As has been pointed out, ID is not science. It does not follow the scientific method. Its conclusion is assumed from the beginning, and no amount of evidence will be allowed to change that. Seems to me that's the antithesis of science.
ID is similar to the sciences that archaelogists and historians would employ. Nobody in these fields say that you can't put Attila the Hun in a test tube or keep him out of one. Nor do they say that we shouldn't believe in Attila the Hun because this belief would lack utility.
You see, science appears to have investigated astrology despite what you and others around this forum state. (evidence below) You see, this is just another example of irrationality of you Darwinists when they attempt to tell us what science cannot investigate.
London Daily Telegraph, notes "Scientists have once and for all debunked astrology's central claim — that our human characteristics are molded by the influence of the sun, moon and planets at the time of our birth — in the most thorough scientific study ever conducted on the subject. ... For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people — most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subjects should have had very similar traits. The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the 'time twins' ..."
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
I am not defending the Discovery Institute right now. I will point out that ID does not tell us what type of rituals to perform or what kind of clothes we should wear or to practice yoga or how to pray. You can be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and be a proponent of ID.
Using your logic, when you define ID as a religion, you MUST define religion as belief "without" rituals. So it boils down to belief. Is Darwinism based on evidence and a belief system?
ID arrives to the conclusion because other natural causeations continue to fail to explain some things such as IC structures and CSI.
Sciences are free to follow the data wherever they lead, ID is not.
ID continues to exist because people have used and expressed data in creative ways but it has still failed to explain some things. Whether you believe it or not is your choice.
Sciences follow the scientific method, ID does not.
Prove to me that ID cannot follow scientific methods.
You are making a simple, fundamental mistake here. The fact that science investigates astrology does not make astrology a science! It makes science a science.
I never stated that astrology is science. I was indirectly referring to something that says ID must investigate astrology.
You miss the entire point of the Dishonesty Institute quotation.
I got your point but you are ducking my logic.
I assume they figure they would be in charge and it would be their particular narrow view that would be mandated.)
Is that what you are afraid of? Of course that is not what would happen. Actually, I suspect this really boils down to what was stated in the Declaration of Independence. It goes something like this, "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So if science can eliminate "our creator", who is left to grant US citizens those rights?
From this you can deduce that I have a motive but motives are irrelevant for determining the strengths of statements used to advance them.
Wrong again! ID was cooked up after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to sneak religion back into the schools. It is based on dogma, not science. It is not a religion in itself as much as a tool to masquerade religion as science.
This does not say that ID was a new idea that was cooked up after that decision. Most of the American people want ID taught along with Darwinian evolution.
"Darwinism" (a term used almost exclusively by fundamentalists who are out to destroy the theory of evolution) is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method. It is not a belief system except in the minds of fundamentalists who are out to destroy it.
Proponents of ID believe in evolution but of course they are not pure evolutionists.
If new data were to emerge science would have to follow it wherever it led. That is the hallmark and strength of science. ID could not follow new evidence wherever it led, as its conclusion is fixed in advance. That is part of why ID is not, and cannot be, a science.
How many years has science had to knock ID down? The more years pass and more information is founded that supports ID, just like the one I recently uncovered about diverse rings of phyla represented across our vast oceans.
The trend is up for ID. More people are learning about it and as Winston Churchill said, "We will never, ever surrender." We will win. I suspect science is hiding some things that I don't know about and that could be why scientists get expelled for advocating certain theories. I don't just buy that it isn't science. Otherwise, they would be attempting to refute it at face value rather than expelling people. What are they afraid of?
No, it isn't. And even if it was, that's a strange way of studying biology, wouldn't you say?
Science involves creativity and imagination. So why would you stop when something is strange?
I haven't seen anyone here state that the scientific method wasn't used to investigate the claims of atrology. We have however claimed that astrology itself does noet use the scientific method, and is thus not science.
True, but time and time again I have seen a quote from the Dover trial that ID would have to investigate astrology as though science should not.
The same is true for creationism. That doesn't tell you what close to wear and stuff as is. It's still not science.
Creationism is based on the bible as it tries to shoehorn scientific evidence into a biblical framework. Since it is based on the bible, then why not attempt to use it to reinforce moral concepts that can be derived from the bible?
Faith IS belief
Not exactaly. Faith is the belief in things that are not yet proven. An example would be the Darwinian faith which says their theory will eventually explain the entire fossil record or all irreducibly complex systems. It can't explain the fossil record unless it explains what occurs on a lilliputian scale. Otherwise, I could say, "How do I know that Darwin can explain whale evolution?" or "How do you know that there isn't another theory of common descent that could explain it also?"
Of course, creationism seems to assume that our modern bibles are entirely accurate or that the writers of the bible thought within a modern scientific framework.
Well then, I am sure you can provide us with competing reasonable explanations that can explain things like 500 bits of CSI formed by natural causeations.
No it doesn't. It continues to exist because some people expressed data in creative ways. Ways that are uncscientific.
I think you are wrong. It continues to exist because of the lack of adequate explanations for certain phenomenon. The multiuniverse theory was something that was supposed to explain the fine-tuning of the universe but as Robin Collins pointed out, it actually calls for an intelligent designer.
Really? First of all, according to crawler30 ID's got nothing to do with evolution. I'd sort it out amongst yourselves what it does and doesn't address first.
I don't know what crawler 30 stated but many proponents such as Michael Behe believe in Darwinian evolution. He believes it has certain limits for biochemical reasons.
What does this got to do with anything? Just because some people refuse to accept they are wrong, it somehow proves science is wrong? Furthermore, science doesn't work that way.
Let me put it this way. How many years does Darwin or other sciences need to disprove various facets of ID?
Would you mind elaborating on that proof?
There are at least three major marine phyla that are involved in this. Apparently, I am slowly trying to find more out about the latitudinal patterns across the globe of marine life. There is a diverse amount of marine species off Palau, Micronesia and the rings biodiversity stem out from there. (apparently every 600 miles or so) Orderly patterns of biodiversity among phyla across the globe would contradict a Darwinian predictions of diversity and nonuniformity over time. It is more in line with some sort of recreation event.
You've allready lost. See Kitzmiller v. Dover.
This was just one battle. So are you really in tune with reality when you think I have already lost?
Nothing. They have reality on their side, after all.
I think I have reality on my side. So there you go.
Its not that we agree to disagree, its that I've shown that you are wrong and you haven't shown otherwise.
You are referring to that ID cannot follow scientific methods? Common sense says that they can. It occurs when proponents of ID follow the explanations of scientific theories. For example, the double helix (sugar phosphate bonds with amino acids in the middle) explains DNA very well and there is no need to refute it. This 1953 theory actually started to create controversy because scientists then realized how complex it was and the complexities necessary to translate that information and build proteins with it.
In fact some scientists actually believe in guided transpermia because life and the DNA that helps perpetuate it is so complex. This is in fact intelligent design but it isn't ID backed by theism.
I don't think Darwinism can explain life. It certain can't explain abiogenesis. I don't think it can explain things like the evolution of the flatfish or the flatworm with a symbiotic relationship with algae.
And still not one valid example from biology, and no way to find one.
Not much of an argument, is it ?
I have already asked you to post a link but since you didn't I guess you only have your "see no CSI" opinion of the genome.
If there is no CSI in biology, then what are the sequences of amino acids in DNA used for? After that, then tell us why DNA is transcribed in the RNA polymerase and then tranlated by the ribosome which then produces a chain of polypeptides which then become various types of functional proteins.
I only scantly examined the bacteria-nylon debate a couple of months ago. There is at least one ID design web site that addresses it. You would have to wait a while from me.
What you think is irrelevant. What the evidence shows is what's important.
Well then, I guess you can say that the thoughts that came up with the multiuniverse theory are irrelevant since I have not found anything that backs it up. Maybe string theory potentiall could but last I knew it just in the theoretical (thinking) realm.
And he is wrong,as also shown in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
I believe I have already seen information provided by RAZD and it fails to convince me. Certain IC can evolve but that doesn't mean that the blueprints for IC systems evolved or that the flagellum evolved through a step by step Darwinian process from a TTSS. Actually, it seems that the TTSS is used to help build the filament of the flagellum.
First of all it doesn't work that way, second, you can't disprove anything especially not when you invoke a supernatural "intelligent designer"
What are you talking about? Science disproves theories all the time by competition.
That's not really evidence, now is it? PLease provide a scientific report or investigation that supports your assertion.
That is what I have been tracking down. It is inside of a certain book. I'm not sure if there is more than one book with this information. I was told about it from a Darwinist. He didn't want to hear about my thoughts on ID after what he told me. You can do some investigation if you want too.
What you think is irrelevant.
So in other words, what advocates of ID think is automatically irrelevant. Just like that.
The "bits" of CSI are units of improbability - so you need a probability calculation to show that there are 500 bits. And you haven't even offered a valid specification. Where is the specification and where is the probability calculation?
Each bit of information is represented by each amino acid along the middle of DNA. When the amino acids form into chains (also reprented in RNA) you have specification for building specific types of proteins. There are many types of proteins. A new one was recently discovered in a toxin excreted by a marine mollusk.
What is the probability of calculating the chances of getting specific proteins? I would say 100% if you eliminate minor errors. Quoting the work of James Shapiro, the sophisticated error correction mechanisms catches errors and ensures a 99.99999999% duplication accuracy rate.
I think Darwinists do have faith. They originally had faith that the cell was just a simple blob of plasm. Now they are having trouble persuading people that it can explain systems that would require multiple coherent mutations such as protein binding sites or cilium, flagellum or gene regulatory networks. But don't worry, you and many others on this forum have faith that someday Darwin will explain it without any reasonable doubt.
You have knowledge and faith that Darwin with time and chance will explain all of these things. I have some knowledge of ID and faith that Darwinism won't.
I have been thinking about my my conspiracy theory.
Ben Stein was the one who stated that in his experience, when someone doesn't want to talk about something or wants to intimidate people into shutting up, then someone has something to hide. I think he has a background in law? So seeing this from a lawyers perspective, I certainly will agree. I would also agree with this from my experience.
Maybe it isn't a conspiracy. It could be that liberals who run certain organizations think that the people are to stupid to think for themselves and that ID would only make them dumber. But then again, I would have to be persuaded if that is the case as I somehow think the former is more likely.
Kenneth Miller seems to think that ID would shut down all inquiry if we said that God did it. I think just the opposite. It seems all of these debates only raises more inquiry and cross examination and stimulates thought.
But then again, Huntard thinks that what I think is irrelevant. Right?
NO! Dembski's measure of information is improbability. That is the very basis of the argument that evolution cannot produce CSI!
It seems that it is improbability from the perspective of information forming by chance. It is like finding a series of the same species of palm tree lined up in a specific orderly sequence.
If each amino acid is not used as a part of CSI, then what are the amino acids used for?
I'll tell you what it is - it's completely irrelevant. Unless you can produce a valid specification (by Dembski's rules) that requires *that* protein and no other.
I will have to read Dembski's rules. I never read his book. Are you interested in making this hard on me in an attempt to discredit what I think is the obvious? Superficially, it is obvious that things like orderly sequencing such as the palm tree example or specific messages that serve specific functions are not something that has been produced by forces within chaos. The debate stems from this. Sometimes I get the impression that some of you are trying to escape metaphysical reality. "See no CSI, hear no CSI."
So that is almost no "information" (by Dembski's measure) at all. It's less than 1 billionth of 1 bit.
There is a simple answer. The accuracy rate isn't physical. Amino acids are physical.
It is generally a good diea to know what you're talking about before debating it.
Agreed... but I have been known to take risks. A trader takes risks when he or she believes the odds are in their favor.
How would the information you provided disprove ID? Darwin's theory says that we got here by some sort of fluke doesn't it? How would it disprove convergent evolution? I.E. the different evolutionary paths of different but similar types of flying animals or the evolution of the celaphopod eye paralleled with the vertebrate eye? I would say that natural selection would explain part of it.
In other words the argument is basically all about trying to prove that the evolution of some feature is too improbably to have occurred.
No, I think that certain features can evolve. I believe in microevolution. I think you are referring to minimum complexity of the most simple replicating cells. There is where the "faith" those who believe in Darwinism might surface.
According to "Signature in the Cell" the most simple one celled organism might have been able to survive with as few as 250-400 genes.
In other words you are trying to use an argument that you don't understand.
See no CSI, hear no CSI.
The requirements are Dembski's not mine. If they are too difficult for you then blame him. In fact you should blame yourself for trying to use an argument that you don't understand.
The two statements that convey a similar meaning above is what I mean when I say someone is trying to equivocate my information.
Superficially, yes. But the genome is not a nice simple orderly line of palm trees. And then again on a "superficial" level a "fairy ring" looks designed - unless you know how it forms. That is the whole point of formalising CSI instead of relying on superficial appearances.
I agree. The genome is not a simple orderly line of palm trees.
Well I have to wonder why telling the truth is supposed to be an "escape" from any sort of reality. THe fact is that Dembski made the rules. If you want to claim that you have a real example of Dembski's CSI - and you did - then you have to follow his rules to show it. Human intuition is often a poor guide in dealing with probabilities even in simple cases - and any significant evolution will be a massively complex situation to calculate.
Yes, it wasn't specific sequence of amino acids but I just posted the link. Why fight it? Don't try to equivocate it. Maybe you should calm down. ID is not so bad.
So that quote - somehow - proves that somebody has successfully applied Dembski's method ? Bearing in mind that it was published in 1972 (when Dembski was a boy of 12) it is incredibly unlikely that it is even referring to Dembski's measure of information - let alone anything else.
Did that man need Dembski to hold his hand and show him that DNA has information?
Perhaps I can offer you a solution. I don't just wish to argue with you and it is more or an argument than a debate at this point.
If it is a particular god that you are concerned about, I will offer you a metaphysical escape hatch. Guided transpermia does not require a God. It just requires some sort of energetic intelligence that doesn't require irreducibly complex systems to exist. Perhaps the intelligence was an entity formed from plasma? That intelligence could very well have created CSI.