigotted talk-origins (ToE) forum.

---

I have not yet been to this site and really don't feel comfortable in commenting about the content there.

quote:

---

Why not go back to your older non-naturalistic dictionaries, Frank, and see what paradigm you are inferring with your biased modern dictionary definition of science.

---

You didn't like the definition of psychology that I used?Clear Skies !Frank

OK, so we differ in how we interpret observations.I will not argue for/against your faith. It is something very personal and hope you do rejoice in it.As for your last question:

quote:

---

Do you or anyone on this forum have any idea how an enzyme (say a simple kinase enzyme) could have evolved with its delicate active site force-vectors? I see IC written all over the phenomenon.

---

For myself, no, I can't answer that question. But I am glad to read that you can see IC written all over it, as this would assume you understand IC. I have been following another thread on what is ID and must admit I am confused as to exactly what is ID/IC. Are they the same ? Perhaps you would like to post an explanation there.Clear Skies !Frank