Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

As explained to you, the filter that is shown to work very effectively does not require intelligence. This filter is testable, can make predictions, and the tests can be independantly verified.Yes, laymen can 'weigh' in on anything they want. However, manytimes they base their opinion on ignorance of the subject matter.You claim to see an indication of intelligence. Evolutionary biologists see a mechanism where an intelligence is not required, and manage to test that mechanism.Lets see you come up with a way to test for intelligence in the biological system. No one has yet been able to come up with a satisfactory method. It would earn you a nobel prize if you could. Claims based on the logical falacy of personal incrediblity just don't cut it in science. Do you think you can do better?

I don’t know if this is a “hang up” but I do think the indication of design is strong. Do you think it is weak? Would then say that reproduction is a “goal” of the process of evolution?Would you say that keeping life going is a “goal” of the process?If so then something none physical has “decided” that the primary objective is to keep the phenomenon of living from being terminated. Did that non physical thing also itself evolve? Was there something prior to that which “decided” that the objective was to arrive at a non-physical thing would come into existence that would have program of keeping life living? But if so this prior thing would have existed before life existed. How could it “know” that it needed a entity to keep life living when it “knew” nothing of the existence of life?If you say “We just don’t know yet” I would respect that. And I would ask that while you Evolutionists are trying to figure that one out let’s hear from another theory on it. We’re all supposedly looking for the truth. Something “knows” what is a perfectly replicated molecule and when one fails to meet the standard the process of evolution is triggered?Did the “decider of perfect verses imperfect molecules” also arrive at through the process of evolution? What then decided between an imperfect and a perfect decider of imperfect and perfect molecules?Maybe we should also explore a theory of Intelligent Design while Evolutionists study the answer to that. I’m a composer and a programmer. I have plenty of imagination.I can see the beauty and elegance of the theory. I just question if that is what explains all these animals. And if so to what extent?Going back to software, you may know what nesting is. I mean one logical loop nested inside another logical loop. I see things like that going on in biology - an alogorithim nested inside another algorithim. For example the cycle of reproduction going on inside the cycle of natural selection.If you have several loops of logic nested within each other in concentric circles to carry out something as a whole unit, it is difficult to assume intelligence was not involved. I don’t know how we arrived at the point that to suggest intelligence is involved could give rise to such disdain by intelligent people. I think the case which I would inquire about would be different from this one. I think I ask something like this:Is evolution a process which arrived at a way to produce a human male as a way to perpetuate the survival of a sperm cell? Or was it a process to produce a human sperm cell in order to perpetuate the survival of a human?Which was the final objective - the human or the sperm? And without intelligent design how did this natural process prioritize which life form is for the means and which is for the ends?Did evolution produce human beings so that sperms could continue? Or way it the other way around? If either way doesn’t this “deciding” reveal a plan, a foresight or some kind of “look ahead” ability to “know” what is the desired outcome and steer towards it? This is the response that I get quite often. I just don’t understand evolution. This is a frequently used dismissal. The questioner of Evolution simply does not understand Evolution.Since the more I go back and and study, I get this response, I suppose that I will just have to trust those that really understand Evolution that it is a proven fact.I guess class is dismissed. Thanks for your comments just the same. Don’t think they were all in vain.Hope you don't mind if I talk to a few other people here.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-21-2005 06:43 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-21-2005 06:53 PM

Evolution has no "goal," nor more than gravity has a "goal". It is simply a natural process. Natural selection is not a "thing." It is an attribute of a system of imperfectly replicating molecules. You misunderstand. There are no perfect molecules, and there is no filter of imperfect vs. perfect molecules. The system of evolution is one of imperfectly-replicating molecules - the replication is imperfect, allowing for change.Do you understand now? The natural process had no "objective" or "priority", because it has no intelligence. You are making false arguments because evolution has no intelligence guiding it.I have to ask again, because I'm not sure why you are avoiding what is a reasonable, straightforward question:"Are you suggesting that when natural selection via predation favors brown mice over black mice on brown terrain, that there is supernatural intervention guiding the owls to the black mice?" Actually, I didn't say "you don't understand evolution." I said that "you don't seem to have a true understanding" of evolution. The reason you don't "seem" to understand is because you are personifying evolution with "goals" and "decisions" and "priorities", all of which are counter to the theory of evolution. Your arguments against evolution are not really against evolution, in other words - they are missing the mark. Hopefully you were not insulted by my statement that you don't appear to understand evolution, but I have nothing to go by other than your off-the-mark arguments. My intent in entering discussion with you has nothing to do with "winning" or "beating you" - I'd really like you to help understand what evolution is all about.Ignorance is not a bad thing, but willful ignorance, refusal to learn, is definitely a bad thing.Please let me know if you'd like to continue discussion - if so, I think a good place to start would be for you to give me a quick definition of the theory of evolution in your own words as a jumping-off point. If it turns out that you have a good understanding of evolution, then we can jump into arguments for ID and against evolution.Thanks.

I'm wondering what you mean by "design" and what indications you see.I can sit down with cookbooks, and design a fancy meal. Or I can raid the pantry and cobble together something of a meal out of the food I find. I would use the term "design" only for the first of these, and I would say that the second method of preparing a meal was ad hoc.To me, nature looks ad hoc. Sure, it works well, just as my ad hoc meal could be very nutritional. But it still looks ad hoc.Explain to us where you see the design. I sometimes say things along that line. But that's just a goal that I ascribe to the system. Am I non-physical? Does it make me non-physical that I ascribe such a goal to evolutionary processes?There isn't any magic needed to explain this. By random chance we might expect some processes to behave in ways that tend to keep those processes going. And we might expect other processes to act in ways that do not tend to sustain them. If you come back after a while and see which processes are still going, then it should be obvious that it will be the processes that happened to be acting in ways that are self-sustaining.It doesn't take assumptions about supernatural intervention to understand this.If you ask "why is there anything at all, and not just nothing", then you have a question that has no easy answer. But you would need a different thread to discuss that, since it would be off topic in this thread.

---

Impeach Bush.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread, been busy with other things. Not only is this not an answer to the initial question of the OP (namely "What is the mechanics of ID?"). But this also doesn't hold to it's own internal logic.The supposed lack of evidence in a theory does not validate a different theory. For example, gravity. No one can tell you how gravity works. You can not show me the cause of gravity. This, however, does not validate the "theory of the perpetual pusher" - a being who's all extending power is used to hold things down. Again, not logically consistent. First of all, what missing transitionals? All? You want fossils from every thing which has ever lived? Second, if there were absolutely no fossils at all, would that disprove ToE? Third, by inverse of your own logic, wouldn't ID therefore be disproven by the existance of ANY transitional. (Archie anyone?) And, fourth, what does this comment have to do with "the mechanics of ID?" Can these "scientists" answer the question: "What are the mechanics of Intelligent Design?" So, for example, when my keys go "missing" it's because my keys never existed? What happens when I find my keys? Do I thank the Intelligent Keymonger? Nothing is required to "invalidate" the ID movement. ID has yet to "validate" itself.Here's a quick guide to validation -1) Come up with a hypothesis. - Check
2) Explain the MECHANICS of your hypothesis - Um, waiting on that one
3) Devise a test to check for data which supports your hypothesis - Can't do that until we take care of number 2
4) Devise a test to check for data which disproves your hypothesis - Still gotta wait on good old number 2
5) Publish and ask others to do both similiar and more intense testing - Still waiting on good old number 2.So, perhaps you'd like to step up to bat and give it a shot"What are the mechanics of Intelligent Design?"

Not really the point of the thread. I understand what ID is. What I don't understand is why no one seems to be able to explain how it works.Let me give an example:What is a car?
A car is a vehicle, driven by an engine running on fuel. It's used to travel from one location to another.That's a perfectly fine definition of "a car". Not the best, not the worst.But that does not answer this question:
How does a car work?Here's a good (albeit rough) answer to that:
Fuel (typically gasoline) is sprayed into a chamber and ignited. The force of the resulting combustion pushes a piston. A collection of these pistons working in series turns the drive shaft which powers the wheels. The more gas which is combusted, the faster the wheels turn.Could we go into more detail? Yeah. But, I'm just trying to get the basic concept across.Now let's do ToEWhat is Theory of Evolution?
ToE is a theory which explains the diversity of life on the planet through the process of mutation, heridity and natural selection.How does Theory of Evolution work?
All life is based on the building blocks of DNA. The process of reproduction allows for mixing of DNA(heridity)/changes in DNA(mutation). The resulting organism may be more or less suited for survival. Those which are more suited for survival thrive. Their features become more prevalent, until newer, better features emerge and the process repeats itself.Okay, now let's do Intelligent Design:What is Intelligent Design?
ID is the theory that the variety of life we see around us is the result of careful planning by an entity or entities of great intelligence.How does Intelligent Design work?
???That's what needs to be answered.Care to step up?

I don't understand this statement.From everything I've seen, ID is based on the lack of evidence.In other words, "ID would be true if there were no evidence which contradicted it".But I haven't seen any evidence which "supports" ID. Largely because no one has been able to explain to me how evidence can be classified to be in support of ID, since no one can explain to me how ID works.If you were to say, that ID works because there are tiny magic elves that measure everything out with tools that are 1.5 mm in diameter. Then you went on to show me that the smallest gap in any living thing was never smaller than 1.5 mm, that would be a start.But, as it stands, all I'm hearing is that ID is supported by this idea that certain fossils (like Archie for example) don't exist.But, sadly they do exists. So, since they exist, doesn't that pretty much shut down ID?

Nuggin, I'm evolving more into a YEC and believing the evidence more supports YECisms than ID. I agree ID has been proven by the lack of transitionals, but so is YECisms. I'd rather see YEC taught alongside of ID. Evolution if taught should have a disclaimer that its just a theory. I'll Pass for the Now. Maybe later. Like how ID evolved from the TOE.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-22-2005 02:13 AM

Golfer, Perhaps YEC & ID should have disclaimers stating that they aren't scientific theories at all.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Golfer, do you understand what a scientific theory is? Like so many other fanatics out there, I really don't think you do.The fact that you are giving up on ID when confronted with a question about how it works and turning to YEC simply reveals that you have been a YEC all along, wanting to cram your personal religious beliefs down the throats of people who are more educated than yourself.It's sad that you don't have enough faith in your religion to allow it to stand on it's own.But, since you'd "rather see YEC taught alongside of ID." I'll give you the same shot I'm giving the IDers.What are the mechanics of Creation? If you are going to teach it in school, step up.How does Creation work? What tools/techniques/devices are used? Given a specific subject, how do we test if "Creation" was used? How would we prove that Creation was not used?Can you answer that? Or, when you said "teach" did you actually mean "force feed my religion on innocent people"?

I would think that the FACT it's called The Theory of Evolution might have been a hint. ROTFLMAO.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nuggin, The speed of light has been broken, are we seeing the entire visible universe in near present time. Energy = the speed of light squared.The scientific evidence is causing scientist to re-evaluate cherished beliefs. TOE has too many problems that are answered by ID, but the breaking of lights speed supports the YECists.-------------------------------------------------Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US.The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light.Earlier this year, a team of physicists made a microwave beam travel 7% faster than light speed. Last year, they announced that they had even slowed light down to almost a crawl.It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time.Or so almost all physicists think - for now. Privately, some admit that experiments such as Dr Wang's may force a reassessment of some cherished ideas.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stmThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-22-2005 01:25 PMThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-22-2005 01:35 PM

For the 10th time I will post definitions. Maybe the IDers and YEC's will read them this time.
Theory
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Scientific Theory uses 1. YEC's and IDers have only heard of definition 2. Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

1) How does this support your view?
2) What the hell does the speed of light have to do with TOE or ID?

You seem to be trying to discredit scientific study in general, by bringing in random bits of information from all over the place.I must echo Theodoric's message 149:1) How does this support your view?
2) What the hell does the speed of light have to do with TOE or ID?Stick to somewhere at least close to the theme of the topic.Adminnemooseus

---