Defence of Intelligent Design

I agree with NosyNed, since the Intelligent Design theory doesn't bring theology into its theory, you should just dwell on proving the creature lack of design or that life shows evidence of design, etc...

Whatever, Thank you for all you insightful and helpful words, and i'm sry as well for betraying our faith with my needless comments and unchristian response.BRAN

bran_sept88, Your welcome, lots of fiery darts on this site, keep the faith, etc...
P.S. I like this article on how the whales ribs collapsed because there "designed", to collapse so they are able to dive to the bottom of the ocean, etc...http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos2.html

Whatever, is there anyway i could get your email address i would enjoy corresponding with a fellow creationist who has apparently studies this out. You Can email it to me at brando@adgintegrated.com Thx again for the encouragement!

If I can show that there's no designer capable of the design that doesn't bring contradictions or infinite regression into the theory, then I've disproved the design conjecture.

Thread moved here from the Education and Creation/Evolution forum.

branI was wondering if you would still take the chance to answer the question I presented to you. I would really appreciate your taking the time to answer the actual question.It would be helpful if you could bring to bear how intelligent design works as well and what actual dicoveries have been made and what experiments performed in the real world.Thank you for your considerate response and have a great day.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

quote:

---

i would enjoy corresponding with a fellow creationist who has apparently studies this out.

---

I would like to caution you about discussing ID with "whatever". While he may have studied creationism, and so theories which suggest life was designed by god, that is totally separate from ID theory. What he espouses is best called what it is: creationism.There are many creationists which jump back and forth between both sets of argument (ID and creationism), and in the process weaken both.Intelligent Design theory does not use, in fact rejects, some of the arguments he has already used. MrHambre has given a better description of true ID theory, even as he rejected it.The main "textbook" of the ID movement (Darwin's Black Box) accepts old earth theory and most evolutionary theory. Michael Behe has even recognized (in that very book) that ID may only apply to abiogenesis, and so may completely accept evolution as the main source of speciation.The question ID asks is what can a scientist use as an indicator that an organism was designed, rather than having occured naturally. The ID model has not settled on any particular criteria, though they seem happy using variations on degree of complexity.They have also not settled on a model whether the designing is "tweaking" (minor help during evolution), "frontloading" (of particulars at biogenesis for later exhibition), or "master planned" (the entire design created in advance and then "kinds" placed in set order).These are just a few of its structural weaknesses and you will need to find defenses for them.But be careful and do not simply seek out those who appear to be saying what you want to hear. While many creationists believe that God designed life, that is not the same thing as ID theory.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Note from a pedant:This is not strictly true; a fossil is either a transitional or a terminal.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 01-23-2004]

Hah! And this demonstrates what, exactly? Are you claiming this is irreducibly complex, perhaps? How is it inexplicable via evolution? Since when was evolution unable to explain good designs?Okay, if you want to talk whales, please explain via intelligent design:

• why embryonic whales and dolphins have hind limb buds, that are then reabsorbed
• why embryonic baleen whales have teeth, that are then reabsorbed
• why whales can suffer from decompression sickness (‘the bends’) if they surface too rapidly, just like any other mammal
• why whales do not have gills -- why they have to breathe air; it is not uncommon for newborns to suffocate if they don’t get to the surface in time for their first breath
• why whales have bits of pelvis and hind limb buried deep inside the muscles of their back ends
• why the whale recurrent laryngeal nerve loops under the aorta by the heart on its way from one side of the ‘neck’ to the other
• why whale sperm (not sperm whales ) cannot be made at their body’s ambient temperature: they have internal testes, but being surrounded by huge tail-moving muscles, these require an elaborate system to cool the blood around the testes.
• why several river dolphin species have eyes that barely work, which are superfluous anyway as the water is too cloudy and they manage fine with echolocation
• why whale retinas, like all other mammalian retinas, are wired in facing away from the incoming light
• why whale mitochondria, like all other mitochondria, have their own, entirely separate DNA

... and so on.

Hi Bran, how are you?Wow, after reading your reply I had to go back to my post and see just what is was I said that could have gotten you so angry. In all honesty, I'm still not sure what is was, but I would guess is was that you didn't like reading the truth. None-the-less, let's move on to your reply. First off, since, in the above quote, you used the word "theory" I assume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, because the word doesn't apply to creationism. Well guess what Bran, in your original post you never asked for information regarding the ToE, so I didn't feel the need to address it in my response. Second, I never classified you as a religious fundamentalist (but if you want to slide that shoe on yourself and see if it fits...), nor did I present any sort of straw man argument (I will say this, creationisist seem to toss that phrase around quite a bit, so I'm wondering if you even know what it means?). And on what do you base this comment? I'm seriously asking you Bran, right now, to back this up based on anything I said in my reply. What I did say was for you (actually, it was an open invitation to any creationist) to back up your claim that ID is based on science...and as usual, it was ignored and instead you issued groundless accusations and threats. I can't do it Bran. Remember, in your original post you said you were writing a paper in defense of ID, so it's impossible to give you any science what-so-ever in support. Now, if you're asking me to give you scientific evidence in support of the ToE, well what can I say other than you have to be kidding. I am not going to spend a lot of time giving you scientific evidence when we both know that you don't really care. And I also have a feeling that you will probably use this as an excuse to say something that will imply that I don't have any evidence because none exists. To that I reply...try reading posts at this wed site. And if you're asking me to give you scientific evidence against creationism, just continue reading this reply. More goundless accusations. Where exactly in my reply did I ever type the words "oh it is obviously wrong"? But let me say this: ID does not fit as a scientific theory because it presents no testable hypotheses. Or let me put it to you this way: by using the scientific method, we scientists can disprove the tenets of ID claims. It has been done over and over and over.
Again, what I did ask was that for once I would like to see any creationist back up their claim that ID has a solid scientific foundation. And again the request was ignored. Come on Bran, be the first to do it. I'm asking you to please, in the name of your God, please, in your next reply, please, oh please, oh please, give me any scientific evidence that supports ID/creationism. You said that I know nothing about science, which I take it to mean that you think you know so much more than I, so put up or shut up. Give me one single solitary piece of scientifically testable information that supports creationism. One piece. Surely with your vastly superior scientific intellect, and all the scientific data and publications out there that support creationism, you can come up with one piece to present here. Ok, now I'm getting pissed. WTF are you talking about? Did you read ANYTHING at all that I wrote? Please, please,please, show me where I in anyway bad mouthed you friends! I realize that you have since apologized for threatening me (see Bran, I read what was actually written), but it still upsets me that you got all bent out of shape about things that I never said. Why did you get so pissed Bran? Was it really because I (and many others I'm sure) quickly noticed that the canon of your orginal post look very familiar, rather than something specific I wrote about your friends? This sentence is so full of contradictions I'm not sure where to begin.
Lets start with Ok, bran, support the theory of gravity using the scientific method and then disprove evolution by the same means.
You continue with which tells me that you wouldn't accept any scientific evidence that I did provide you with. This is follwed by which only drives home the point that despite overwhelming scientific support derived from experiments conducted by thousands of scientists from around the World that are experts in scientific disiplines including, but not at all limited to, chemistry, geology, physics, astronomy, and biology, you will ignore all of it. And I say this becasue you finish off with First off, notice how this contradicts your earlier statement in which you said "...and would enjoy your scientific advise (I think you meant to write the word "advice" here)..." You do realize that this also means that you cannot take advice from anyone, because we all share a common ancesteor with the apes (yes, even you bran_sept88). Maybe you should look deep inside yourself bran_sept88, and see where the real truth resides. Do it bran...seek your inner monkey.Hey, I like that phrase...seek your inner monkey...I think I'll use it as my signature. (I must confess, my wife came up with the phrase.)

---

Seek your inner monkey

This thread probably needs to focus more on the topic and less on the interpersonal stuff.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

ROFLOL! Bwahahahaha!That's great. Whew. Let me wipe the tears from my eyes. Can I use this tonight during the discussion after "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" DVD is shown at our "church" (village, really)? Maybe I can bring it up right after the video footage of Ken Ham doing his silly quips and one liners designed to avoid all evidence.

I'm sorry, I missed the picture of God's nose, or I would have been able to see plainly, too. Can you tell me where I can see God's nose and compare it with ours?

Whatever, hello again and a good morning to you: You are seriously telling me that since insects cannot grow large because of the physiological constraints of an exoskeleton, that this is proof of intelligent design, etc... (ha, sorry mark24, but I couldn't resist )? Seriously? Are you for real? Are you reading this bran-sept88? This is just to sort of mindless, untestable drivel I was referring to when I said that creationism presents no scientifically testable hypotheses.If I'm understanding you, whatever, you are saying that if you remove the exoskeleton, then the size limits of insects is also negated, allowing them (what ever they may be, because without an exoskeleton, they sure as hell are not insects) to grow to huge proportions? And in your case, there's another problem to overcome. You always want to claim micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Good luck with that one with this example. Small insects loosing their exoskeleton and becoming large organisms would definitely be a great example of "macro-evolution" (or are you simply going to say "no it isn't", like a two year old arguing with his parents). Back it up this time. Explain to me how such an example...your example...would be in any way, shape, or form, micro-evolution.
Anyway, how would you test this? Ah...there's the rub. You see, we stupid old evolutionists can use the ToE to make predictions. Actually we've done just that thoudsands of times, and each time the predictions have been verified by data that was later collected. We would never make such a jack-ass claim like yours because it violates the rules of the scientific method. Are you understaning any of this? In order for your claim (that ID is a valid scientific theory) to be true, you have to be able to not just make predictions, but design experiments to test those predictions. So what's you test?

---

Seek your inner monkey