Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

ID will always be pseudoscience until it can be based on positive hypotheses that are falsifiable. As it stands ID argues from ignorance, makes no positive assertions (relying on negative assertions about the ToE) and dares make no predictions (this would be tantamount to predicting God's intentions).On the other hand Darwin began with a clear hypothesis, produced some evidence to support it and used the findings to make predictions that could later be tested.

There is a crucial problem with this. If these "design markers" are based on human activity this would:1. provide no markers for life in the natural world.
2. assume that the creator's design methods mirrored humankind's.Would we, for example, use Apple's Ipod click-wheel as some basis for evalutating the creator's design concept?The best way to support the hypothesis that something has been designed it to identify who or what designed it, how and why. In short, if ID chooses to point the finger at a creator (they clearly mean God) then they must demonstrate who that creator is, how he works and to what end. ID is afraid of the implications of this so it forever skirts the issue.Now I can say that a cactus looks like it was designed by the Great Lord Belex to resemble the sexual appendage of a Gaag-Alkev Warrior from the Seventh Dimension, but until I can show some evidence of Lord Belex himself and his reasoning then I have absolutely nothing in the way of a working theory.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 07:40 AM

Where are there examples of human-designed cheetahs? Gotcha! You've just been caught quoting the Bible and Begging The Question. We can't make any assumptions about a designer until we know in what form he/she/it exists. No pedantically speaking it would support it - science doesn't deal with absolute proof, it just uses the accumulation of evidence on which to base theories. So, as the ToE has amassed a huge amount of observed evidence and has made sucessful predictions about further observations it stands as a theory.***** Side note *****
You don't think Tiktaalik was found by accident do you? It was found because the ToE predicted that a creature of its type would be found in rock dating to a particular time-frame. They knew where to look!
*******************Now on the other hand ID has made NO hypotheses about how intelligent design actually works or can be observed in action. As a result it can make no predictions about how we should see intelligent design manifest itself in nature. In short, ID has nothing. Pure speculation does not constitute a viable scientific theory. Until ID shows physical evidence that indicates either the existence or the operation of a designer it hasn't got a leg to stand on as a scientific theory.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 10:09 AM

I thought I'd reply to this as it reflects a misconception that appeared in your replies to me. The rejection of ID has nothing to do with a resistance to competing theories and everything to do with the fact that ID cannot stand as a theory as long as it lacks a hypothesis backed by evidence.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 10:06 AM

And where else will we find these "markers" aside FROM on the end product? Based on what? There is no scientific reason to suggest our own experience has any validity here. SETI makes the assumption that given our OWN existence other civilistions MAY exist in the universe. It has, on the other hand, yet to be demonstrated that a creator actually exists. Surely it would be best if this fact was established before we began to postulate about his/her/its designs? As long as you have no God, you have no theory. Where? These would be the same "markers" that you haven't yet defined and that we need not even observe on any end product, yes?Sorry, but this reply amounts to little more than a dodge.I'll say this very slowly and clearly:Show. Me. Some. Evidence. Of. I.D.And then we can talk about your "competing theory".This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 12:40 PM

But a bolt is itself a designed object! It also carries clues to its method of construction (a rotating lathe) and its use (its threading). Your "markers", however, remain a riddle wrapped inside an enigma! Hahaha! I'm a newbie here but I've read though this forum very extensively and you don't want to know how many times I've read exactly the same response. A link will do nicely thank you very much. As I said before, the fact of our OWN existence combined with the discovery of planets in other star systems enables them to make a working assumption. They are currently searching for more positive evidence (in the form of a signal) to bolster this claim. The existence of a creator of any sort, however, has not been established, nor has any experimental means for us to find him/her/it.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 02:22 PM

This time you've dodged the question by using an Ad Hominem attack. It's a common tactic. Also, you've still yet to explain where we can find your "markers" of creation, or what they represent. SETI uses the fact of our existence as a starting point! Life HAS arisen in the universe at least once and we are the result. We then look into the stars for radio signals on the slight possibility that others have used the same technological techniques.ID, however, has not established that Gods existence is a fact. Therefore we have no way to determine what constitutes his/her/its designs. Before you can show that God designed us you must show that God can EXIST.--------Now when it comes to looking for comparative intelligence with regard to SETI, we can at least assume that any creatures out there will be bound by the same type of physical laws and limitations that we are (gravity, electromagnetism etc) therefore we can make a working assumption as to the technological methods they may use based on our own experience. However, when it comes to using human intelligence as a guide to identifying God's design the problems are as follows:-1. We have no physical evidence that any God has EVER existed.2. As no God has ever been observed there is no basis to assume that God's actions are subject to the physical laws of nature in the same manner that we are, therefore we cannot make any meaningful speculation about his/her/its design methods.--------So to sum up:*****************************SETI:
Observed instances of life/civilisation: 1
Observed instances of intelligence/design by life/civilisation: 1ID:
Observed instances of creator: 0
Observed instances of intelligence/design by creator: 0*****************************Before you can do anything with ID you must show a designer. Until ID does it can amount to nothing more than an argument from ignorance.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 04:45 AM

As I said before a link will do nicely.And again, you've still yet to explain where we can find your "creation markers", or what they represent.

But the reason you are being pressed for evidence is that as opposed to investigating the possbility of ID evidence you seem to have spent just as much time bewailing the status of the ToE as a valid theory! You can't have it both ways. If you want ID to become a science then you:-1. have to accept that the ToE has been a very sucessful theory so far.
2. have to accept that ID will have to rival the ToE in terms of evidence and predictive capacity.Now as I have said repeatedly if you want ID to become science then you'll have to identify a creator. Until you do that you are arguing from ignorance.Also the use of human design traits is of little valid use since you have no grounds to assume they reflect the workings of God. When we consider the creation of rock formations due to water erosion we don't turn to "human design markers", we look at the nature of water.Want to understand the work of God? First you must show God.

It can! WE (humanity) are a living demonstration of that fact!!In this solar system a planet has been able to support life to the extent that its civilisations have developed communication systems based on electromagnetic radiation.It might have happened elsewhere.Your turn - show me physical evidence of a God.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 09:49 AM

Yes it has. We are here aren't we? However it happened, life arose on Earth and here we are. Are you seriously arguing that we can't assume that other life might exist because, in fact, WE don't exist? Msg 106 contains no answers, just more dodges. Can you show me a creator, or at least postulate a manner in which we can try to find him?--------------------------------------Oh and seeing you missed my post No 104 I thought I'd repost it here.. It can! WE (humanity) are a living demonstration of that fact!!In this solar system a planet has been able to support life to the extent that its civilisations have developed communication systems based on electromagnetic radiation.It might have happened elsewhere.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 12:37 PM

How many times....?SETI:
We postulate that life may exist elsewhere. >> Life has arisen in the universe. >> We exist.ID:
We postulate that God designed all life. >> ?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 12:52 PM

Nope. You've lost me.Do you question the fact of our existence? Yes or no please. Why not? What might make us unique in the universe?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 01:10 PM

The dodge to end all dodges!!Fine. Now show me the "designer" of your "design markers" ;-)Proposing a branch of science whose ultimate implications must forever remain a mystery seems utterly odd in my opinion.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 02:00 PM

Sure, but it's not about winning or losing (ID isn't even IN the game, after all), I just want you to answer my two perfectly reasonable questions (neither of which, you should note, refer to God or SETI):-Can you briefly define a "design marker"?
Can you demonstrate the existence of the "designer" of your "design markers"?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 02:23 PM