Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

Alas RjB, its not you who decides these things. We're just the defendents in the court of Moderator Method.It is exciting waiting though isn't it...!Win or lose I hope we remain friends. Agreed?

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

All arguments that are so general that they could be advanced in any thread are automatically ruled out except in threads specifically for discussing that argument. The "naturalism as religion" argument fits in this category because you could take it into virtually any science thread at this site. The same is true of the "ID as religion" argument.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I gave some examples earlier as to human design markers and asked did you accept these as human design markers. Did you answer that question? If I am reading Percy correctly then I'm afraid I'm not position to demonstrate any more why I think the question is irrelevant. Irrelevant questions (were it finally determined to be so) don't require a response. Or a dodge.I'm off up to Donegal for the holiday weekend RJB. I'll take a peek if I get the chance over the weekend at what you have to say on (human) intelligent markers of design.Ciao

Fair enough Percy. I'm off for the long weekend. Good weekend yourself

Hahaha!It's strange, I didn't read where Percy said that those questions were OT. Still, convenient for you isn't it? Most especially since you're off to Donegal this very minute...This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 02:49 PM

My tack for dealing with your question was to demonstrate that the question is irrelevant. I have not done so to your satisfaction it would appear. That is not necessarily my problem. It could be that you would never be satisfied. But that doesn't change the fact that I hold it to be irrelevant.You would argue it is, I would argue it isn't. Admin seems to hold that we cannot keep discussing it. Ignore him if you like. I won't.Seeing as this neutralised that part of the proceedings it seems a fitting time to step back an ponder on what we can discuss.ID markers seems as good a place as any.

Still here? ;-)To be honest I found your earlier defintion of "design markers" to be a bit fuzzy to say the least...But never mind about all that, I have one single question:-If ID was taught as science would it ever seek to discern the identity and methods of the "designer"?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 03:10 PM

If I understand RickJB's request, it is for evidence of the designer and of the type of evidence indicative of the handiwork of the designer. I ruled out discussion of "naturalism as religion" and "SETI as a religious effort". RickJB's request does not appear related to these restricted topics. In my judgment, since the topic of this thread is the scientific status of ID, evidence for the ID position would therefore be the most on-topic of all issues.I encourage you (or anyone) to propose threads on the "naturalism as religion" and "SETI as a religious effort". It isn't that we don't want these topics discussed. We most certainly do. It is just these kinds of controversial topics that make discussion boards interesting.But EvC Forum isn't just one long thread. At this site the creation/evolution controversy has been divided into forums for each major topic area, and each forum has threads for discussing the many sub-topics. We try to encourage discussion in a thread to focus on that thread's topic.It was several years ago that Peter Borger first taught us the lesson of how certain topics can derail threads. He entered his GUToB viewpoint into many evolution threads simultaneously, derailing all of them into GUToB discussions. No one has since done this in as wholesale a manner as Peter, but the lesson remains and we no longer allow this kind of topic derailment.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If it became science it could at best pose develop theories involving the design-side attributes & methods of the designer. It may be possible to infer some attributes of the designers personality (for intelligence implies personality) but probably not at the level that ID would be operating at for the foreseeable future.I would be interested to understand why the designer designed a tickle. But that might be too global an area for ID for now - their time will be mainly absorbed with crying out "Fire in the Hole" - meaning progress may well be sloooooooooow.Give it 150 years and we'll see. I'll be finding out a little sooner than that.Good weekend RJB.

You say "at best", so you mean that we can never hope to fully understand every facet of the designer and his processes?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 03:31 PM

I understand his request too. I just don't see the need to provide any evidence for the designer himself in order for ID to move into the realm of science. The question simply isn't relevant to me.I don't know how to progress things if I hold the question to be irrelevant and he holds that it is and we cannot discuss why I hold it is irrelevant and he cannot why it is. My approach was to attempt to show that science doesn't require this kind of show-it-before-you-find-it evidence elsewhere.I understand too the concern about wandering off into the hills so perhaps the only way out is to resolve that issue and come back to this one.But not now...my dinner is already in the dogCheers Percy

Thats what I reckon - but I am not a scientist so I can't be sure. I most certainly don't think we can get to the end of what there is to know had everthing naturalistic explanations. I reckon the world will be destroyed long before that (and that has little to do with my personal beliefs - just take a look around)

As I noted a number of posts ago and you may have misunderstood: We can see the nature of the designer by examining the results and comparing. The designer looks most like evolutionary processes. There is no hint of any other kind of designer involved.

Your reply brings to mind The Last Question, a famous short story by Isaac Asimov in which two scientists ask a computer to solve the problem of entropy. Over millions of years the computer evolves and becomes the means by which humans transfer their physical being into energy/mental consciousness.Finally, after billions of years have passed and the universe has darkened, the human/computer, having finally solved the problem, says,"Let there be light!"Have a nice evening!This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 04:00 PM