Summations Only

deleteEdited by NoNukes, : Remove response to ancient article.

Because after the brief section in which abiogenesis is discussed, the text is going to spend more time talking about evolution, and it is likely that evolution will be brought up again throughout the course.Teaching non-scientific claptrap that does not fit with the rest of the course would not be productive. ID which is non-science, and other forms of creationism just don't belong in a science course.If I were teaching biology I'd be more than happy to spend a few moments pointing out the laughingstock that is ID or giggling about how a jar of peanut butter disproves a-biogenesis, or rofling about how a banana disproves evolution.

This silly question comes up quite frequently. It has likely been refuted a thousand times making it a PRATT.I think you are confused about what the 19th century experiments on biogenesis actually demonstrated. They showed that microbes and maggots do not form spontaneously in flasks of chicken broth as was believed at the time. That's certainly not enough of an experiment to disprove abiogenesis as is postulated in text books.ID simply is not science at all. It really is that simple.

There is no obligation to respond to posts. But a mere 12 posts is not much of a pile.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Take your time. Respond to as many or as few messages as you feel comfortable with responding to.I would caution you against the idea that the people who disagree with you are all atheists. But, it is the case that most of the Creationists here are absolutely no help in a science based discussion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This task might not be the least bit difficult. There are huge numbers of ways to program a machine to generate prime numbers. As long as the signal was not from a source that was seemingly impossible to control or modulate, it would be more difficult to imagine a natural source that generated the first 500 prime numbers.Genomicus point is simply that it might be possible to have indirect evidence for a designer. I agree, at least in principle. Just because specified complexity and irreducible complexity are abject failures does not mean that no other tool indirect evidence can exist.ID is junk. The current state of ID does indeed seem to be argument by incredibility of "evolution".

Holy cow dude. I guess I have to leave you out on that limb by yourself.Nothing you've quoted tell us how to detect intelligence. Notice the phrase "assuming these transits are distinguishable from a simple planetary transit".What is the proposed method for satisfying this assumption?

You're onto something here. Can you list some examples of predictions which must be satisfied if ID is correct, or alternatively results which flow from the hypothesis of ID that would not be true if evolution was correct?

Your example does not work because the method for inferring the design is presented as an assumption. By including a naked assumption that we can tell remotely whether a transit of a star is by an artificial planet, you simply kicked the can done the street. Do you have any idea how we would tell a designed transit from a natural one?

Which is exactly the point.The thing that is controversial about ID is the belief (unsupported by any evidence) that we can recognize design solely by looking at biological specimens. I'm willing to believe that such a thing is possible in principle, but I haven't seen anyone describe a method for doing so.In short, you are begging the question with this example.In one sense, Jar is right. If you want to convince (and perhaps that is not your goal) that method Y can be used to determine that an organism is designed, you'll need to present some way to verify that such is the case. But we don't have any way to 'calibrate' method Y because there are no agreed upon examples of designed organisms.

The most important part of this discussion would be whether this particular prediction is evidence that FLH is a superior hypothesis to evolution which simply explains the same result.I think the answer is clearly NO. I will note that some of the discussion attached to the article in your link goes into some detail why this is the case.Further, I would dispute whether this is really a 'prediction' is a true prediction at all. It is not enough that the designer be teleological, or that the designer is using front loading. Instead the designer must have a particular front loading mindset that results in something that we already know to be the case. In short this seems to be exactly the kind of giraffe's neck ad hoc argument Dr. Adequate discussed.

I don't understand why you think this makes your argument more convincing.