What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

Hey SO, welcome to the fray. I think you'll find that this website is more or less dominated by the evolutionist side of the debate. Still, even though I'm an ID advocate, I find this forum intellectually stimulating and occasionally educational. Good luck. Thankfully truth isn’t decided by majority vote or Wikipedia. Otherwise, science could never progress. I think you are missing the point here. Intelligence is simply the ability to choose between options. As a result, intelligence can create things that (within reasonable probabilities) no natural process can create. Specified complexity and the explanatory filter that we use to detect it are simply an attempt to decisively identify some of the things that only choice can create. And, as best we can tell, it works. Whenever we have the opportunity to observe specified complexity being created, it invariably is the result of intelligence.

A few questions about the nylon mutation(s), just out of curiousity:Do we know the exact sequence of mutations that took place?What did the current system evolve from?Has anyone run the changes through the explanatory filter to see if they exhibit specified complexity?In what way could the new system be considered "specified?" (ie, conform to an independently given pattern?)Also, what definition of information is everyone using? Is a sequence of heads and tails information?

---

Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae

So, using your definition of information, flipping a coin 100 times would create information, since it would reduce our uncertainty about the result of those 100 flips?

---

Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae

Actually, Behe didn’t admit that they could evolve through indirect routes. Rather he admitted that, as a bare possibility, IC systems might have evolved by unknown indirect routes. The argument of intelligent design advocates is not that we can absolutely rule out evolution. Rather, the argument is that intelligent design has much more evidence supporting it than evolution. If you have a copy of No Free Lunch on hand, you should probably read the sections discussing indirect routes.It’s important to understand what is going on here. The evolutionists are basically willing to say anything to support their theory, including "the evidence for evolution is invisible." When people say things like "evolution by subtracting parts" or "add a part, make it necessary," they are effectively substituting imagination for evidence. In one sense, their logic goes like this: "I can imagine evolution, therefore it must have taken place." Indeed, intelligent design advocates are often accused of lacking imagination. Even if it was completely impossible for evolution to make something like the bacterial flagellum, people would still just say "the evidence disappeared."To see why this level of critical thought is ridiculous, consider that I can imagine that the world will end 100 years from now. I can imagine a huge fireball and the earth smashing into the sun. I can even imagine a cause for it’s end, such as an alien technology. Does that mean that the event will take place? Should I accuse those who disagree with me of "lacking imagination?" Simply put, science must rely on evidence in order to place restraints on the human imagination. The human imagination is almost limitless — without evidence, science would grind to a halt.On the other hand, consider that intelligent design has much more going for it than imaginary evolution. Any objective method for design detection that we can apply to the bacterial flagellum comes up with the answer designed. In every instance that we have a chance to observe the origin of specified complexity, it is always the result of choices made by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, in using the explanatory filter, we are simply using standards that are expected to work in many other sciences, such as the SETI program. If you want to figure out if a rat is intelligent enough to navigate its way through a maze, you will want a long maze with many turns. (highly complex, and not the result of necessity) Furthermore, the rat must make its way to the end of the maze, not a dead end. (the event must be specified) If those three conditions are met, you will conclude that the rat intelligently chose the right turns. When we apply this same logic to the flagellum, the conclusion is designed. Paraphrasing Dembski, if a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies on the person who says it isn't a dog. The same logic applies to remarkable machines like the bacterial flagellum - the burden of evidence lies with those who want to deny it's design.

---

Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae

Strictly speaking, Dembski and Meyer didn't "back out." They were fired by the school board's lawyers. (link)

---

Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae