ID taken to the end

Unfortunately, we do not have a set of universal agreements among people who supposedly study the field of ID except "the diversity and complexity of life on Earth can be explained with the theory of intelligent design." This is due largely to the lack of research and communication in this matter.What I can say from an IDist standpoint is that the so-called macro-evolution process with its current accepted driving forces (mainly NS) is possible but unlikely, given the certain sets of changes a population must undergo over certain amounts of time for it to both (1) survive in its current niche and (2) have certain relationships with other populations (symbiotic, parasitic, etc.). This is an iffy issue.First of all, evolution is evolution. I don't think anyone who have seen the evidence and actually understood them can deny that evolution happens all the time in every habitat we have observed. What the theory of ID offers is an alternative mechanism to natural selection to explain both the current forms of life and the interwoven relationships that ALL species on this planet seem to share.It is not as simple as "goddunit" as many people here seem to believe. Whether it is or not a legitimate scientific approach to tackle the problem/question is another question. One thing that is for sure is it is extremely underrepresented both in the scientific community and the media.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 09-08-2005 03:03 AM

Again, this is somewhat of an iffy issue.Of course such a young theory as ID doesn't have an oficial position on the age or timeline of the Earth. While I agree that many who support the theory (let them be scientists or your average plumpers) support it because it bare a resemblance to their faith, in this case we shouldn't allow the ignorant view of the minority or even the majority on a subject to ruin or discredit the subject completely.After all, did the people who supported the theory of evolution in the 19th century have an official age for the Earth?I think it is a bit much to ask for a theory that lacks age, experience, research, AND supporters who actually know what the hell is going on to offer an explanation for every single question that arises from the depth of human endeavor.I tell you what. Give the theory another hundred years or so and a few billion dollars for proper research and experimentations and perhaps it will come up with both the answers to your questions and the evidence to back them up.

Reread my statement more carefully. I didn't say that there wasn't enough time. I said that ID offers an alternative mechanism for the diversification of life on Earth. Astrophysics is part of my study, so I can assure you that, although I can't really wrap my head around the distances involved with astronomy, I do have an idea scale wise. As was addressed in my response to Paulk, ID is still in the most part in its infancy. In this particular case, I really don't think it is fair for people to demand an answer to everything from such a young and deprived theory.Would you agree that the theory of evolution in the 19th century also lacked universal factors within the theory? Why? Because ToE was still in its infancy at the time and could not provide answers for the vast majority of questions posed by people. If you want to discuss ID and education, perhaps you'd like to discuss your points in one of the various threads about the subject in the education forum.

Perhaps because it lacks the support within the scientific community for proper research and experimentation necessary for such a theory to develop further? Pointing out that there are some nutcases supporting certain concept doesn't invalidate the concept.The Nazis were health and environmental freaks. Should we then say that living a healthy life and being environmentally conscious is wrong?As I pointed out before, much of the supporters of ID are know-it-all science illiterates. My guess is the only reason they supported the theory is because, with a little imagination, it resembles their faith.

Yet some people were criticizing ID for the fact that it offers no official age for the Earth or the universe. I just wanted to bring this to people's attention so they can be more careful and not just criticize something they don't agree with with anything at all.ID is grossly underrepresented! It can't always defend itself! Not necessarily.Permit me to bring up an example.Say that an entire ancient city is discovered in at the bottom of the Mediterranian. From the structural designs of the buildings and the few surviving coins found at the underwater site, it would appear that the civilization who built the city was related to the Ancient Greeks. However, there were some other characteristics that do not seem to match with Ancient Greek Civilization.Based on your logic, since we can't say who built the structures and crafted the coins, it must be the case that those aren't really buildings and the coins aren't really coins. Since we have no way of knowing who built those things, it must be the case that those buildings weren't built by intelligent designers.See the problem with this argument?What IDists try to get people to understand is that they see design in organisms and populations on this planet just like an archaeologist would see design in what would appear to be eroded structures. Just because the archaeolgoist couldn't tell who built the structures doesn't mean they should be dismissed as rocks that happens to look like manmade structures.

I had no idea about this so-called Godwin's law, but I'll be more careful next time. I'm sure you understood what I was trying to say.

This is a gross misunderstanding of ID. Please understand that ID is itself the proposed mechanism.Noone is denying that evolution on the observable level is happening. What IDists try to do is present an alternative mechanism for the diversification of life on Earth. Yes, it is an excuse. Remember that not all excuses are fabricated to help deal with a desperate situation. It's not as simple as "either...or".Darwin had no idea how heredity worked when he came up with his theory. The study of genetics came later.Again, you can't expect a theory that lack age, money, research, and genuine support from people with the real know-how's to rival face to face with something that have the backing millions of minds, billions of dollars, and 200 years of experience.

But ID doesn't have any position at all in regard to the age of the Earth, whether it's 2 years or 8 hundred trillion years. What, you want to force ID into an "either...or" corner? Is this your opinion or fact? Do you have to be so dense?Of course people built them, but you wanted ID to be specific in who the designer was. If your answer for the builder of the structures is people, then I could just as easily say the designer for the designs in nature is an intelligent being. The difference between something that has been eroded and something that happens to look like eroded manmade structures is entirely subjective when we get to certain level of similarities.Yes, clouds happens to look like a lot of things that we know of by accident, but sometimes they really were designed. Been to an air show lately? Good, then you should make your arguments with such people in mind rather than clinging onto the Type 1 concept of an IDist. I could very well say the same thing about the laws of physics or the theory of evolution itself, that these things are just ideas people came up with to find patterns in nature. Physics is my field of study and I can assure you that a lot of times when there are noticable patterns in nature then it usually means there are relationships that we can use to predict results with certain sets of initial conditions.Not all apparent patterns are a result of hallucinations or rationalization. Again, this thread isn't about ID and education. It's about ID, period.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 09-09-2005 02:10 AM

Just curious. Are you debating in good faith or are you just trying to be right? Usually, the ones that are just trying to be right will nitpick what the other person says rather than try to understand the point that the person is trying to make.