Creationism/ID as Science

Don't you see what's wrong with that statement? How can the lack of knowledge ever be positive evidence for anything?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I know you were quoting. But you preceded it with:

quote:

---

Intelligent Design has supporting evidence in large clumps, and they aren't just ambigous quotes from religious text.

---

and

quote:

---

As for supporting evidence on Intelligent Design:

---

That last phrase was followed directly by two links and your quote. I appreciate your position, but I think, in the interest of furthering it in this thread, you should have spotted it yourself.Anyway, I merely pointed it out as an example of the twisted logic ID-ists usually put forward. It should warn us to be wary of their "scientific" claims.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

No, it does not mean that. I can't speak for ReverendDG, but if you ask me, then I'd only admit that something not designed well is indeed designed. But there's no reason to assume a designer. I think design can be arrived at in more than one way. Intelligence is a good and quick way to get design. But evolution is also a very adequate way to arrive at design. It may not be very quick, and it may not always yield good or sensible design (although at times it's just plain brilliant, far better than any human intelligence could ever hope to achieve), but it yields design nonetheless.I think - and I've said this before on these EvC fora - that there is design in nature, but that this doesn't mean that there must be a designer. (I am using the word 'design' in the sense of "a functional arrangement of elements in a product".) The mindless process of evolution is perfectly capable of producing design, without the need for any intelligent input whatsoever.Moreover, this is not just a vacuous claim: it has been demonstrated in computer models of the process of evolution. Random mutation and selection are things that can be modeled very accurately on a computer, so that the process taking place in these models is not just a simulation of an evolutionary process, but is in fact the real thing, i.e. a real form of evolution takes place on whatever object these models evolve.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Largely irrelevant? Are you kidding? A 4% difference between chimps and humans means they are 96% similar. NINETY-SIX percent! And you call that irrelevant? For someone who recognizes design in nature (rightly so, I think), and who concludes a designer (erroneously, I think), you are remarkably blind to the biological implications of the huge similarity between chimps and humans. Complexity in nature simply is what it is, based on the millions of years it took for that complexity to evolve. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? Again, you must be joking, right?Biologists are not only able to reconstruct from a fossil what an animal probably looked like when alive (and although they may be wrong at times, they are getting better at it as more biological knowledge is coming in from different disciplines), but they're also able to put togeher, from the fossil record, complete models of ecosystems of the past, which, by the way, also give us valuable insights in our own present ecosystem.Please, do not project your own ignorance on others.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

No, of course not. Do you think I'm stupid?For your information, watermelons and jelly fish are biologically related. But their water content has nothing to do with it. If you can't see the difference between the implications of a genetic correspondence and those of other similarities, then science isn't really your thing. But that's OK, because you're an ID-ist, and ID isn't science. So you've shown that you can calculate 4% of 3 billion. But you've not shown any understanding of what it means to say that humans and chimps share 96% of their genes. You seem to think that chimps are somehow "less" than humans and that this is because they supposedly have fewer base pairs. If that were the case, then humans are "less" then Amoeba dubia, because the latter has the largest known genome, namely 6.710¹¹ base pairs. Sometimes size matters, but not in this case.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.