Biased accounts of intelligent design

The first two are compatible with mainstream science. The third is falsified; genes and functional parts are not shared between unrelated organisms. The fourth has not been established, and requires an assumption about the motives of the designer. Why should a being that powerful care about efficiency?

In public, at least. Nudge, nudge, wink wink. But there's few honest ones.

quote:

---

"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.".

---

Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.

quote:

---

The world is a mirror representing the divine lifeIntelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

---

- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999Lots more at http://web.archive.org/...xtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdfEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

A sufficient number of the scientific community has examined ID and found it wanting.

A sufficient number of the scientific community has examined ID and found it wanting.

I have examined ID. I've read Behe and Dembski and others . I even thought Dembski might be on to something when he first popped up.ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.I note you skipped addressing Message 26.

They haven't done much of anything in the last five years or so.

I see you skipped over Message 27Yes, they don't consider the how or the who important. They're wrong, partly for reasons given above and all over the Web. I think the biggest problem is that without those elements it's vapid and sterile. OK, everything is designed. Now what? The answer to all questions is "the Designer dunnit, we cannot have any idea how or by whom".

Faith has no problem posting young Earth claims.

Edwards v. Aguillard established that as false. As did you. Remember just recently trying to discuss those English drawings and repeatedly making it clear that your only reason for believing the Fludde was your religion? And the many times you claimed you had real-world evidence but all you had was unsupported assertions and the Bible?

Could you please translate that from gobbledygook to English? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

We know how the genetic code works.

Strings are not theorized to be the basic components of atoms. They are theorized to be the basic components of quarks and other fundamental particles. Nobody has established that they exist, and nobody knows how to establish whether or not they exist with current technology or reasonably expected extensions of current technology

Those calculations are there to impress people like you. They are meaningless, because they require making assumptions know to be untrue or are misapplied theorems or both. As it says early in the article,

quote:

---

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]

​

Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design, characterizing this approach as an argument from ignorance.[citation needed]

---

The process we envisage is one in which most or all of the steps are functional and confer a selective advantage. Neutral or slightly disadvantageous steps are possible (and observed) steps don't necessarily halt the process because unlikely things happen all the time.Pallen and Matzke wrote a well-known paper on how the flagellum could have arisen from existing functional elements.

You have no clue what steps we envisage and your "assessment" of their possibilities is meaningless.Perhaps some kind of calculations could demonstrate something, but nobody knows the numbers needed to do the calculations. So IDists make unjustified and/or obviously false assumptions to feed into the calculations. It's BS.Nothing in the various proposed possible evolutionary sequences is arbitrary. There are logical and scientific reasons for each proposed step.

Yes, they involve mutations. You've made it abundantly clear over the years that you are incapable of understanding what kinds of effects mutations can have. Nobody can enlighten you.You can suspect whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that the proposed stages are not arbitrary. I don't know if anyone has published a graph of a path for the flagellum mutation by mutation, but there's one for chloroquine resistance in mosquitoes (which Behe claims is not possible for evolution). Here's two proposed pathways (click to make the image much bigger}: Full paper at Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite’s chloroquine resistance transporterLet us know when you've identified arbitrary elements. Until then, don't make any claims about arbitraryness.