Testing Intelligent Design Theory?

OK, my mere opinion may not sway you. Let's see if I get some support...

Royal Society President slams "intelligent design"

The Biophysical Society endorses evolution education

Phony Theory, False Conflict

The state of state science standards 2005

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

Now this one I like. Soon, we'll see a push for astrology that will rival that for ID.

The Evolution Controversy in Our Schools

Theory of Intelligent Design

What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design

I'm sorry, but with a list of scientists that long who assert that ID is not a theory, plus my own understanding of what a theory is, leads one to believe that ID is not a theory. And, honestly, since proponents claim it's scientific, it can't hold evolution's jock until it becomes a theory.

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK, my mere opinion may not sway you. Let's see if I get some support...

No worries mate your opinion is the least of my concerns. I am aware of the opposition and indeed it has been well represented in this thread right here by some thoughtfull and intelligent members. It obvious you have still chosen not to read it or the related information. You could have chosen to respond to my last post, which imo addressed everyone of your concerns.

Please don't post your Google search results or the adds from the right-hand side of the page in this thread...please(FYI you're not fooling anyone). This is a discussion board not a chat room and if you can't add anything to the conversation then please step aside... we all know how to 'google', thanks.

I'm sorry, but with a list of scientists that long who assert that ID is not a theory, plus my own understanding of what a theory is, leads one to believe that ID is not a theory.

Opinion noted, thanks.

And, honestly, since proponents claim it's scientific, it can't hold evolution's jock until it becomes a theory.

You had no idea how ID contradicted NDT until i'll told you a couple hours ago, now i should accept your learned opinion...*check*

Opinion noted, thanks.

Don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Rren]

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK, my mere opinion may not sway you. Let's see if I get some support...

Royal Society President slams "intelligent design"

The Biophysical Society endorses evolution education

Phony Theory, False Conflict

The state of state science standards 2005

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

Now this one I like. Soon, we'll see a push for astrology that will rival that for ID.

The Evolution Controversy in Our Schools

Theory of Intelligent Design

What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design

I'm sorry, but with a list of scientists that long who assert that ID is not a theory, plus my own understanding of what a theory is, leads one to believe that ID is not a theory. And, honestly, since proponents claim it's scientific, it can't hold evolution's jock until it becomes a theory.

Well gee, thanks for the current events lesson truthseeka. Once again, the irony of your handle is apparent for all to see. Truthseeka's definition of seeking the truth apparently amounts to reading refutations of a theory instead of actually reading the theory for himself and evaluating it. Instead of thinking critically about something, it's abundantly clear that you would rather be told what to think. Sad, really.

In any case, it does bring a relevant point to light, IDT isn't well accepted by the scientific community at large. I suspect this will change, as younger professors obtain tenure, and IDTists are less concerned about losing their jobs. Either way the point should be addressed, and now is just as good a time as any.

Mainstream science unfortunately is very resistant to change, especially change that seems to go against a long believed well supported idea. Let's examine some previous examples of this.

Ever heard of Mitch Feigenbaum? He's pretty much the inventor of Chaos theory. What was his experience introducing his ideas into the mainstream science community?

Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. By then, in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been shipped. This has been my full experience. Papers on established subjects are immediately accepted. Every novel paper of mine, without exception, has been rejected by the refereeing process. The reader can easily gather that I regard this entire process as a false guardian and wastefully dishonest.

To obscure an example? Perhaps you've heard of Stephen Hawking? When Hawking submitted his most important paper, the paper on black hole
evaporation, to Nature the paper was initially rejected. It is further noteworthy that another incredibly important paper of Hawking's demonstrating a fundemental law of Physics (unitary), would be violated in black hole evaporation was initially rejected by Physical Review. Now it's not unreasonable for papers to be rejected the first time through. In fact that's the norm. I've never had a paper not get rejected initially. The difference here is that Hawking's papers weren't rejected because the reviewer wanted to see two more experiments, or they didn't like the presentation of some data - the normal reasons papers are rejected. They were rejected based on their conclusions.

How about another example: Tuzo Wilson, a geophysicist at Princeton states: “I … sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it down…. They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn’t agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good.
Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don’t see it your way, or if they think it’s something unusual, may turn it down. Now his theory that the Hawaiian Islands were formed as the tectonic plates in the Pacific moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth, is now well accepted.

How about another Nobel Prize winner to round out the discussion:
Rosalyn Yalow describes how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the journals:

“In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science.... The paper was held there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected it.”

Maybe one more: In a news conference held just after receiving his Nobel Prize, Günter Blobel stated that he believed the main problem one encounters in research is “when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.” These comments “drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium.”

Well, now that I am on a roll: Ever heard of John Bardeen? No? Well, he's the only man to ever have won two Nobel Prizes in physics. Bardeen had considerable difficulty publishing his theories re: low-temperature solid state physics, which happens to be the area of one of his Prizes was awarded in. These paper were rejected because they went against the established view. Bardeen was finally able to publish the papers by appealing to a friend, David Lazarus. Larzarus was at the time editor-in-chief for the American Physical Society. Lazarus had the following to state about this:

“the referee was totally out of line. I couldn’t believe it. John really did have a hard time with [his] last few papers and it was not his fault at all. They were important papers, they did get published, but they gave him a harder time than he should have had.”

One with an ATS based theme: Theodore Maiman who invented the laser, notes that Physical Review rejected his paper on how to build a laser.

These examples perfectly illustrate that the mainstream science communities rejection of ideas as unscientific, is not necessarily related to their actual scientific merit. Often times new, revolutionary, and important ideas are met by the scientific community not only with skepticism, but with downright hostility.

So, truthseeka, Do you have any ideas or thoughts of your own to add to the discussion?

Oh, I see...

Well, Byrd pretty much said all the stuff I would have said. You agree that ID can't make predictions, no? And, for the flagellum example, the "core" is not present in all flagella/cilia. There's a mutation in bacteria, I think, pf 14 or something like that, when the flagellum is missing at least one protein. But, under the right conditions or on the right genetic background, it still works.

Besides, what's the point of saying something is designed but not identifying the designer? And, how do we quantify design, or even intelligence? Intelligence is hard enough to quantify with us mere mortals, much less a powerful designer above humans. And, as for design, we humans are pretty good at finding patterns, so good, in fact, that we often see patterns where there are none. Based on this, how do we arbitrarily identify design?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, Byrd pretty much said all the stuff I would have said.

Interestingly enough, Byrd hasn't responded to even a single one of my rebuttals.

You agree that ID can't make predictions, no?

That's correct. IDT offers the same level of prediction as Neo-Darwian Theory.

And, for the flagellum example, the "core" is not present in all flagella/cilia. There's a mutation in bacteria, I think, pf 14 or something like that, when the flagellum is missing at least one protein. But, under the right conditions or on the right genetic background, it still works.

Nice try, but you'll need to be a little more specific. "I think, pf 14" doesn't cut it. Please back up your assertions with references.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Nice try, but you'll need to be a little more specific. "I think, pf 14" doesn't cut it. Please back up your assertions with references.

Aight...

The organism is a species of Chlamydomonas, not a bacterium. The mutant IS called pf 14, though. In this mutant, radial spoke 3 in the flagellum fails to assemble. It's a point mutation, to be specific; a premature stop codon (ochre, to be specific ) forms in the protein-coding region of the gene.

AND, like I said earlier, this flagellum will function under the right conditions. As for organisms with flagella that lack the center protein complex altogether, the eel sperm cell is an example. This flagellum even lacks the outer dynein proteins on its microtubules .

So, does this observational example provide evidence that Behe is wrong about the IC here? Remember, he said that if any ONE component was missing, the entire structure would not work.

Originally posted by truthseeka
The organism is a species of Chlamydomonas, not a bacterium.

Okay... awesome... a large portion of my graduate work was on Chlamy. BTW, chlamy is a eukaryote, and while the flagellum maintains significant homology to bacterial flagella, the eukaryotic version is signifcantly more complex, and thus actually includes many more unessential proteins than in prokaryotes.

The mutant IS called pf 14, though.

In this mutant, radial spoke 3 in the flagellum fails to assemble. It's a point mutation, to be specific

; a premature stop codon (ochre, to be specific

) forms in the protein-coding region of the gene.

By the way, this is not a reference. A reference refers specifically to your SOURCE of info. I can't tell where you got this info from.

Fortunately, I am familiar enough with Chlamy to have heard of this.

And you're wrong. The pf mutants, pf 14, pf 15 and pf 19 are called paralyzed mutants. Do you think this is because their flagella are in tact? Yes, the flagella DO in fact assemble, but as the decription 'paralyzed mutants' indicates, their flagella don't function in anything resembling a normal manner.

Care to try again?

AND, like I said earlier, this flagellum will function under the right conditions. As for organisms with flagella that lack the center protein complex altogether, the eel sperm cell is an example. This flagellum even lacks the outer dynein proteins on its microtubules

.

Under the "right conditions," what conditions are these? The scientists were wrong to name this mutant paralyzed. What's the source of this info?

So, does this observational example provide evidence that Behe is wrong about the IC here? Remember, he said that if any ONE component was missing, the entire structure would not work.

Based on the description 'paralyzed mutant,' I'd say, No this does nothing to prove Behe is wrong. First of all Behe, said nothing about eukaryotic flagella, he said the bacterial flagellum specifically. Again, based on the 'paralyzed' description, I'd say, this example does nothing to refute Behe.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922

In any case, it does bring a relevant point to light, IDT isn't well accepted by the scientific community at large. I suspect this will change, as younger professors obtain tenure, and IDTists are less concerned about losing their jobs. Either way the point should be addressed, and now is just as good a time as any.

Mainstream science unfortunately is very resistant to change, especially change that seems to go against a long believed well supported idea. Let's examine some previous examples of this.
[snip]
These examples perfectly illustrate that the mainstream science communities rejection of ideas as unscientific, is not necessarily related to their actual scientific merit. Often times new, revolutionary, and important ideas are met by the scientific community not only with skepticism, but with downright hostility.

And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

And Not because it's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
While it'a theory in that it'a speculation, it's not scientific.

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

I don't think people are giving it a fair shake. How much data did Darwin have with his "theory" when it was proposed? I think it's more proper to ask the question, "Is it a science?" first, before making this kind of statement. Bump it up against a root definition:

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
www.m-w.com...

It definately hits # 1, but 2-4 requires a more critical analysis.

Set it side by side with a set criteria for what a science is, and the methods used in science. I'm enjoying what mattison is saying, because by assuming it is a science, we can talk about the specifics to see whether or not it meets these criterion. A kind of, "let's dive in and move thing around to see what makes it tick" approach. I find that more helpful in determining whether it's a science then sitting around philosophising whether it's a science or not. Being a scientist requires a certain degree of, "Let's assume for a moment..." in order to explore all the possibilities, as I see it. I doubt we would've made it to the moon otherwise.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

And Not because it's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
While it'a theory in that it'a speculation, it's not scientific.

Thanks for your well thought out, informative, and well documented post.

You've added so much to the discussion.

Evolution selected as year's big story by Science journal

Washington-- It was a natural selection.

The journal Science's choice for breakthrough of the year in 2005 is "evolution in action," focusing on studies of how evolution works and how it affects lives today.

Several research projects were discussed at meetings to choose the annual breakthrough winner.

"Then we realized they were all connected to evolution," said Colin Norman, news editor of Science. "We realized that if we put these together at the molecular level, it's been a banner year for evolutionary research. It shows that evolution underlies all of biology."

Bruce Alberts of the University of California, San Francisco, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said the choice is "very timely. I like it."

On the journal's cover is an illustration of DNA, the blueprint for life that changes in the process of evolution.

Scattered across the DNA molecule are illustrations of people and animals, including a portrait of 19th Century natural scientist Charles Darwin whose research drew attention to evolution through the process of natural selection.

It has been nearly 150 years since Darwin's findings were published, and 2005 was also a major year for debate over his theory, culminating Tuesday with a federal judge's ruling that the belief called intelligent design can't be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution.

There are also battles over teaching evolution under way in Kansas and Georgia, and at one point President Bush supported teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.

The challenges were not the reason evolution was chosen as the science story of the year, Norman said, adding, "We chose this on its merits."

Three areas of research were noted in particular.

- The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome, allowing researchers to compare it with already sequenced human DNA. Only about 4 percent of the coding differs between the two relatives.

"Somewhere in this catalog of difference lies the genetic blueprint for traits that make us human: sparse body hair, upright gait, the big and creative brain," the editors of Science wrote.

In addition, the journal added, humans are highly susceptible to AIDS, coronary heart disease, chronic viral hepatitis and malignant malarial infections. Chimps aren't, and studying the differences could help pin down the genetic aspects of many such diseases.

- The human haplotype map, being developed by an international team, catalogues the patterns of genetic variability among people. Researchers are looking for patterns that match with ailments such as cardiovascular disease.

- Research into the formation of new species as they evolve to differ from others.

In 2005, scientists found a type of warbler known as the European blackcap that was separating into groups with differing migration patterns.

Another study found European cornborers in the same field dividing into two types, one of which sticks to corn while the other eats hops and mugwort. The borers have developed different pheromones--scent chemicals that help them breed with only their own group.

And formerly ocean-living stickleback fish that were left stranded in lakes at the end of the last ice age have evolved into several different species.

That study was done by David Kingsley of Stanford University, who reported in March that 15 isolated populations of freshwater sticklebacks had all lost their bony armor through mutations in the same gene.

While scientists had shown evolution in biochemical processes, such as antibiotic resistance, some critics had argued it would be impossible to evolve large changes in the forms of natural populations.

"That is obviously false," said Kingsley. "Sticklebacks with major changes in skeletal armor and fin structures are thriving in natural environments. And the major differences between forms can now be traced to particular genes."

How's that?

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
How's that?

Well... thanks for the current events lesson. I think most proponents of IDT understand both the mainstream press' and mainstream scientific communities opinion re: IDT. So, this really adds nothing to the discussion.

Generally the point of a discussion forum is offer up ideas of your own to talk about. Do you have any of those?

And one more quick thing, "ID is not science," is not an idea of your own, it's parroting what you've read others say.

But if you were to say, ID isn't science based on some sort of examples, definitions, and commonly accepted requirements for 'science,' then we might have something to talk about. Of course, I would encourage you to read the thread first to make sure your examples haven't already been addressed.

One liners and lengthy quotes add nothing to the discussion.


Discussion an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic; "the book contains an excellent discussion of modal logic"; "his treatment of the race question is badly biased"

[edit on 24-12-2005 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
How's that?

Generally the point of a discussion forum is offer up ideas of your own to talk about. Do you have any of those?

Do you?
I've yet to see one post(anywhere, by anyone) that actually contains an "original" idea.
Did YOU creat ID theory?
Because if you didn't then nothing you could offer up in this thread about ID theory is acutally Original.

But that' s not the real problem is it?
The real problem is that you can't defeat our arguments so you attack the people posting them.




Oh and this:

Discussion an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic; "the book contains an excellent discussion of modal logic"; "his treatment of the race question is badly biased"

Made no sense.


[edit on 25-12-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

I don't think people are giving it a fair shake. How much data did Darwin have with his "theory" when it was proposed?

Actually, have you ever considered, why people "aren't giving it a fair shake" as you put it?
Did it ever occur to you that there was just MIGHT be a good reason for this?

Like the fact that ID starts with a conclusion, and then tries to claim that "problems" in another theory prove that ID is correct?

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Do you?
I've yet to see one post(anywhere, by anyone) that actually contains an "original" idea.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure why you put the word original in quotes, since nowhere I my post did I use that word.

I did ask if you had any thoughts of your own on the theory, which you've still not elaborated on.

I've added plenty to the discussion, though. I've made several interesting parallels denoting the methodological equivalence of IDT and NDT based hypotheses.

I've expanded on the idea of Irreducible complexity to include systems, proteins, and cell types not outlined by Behe.

I've offered to start research projects including members of the ATS community from BOTH sides of the argument.

Furthermore, I am extremely well read re: both the topics of evolution and IDT, and frequently offer impartial comments to members in science and origins forums from an evolutionist perspective.

Most here don't agree with me re: IDT and science. BUT very few here would call me unobjective, and no one here that knows me would call me uninformed.

Did YOU creat ID theory?

Ummmm.... no. But why is this relevant? My 500+ posts re: this topic, coupled with my many instances of forum "applause" (often from evolutionists) demonstrate that I HAVE added to the discussion in a meaningful way.

It's not about "original" ideas; it's about demonstrating that you've put some thought into something and talk in an intelligent manner about it.

Because if you didn't then nothing you could offer up in this thread about ID theory is acutally Original.

Untrue. I offered up several descriptions of other systems likely to be IC, I've offered up cell types (gun cells) that are suggestive of and IC system. But again the point is not about being "original," it's about being informed. Big difference.

But that' s not the real problem is it?
The real problem is that you can't defeat our arguments so you attack the people posting them.

Time to grow a thicker skin there tough guy. I never attacked you. I said that one liners and lengthy quotes add nothing to the discussion. And they don't. I further stated that you claiming 'ID isn't science' simply parrots what you've heard others say. I'll venture so far as to say that's true as well.

Please, prove me wrong. What books, articles, etc. about IDT did you read when forming your well-informed and objective opinion? Mind you I wrote books, etc. about IDT, not rebuttals or other refutations of IDT. What primary literature about IDT have you read? Until you've demonstrated that you've actually read some IDT, all your arguments are pretty much made from a position of complete ignorance.

Oh and this:

Discussion an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic; "the book contains an excellent discussion of modal logic"; "his treatment of the race question is badly biased"

Made no sense.

Oh... okay... that explains a lot. You see that was a definition from an online dictionary. Dictionaries are big books that contain words and their associated definitions. I thought it could prove useful. Sorry that it threw you off. In any case, I suggest you familiarize yourself with one. My personal favorite is the Merriam Webster 10th Collegiate edition for everyday stuff, and my unabridged for obscure words.

For some reason the link didn't work in my post. I tried to edit it, and strangely enough, it shows up properly in the 'quoted text.' Mods?

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Like the fact that ID starts with a conclusion, and then tries to claim that "problems" in another theory prove that ID is correct?

Wrong.

IDT assumes nothing more or less than NDT. It assumes something different, but is NOT guilty of operating from presumed set of events.

IDTists do not claim that IDT is proven by default as you suggest; it simply serves as a different basis for hypothesis formation.

Of course you'd know this if you'd ever bothered to investigate it for yourself.

It's astonishing to me that on a site where pretty much no one believes what the media says about the war, politics, 911, aliens, area 51, etc. People are willing to wholeheartedly swallow Connie Chung's analysis of IDT. WTF

Originally posted by mattison0922
IDT assumes nothing more or less than NDT. It assumes something different, but is NOT guilty of operating from presumed set of events.

First I do not mean to say that they claim it is proven by default,
but the whole point of ID is that there is higher intelligence guilding Evolution. Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work.
In fact, William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

And the Theory of evolution makes no assumtion of whether or not their is a higher power, it doesn't talk about one at all.

Of course you'd know this if you'd ever bothered to investigate it for yourself.

It's astonishing to me that on a site where pretty much no one believes what the media says about the war, politics, 911, aliens, area 51, etc.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised by the number of skeptics this site draws to it.
This site has done some of the best debunking of some theory's I've ever seen. The whole, "it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon theory" for instance.

People are willing to wholeheartedly swallow Connie Chung's analysis of IDT. WTF

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that some people have learned to think for themselves, looked at the argument for and against id and decided it was cr@p on their own.

But then your whole argumetnfor ID seemto be based onthe idea that anyone not believing in it is incaple of original thought and is jsut parroting what other have to say. Unless they don't provide links, in which case they are guilty of not having "documents" to back them up.

Pretty nice catch-22 ya got going their, nicely avoids having to actually defend ID.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

[edit on 26-12-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Do you?
I've yet to see one post(anywhere, by anyone) that actually contains an "original" idea.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure why you put the word original in quotes, since nowhere I my post did I use that word.

Hmm, you are correct. Not sure why I put that in quotes. Though I used the term because you kept on( both w/me and others in this thread) about having thought's of our own.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Well gee, thanks for the current events lesson truthseeka. Once again, the irony of your handle is apparent for all to see. Truthseeka's definition of seeking the truth apparently amounts to reading refutations of a theory instead of actually reading the theory for himself and evaluating it. Instead of thinking critically about something, it's abundantly clear that you would rather be told what to think. Sad, really.

In any case, it does bring a relevant point to light, IDT isn't well accepted by the scientific community at large. I suspect this will change, as younger professors obtain tenure, and IDTists are less concerned about losing their jobs. Either way the point should be addressed, and now is just as good a time as any.

Mainstream science unfortunately is very resistant to change, especially change that seems to go against a long believed well supported idea. Let's examine some previous examples of this.

[bunch of examples]

I noticed that you only included examples of people who were successful in
getting their theories excepted evetually, as you hope ID will.

You didn't include examples of people who failed to get them included.

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
First I do not mean to say that they claim it is proven by default,

Hmmmm.... okay.... I'm not sure what you meant when you said:

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Like the fact that ID starts with a conclusion, and then tries to claim that "problems" in another theory prove that ID is correct

But I guess I'll have to take your word that you didn't mean what you wrote.

but the whole point of ID is that there is higher intelligence guilding Evolution.

There are no statements in IDT that say a higher intelligence is 'guiding evolution.' This is your own spin on the basis of the theory.

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work.

Thus far, it DOES in fact appear that life itself is IC. This demonstrated perfectly via a multidisciplinary analysis of biology, physics, abiogenesis, and fundamental organic chemistry. Thus far abiogenesis theories, have yielded pretty much nothing in terms of elucidating natural laws that would permit the formation of life from simple organic molecules.

In fact, William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

Hey Congratulations!!! You actually took the time to investigate something for yourself [claps]. It's a good feeling, huh? My next suggestion: Actually read an entire book. While there is some info in the definition you cited, books actually contain descriptions, justifications, examples, and references. It's the logical next step for you.

And the Theory of evolution makes no assumtion of whether or not their is a higher power, it doesn't talk about one at all.

Ummm.... okay. No one ever said anything about evolution assuming there is a higher power. Stop putting words into my mouth, please.

While evolution makes no claim re: a higher power, evolution DOES assume that there is in fact a naturalistic explanation for biological origins. ID makes no such assumption. While it is not touted as such, in my own mind, ID theory lacks such a presupposition. Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation for biological origins, and maybe there isn't. In either case, the ID proponents are willing to explore alternatives to currently accepted theories, and like it or not, new bases for hypotheses if often what drives science forward. I'm sorry that change is troubling for you. But as a scientist, I have no choice but to encourage change, and be willing to accept ideas that fall within the realm of methodological, but not necessary metaphysical naturalism, irrespective of my personal opinion about them.

Of course you'd know this if you'd ever bothered to investigate it for yourself.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised by the number of skeptics this site draws to it.
This site has done some of the best debunking of some theory's I've ever seen. The whole, "it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon theory" for instance.

Ummm... that was my point. Everyone is such a skeptic here, and everyone wants to 'Deny Ignorance,' yet this bunch of well informed debunkers is seemingly completely unwilling to open a book and read about the theory they're debunking. Reading a refutation of Dembski is NOT the same as reading Dembski. Getting information off the Talk Origins website is not studying evolutionary theory. If you want to debunk IDT, for crying out loud read an ID book and make some coherent arguments of your own. Not one person who has ever posted in the O & C forum against IDT appears to ever have read, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, Spetner, etc. In fact, it's doubtful that most have even read Darwin, Gould, Mayr, etc. Yet people want to come off as an authority about things they know nothing about, and don't even have a basis to form their opinion. I regularly call people on this, and NO ONE has ever come back and said, Yes I read Behe, and these points in particular are BS and here's why. The best the debunkers can come up with here is "ID isn't science," and a bunch of linked quotes from people who feel the same as them. [sarcasm]Oh yeah, that's objective[/sarcasm].

Just to finish the thought, and in anticipation of any rebuttals: Yes, in addition to having read Behe, Dembski, Johnson, etc. I have read Darwin (got a beautiful leather bound copy of the 'Origin' actually), Gould, Mayr, etc. This is of course in addition to the literally thousands of primary research articles I've read, and maintain in my files.

What about you, I am, what books, articles, etc. re: IDT OR evolutionary theory have YOU read... besides your Bio100 text that is?

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that some people have learned to think for themselves, looked at the argument for and against id and decided it was cr@p on their own.

Ummm... yes it does. That's why I ask them what books, articles, etc. about IDT have they read.

Should we ask this question again of you, despite your continued avoidance?

Okay, what books, articles, etc. did you read when looking at the argument for yourself? Thus far, it looks like you've not read ANY IDT, and despite your assertion that you and others make informed opinions, there is no evidence of it.

So, yes it has occured to me that people "learned to think for themselves, looked at the argument for and against id and decided it was cr@p on their own..." I just don't see any evidence of it.

And once again to clarify exactly how well informed YOUR opinion about IDT is: Which books, articles, etc., written by IDTists have you read when making YOUR opinion about IDT?

[crickets]

But then your whole argumetnfor ID seemto be based onthe idea that anyone not believing in it is incaple of original thought and is jsut parroting what other have to say. Unless they don't provide links, in which case they are guilty of not having "documents" to back them up.

Hmmm... my back-and-forth with you hasn't actually been able to delve into the realms of support for ID. Thus far, I've spent all my time with you, noting how incredibly uninformed you are, and correcting your inaccurate paraphrasing of my posts. The only people I've accused of parroting what they've heard are the people that appear to be parroting what they've heard. Interestingly enough, YOU'RE complaining about my attacking your position of complete ignorance about this topic, yet you do nothing to dispell the notion that you are completely ignorant about the topic. Do you see how this just further supports what I am saying?

And what's this about providing links, and then claiming I say "they are guilty of not having 'documents' to back them up." I've done nothing of the sort. I can't imagine what you're talking about, because you've pretty much offered nothing in terms of links. You did offer one link, but this link doesn't refute IDT, it's just the opinion of people that don't support ID. Offering up the opinion of others does nothing to further the discussion. If you provide some information that actually refutes ID and care to explain your opinion on it, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, we can just keep going back and forth like this: me accusing you of being totally ignorant about this topic, and you doing nothing to dispell, with the exception of trying to make me look ignorant. It's an interesting strategy, I'll give you that, but it's not likely to earn you much respect here in the long run.

Pretty nice catch-22 ya got going their, nicely avoids having to actually defend ID.

Thus far, you've given me nothing to defend against. How could you? You've not read even a shred of material about the topic. It's pretty hard to defend against non-existant arguments and rebuttals.

So, which books, articles, etc. about IDT have you read?

Hmm, you are correct. Not sure why I put that in quotes. Though I used the term because you kept on( both w/me and others in this thread) about having thought's of our own.

Yes, I do do this. But quotes are reserved for times when someone actually spoke, or in this case wrote the quoted words. At no time did I use the term original. Thus it is inappropriate for you to quote me asking for "original" ideas. Because I didn't do this.

I asked if you had any thoughts of your own about this.

Do you have any thoughts of your own? Really? Based on what?

I noticed that you only included examples of people who were successful in
getting their theories excepted evetually, as you hope ID will.

You didn't include examples of people who failed to get them included.

I actually have no vested interest in ID being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. It doesn't affect my work at all. The only place I am willing to speak openly about IDT is pretty much here in this forum, as I am untenured. Whether or not IDT is accepted won't affect me personally. But I do feel the need to correct the extreme misinformation that surrounds this topic and the origins of the discipline in general. I further feel the need to point out the logical fallacies that exist in describing NDT as science and IDT as being unscientific, as they two bases for hypotheses appear to be methodologically equivalent.

I didn't include examples of people's whose work "failed to be included" because it's not relevant. The point of that post was to demonstrate that new and revolutionary ideas are often not accepted by the science community, but later are accepted and become important. The point was that the peer-review process and that attitude that exists in the science community often prevents important ideas from gaining acceptance when they are first introduced. What would be the point of talking about every rejected paper that ever came back. Every scientist, myself included, has a bunch of rejected papers. Rejected papers are not the issue, the issue is sound scientific ideas that are initially rejected by the science community. My point was to show that science is often unwilling to change, even when presented with sound scientific data that just happens to go against their presuppositons.

What's your point?