The I in ID

So, no theories. At no point did Pasteur, Newton, or any of the others invoke the supernatural in their scientific theories.Which is just as I said. Please, don't misrepresent my argument by failing to respond to the entire point. What I said was this:

quote:

---

But archeologists don't acertain aspects of the populations that lived in the areas they study; what they do is acertain what aspects of human populations that have already been observed can be reasonably applied to the population that lived where they're studying.

---

Archeologists don't deduce aspects of their studied populations from nothing but their artifacts. From observation of living populations they ascertain what aspects they can apply to the studied ones.So, what intelligent, supernatural designer have you observed, from which to deduce what aspects your proposed designer of life will have? What's arrogant about it? What did I say that wasn't true?Is it true that humans are the only intelligent organisms we've ever observed?Is it true that humans were not, by any indication, present 4 billion years ago?Those are not controversial or arrogant positions, to my mind. They're simply statements of fact. But we observe the evolutionary creation of IC systems. So clearly, intelligence is not responsible for every IC system. The evolution of lac operons in E. coli. Case closed.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
So, no theories. At no point did Pasteur, Newton, or any of the others invoke the supernatural in their scientific theories.

---

Yes they did. All you have to do is read what they wrote. Newton invoked God. He understood his observances were part of God's creation. He even wrote about it.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Archeologists don't deduce aspects of their studied populations from nothing but their artifacts. From observation of living populations they ascertain what aspects they can apply to the studied ones.

---

That's incorrect. What can we tell about ancient Egyptians by observing the Egyptians of today? Nothing.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Is it true that humans are the only intelligent organisms we've ever observed?

---

No, it isn't true. Other animals have shown intelligence also.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
But we observe the evolutionary creation of IC systems. So clearly, intelligence is not responsible for every IC system.

---

That is also incorrect.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The evolution of lac operons in E. coli. Case closed.

---

So YOU are saying the lac operons in E. Coli are/ is IC? How so? And then you have to show that random mutations and NS are solely responsible. Case far from closed.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
It's desperate of you to accuse me of knowing little about a subject that I've studied at length.

---

Not desparate, it is based on observation that you haven't studied ID at any length. It is that obvious.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Quite simply, if you don't know anything about the designer, you can't conceivably ascertain exactly how he would design the artifacts you claim are his handiwork.

---

Nice goalpost movement. ID isn't about the designer or how it was designed. ID is about the design. But someone who has studied this debate would have known that. We MAY be able to deduce soemthing about how it was designed by studying it. Even if we don't we should be able to deduce something about the design, which is the point. Even IF we knew something about a designer that wouldn't mean we knew how that designer designed.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
The only thing we know about irreducibly complex systems is that they need all their components to perform their current function.

---

We also know IC systems, every one we have observed (outside of biology) is the product of an IDer.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
The assertion that they cannot be the product of step-by-step Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous canard, and the notion that they are "evidence" of intelligent design is mere wishful thinking on the part of creationists.

---

Your posts are ridiculous canards. Your continued assertion that ID is creationism, in light of the evidence that refutes that notion, is proof of that.Falsify ID if you can.As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question What distinguishes science from nonscience? as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. As Laudan explains, If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’theydo only emotive work for us. As Martin Eger summarized,[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that is a different world." pg. 77 Darwinism, Design and Public EducationSorry Mr. Hambre but your "arguments" against ID are sophmoric at best and blatant misrepresentation at worst. It is obvious you know very little about ID or Creation. As for wasting time- that is exactly what you do best.Seeing that there isn't any such thing as ID Creationism, I can't answer any questions about it.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Science is about finding supported and logical explanations for observable phenomena. It has nothing to do with "truth", as that implies we have discovered incontravertible rules by which nature operates.

---

I see you haven't read the memo: [i]As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question What distinguishes science from nonscience? as both intractable and uninteresting. [b]Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. [/i][/b] pg. 77 of [i]Darwinism, Design and Public Education (bold added){From Adminnemooseus - The previous, with the UBB code fixed (see "raw text" for how it's done):As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question What distinguishes science from nonscience? as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. pg. 77 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education (bold added)}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-09-2004 12:32 PM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

you haven't studied ID at any length.

---

1) If someone disagrees with you, it's because he's ignorant.

quote:

---

ID isn't about the designer or how it was designed. ID is about the design.

---

2) You can assume something was designed if you don't have any idea how the item would look if it weren't designed.

quote:

---

Even IF we knew something about a designer that wouldn't mean we knew how that designer designed.

---

3) You can know how a designer's design would look even if you don't know how the designer designs.

quote:

---

We also know IC systems, every one we have observed (outside of biology) is the product of an IDer.

---

4) If some things are designed by a intelligent designer, they all are.

quote:

---

Your continued assertion that ID is creationism, in light of the evidence that refutes that notion, is proof of that.

---

5) Mentioning evidence is the same as presenting it. Refutations can't be refuted.

quote:

---

Falsify ID if you can.

---

6) The burden of proof is always on your opponents. Unfalsifiability is the hallmark of a good theory.

quote:

---

Sorry Mr. Hambre but your "arguments" against ID are sophmoric at best and blatant misrepresentation at worst.

---

7) Claiming victory is the same as winning a debate. Spell check is overrated.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Sedimentary rock strata are geologic systems. They are also irreducibly complex, in that if you remove a lower stratum, you have nothing to support what is above.By that reasoning, ID is required for the sedimentary rocks to have formed.Moose{Edited yet again, to change from the default "admin mode" - MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-09-2004 12:45 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you haven't studied ID at any length.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hambre
1) If someone disagrees with you, it's because he's ignorant.Only if the evidence shows it. In this case the evidence shows it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID isn't about the designer or how it was designed. ID is about the design.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hambre:
2) You can assume something was designed if you don't have any idea how the item would look if it weren't designed.You can INFER something was designed if that something has the hallmarks of design:
Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike Behequote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even IF we knew something about a designer that wouldn't mean we knew how that designer designed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hambre:
3) You can know how a designer's design would look even if you don't know how the designer designs.Now you are just being stupid. I don't know how my house was designed, but I know it was designed. The same can be said of most of my posessions.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also know IC systems, every one we have observed (outside of biology) is the product of an IDer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hambre:
4) If some things are designed by a intelligent designer, they all are.Now you are just being obtuse. However I don't know if it is on purpose...quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your continued assertion that ID is creationism, in light of the evidence that refutes that notion, is proof of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hambre:
5) Mentioning evidence is the same as presenting it. Refutations can't be refuted.The evidence HAS been presented. You just choose to ignore it. And that is why I can conclude that you are ignorant.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falsify ID if you can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hambre:
6) The burden of proof is always on your opponents. Unfalsifiability is the hallmark of a good theory.Your attempts to spin my post is duly noted. Your lack of knowledge of ID, Creation and science is also duly noted.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

minnemooseus:
Sedimentary rock strata are geologic systems. They are also irreducibly complex, in that if you remove a lower stratum, you have nothing to support what is above.
By that reasoning, ID is required for the sedimentary rocks to have formed.

---

If that is what you want to believe than go ahead. I doubt you will see any IDists try that line.... If you remove a lower stratum the GC does not stop being the GC.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

If you remove any part of a human, they don't stop being a human. Removing certain parts will just cause humans to stop working properly.And as we all know, a design in which the loss of one part results in total non-function is always the hallmark of a good designer.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Hydrogen.
Water.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If you remove a lower stratum the GC does not stop being the GC.

---

This illustrates the problem of using undefined abreviations (this example has happened before).GC can mean "Grand Canyon", or it can mean "Geologic Column".People, define your abreviations if the context does not make it clear.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

There are many IC systems, in biology and outside of it. Is hydrogen really IC? Sure it is irreducuble but it isn't complex. Water isn't complex either.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

My apologies. Actually either will work- grand canyon or geologic column (but I meant GC as in geologic column and not George Carlin)

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

IOW you have faith that there is a natural mechanism for creating design in living organisms, because you haven't any evidence for it.

---

Natural mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing novel enzymes and proteins. This is all that is needed for evolution to occur. For instance, the nylon bug. Also, genetic algorithms are able to construct things associated with human design, such as a radio circuit. The process of random variation and selection are able to create design.Now, can you give me one instance of an OBSERVED CHANGE in biological design due to the intelligent agent responsible for life on earth? Can you even give us evidence of the designer outside of the design? Or do we have to take this on faith?

quote:

---

Also you haven't any evidence for life coming from non-life by nature acting alone- more faith required.

---

Evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of life, that is abiogenesis. The theories of evolution would not be changed if an alien deposited bacteria on earth and that bacteria evolved into the biodiversity we see today.

quote:

---

Yes they did. All you have to do is read what they wrote. Newton invoked God. He understood his observances were part of God's creation. He even wrote about it.

---

Can you please show me where in Newton's laws that God is required for them to work? Can you please show me one theory used in science today, put forth by Newton or anyone else in science, that requires the interference of supernatural powers for the theory to work? If not, then the religious beliefs of these scientists does not enter their science as IDer's seem to believe. I don't care if a scientist invokes God, but their theories should not rely on the input of a supernatural deity as ID theories do.

quote:

---

So YOU are saying the lac operons in E. Coli are/ is IC? How so? And then you have to show that random mutations and NS are solely responsible. Case far from closed.

---

If you remove one piece of the evolved lac operon then the whole system won't work. That makes it IC. Secondly, it was observed to evolve through mutation and natural selection. Therefore, IC systems are evolvable. Reference: http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html