Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

So....a LEADING proponent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN doesn't BELIEVE in INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Behe beleives in intelligent design, just that man himself wasn't intelligently designed (or, at least, that he beleives he can only show that the most fundamental, yet complex, facets of life were intelligently designed). Not each species needs to be intelligently designed in ID.

Wow, this thread it is flying along, I can't keep up

Just in reaction to something earlier:

originally posted by mattison0922
But I would like to discuss this stuff with someone that actually seems to understand it. For the most part, my acerbic style is meant to elicit a response. A few times, it has actually caused someone to read some ID and become more informed. Admittedly, it's not the norm, but the few times it has worked make me keep it up.

Fair enough, I enjoy a good debate and you and Rren are great debaters - I have in fact gone out and learnt much more not just about ID, but about evolutionary theory and the nature of science itself from previous debates. Still, your style can be quite annoying, as I'm sure mine can be at times.

Just to pick up a point you made:

Depends on the context. It's capable of making the same types of predictions that Darwinian Theory is. ID, for example, predicts that there is no such thing as 'junk DNA' and that we will find a function for most things currently classified as 'junk DNA,' for example.

Would it really predict that there should be no "junk" DNA? Wouldn't this imply that not only was there a designer but that it was capable of perfection? Why would ID predict a perfect designer? (he asks, innocently)

Complex computer programs that have been put together over a number of years (sometimes decades) usually contain quite a bit of useless code. All of it would have been once used for something, but certain parts are now bypassed by more recent functions. These programs have definitely been produced by a designer but still contain 'junk' instructions. Why should shouldn't the program code that is the genome have now useless instructions in it? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

I have not read the entire thread as I do not wish to take the time to read through 17 pages of rather long messages. I only read through about 8 pages, so if any of my statements have been previously mentioned, my apologies. All who have arguements against evolution, please do read this. It is long, but if you take the time to read it, it think it may help explain some things...

The arguement "it's just a theory, it's not proven" is based on a misenterpritation of the word "theory". The fact is that "theories" like evolution are nearly impossible to prove. There is no way to completely 100% show that Homo sapien and Pan troglodytes evolved from a common ancestor. If you expect it to ever become a Law, it will and cannot. I guess we should come up with alternative theories to teach alongside the atomic THEORY or the THEORY of relativity or how about the cell THEORY. They can't be 100% proven so why not also teach Bob's(made up name) theory that we are all made up of pixie dust? The "theory" arguement fails entirely. The fact is that although evolution is in fact a theory it is based on a lot of facts and science, where as ID is based on human speculation as I will explain if you keep reading till the end.

Another main arguement is that the universe has to have had something to create it and that it didn't just appear. The thing is evolution never says that something DIDN'T create the universe. This arguement is also used against the big bang, which also DOES NOT say that the universe was not created by something before it. The big bang does not attempt to explain how that singularity that expanded got there. This singularity does not need a "god" to have had been "put" or "made"(for lack of me being able to think of another word) there. Who's to say that this singularity was not ALWAYS there? Even if it wasn't that doesn't mean that something could have "made" it that is not god. I personally think that the M/String theory looks promising as an explanation of the origins of the universe (amoung other problems it explains).

People also often suggest that the universe is to complex/complicated/beautiful to not have been created by a god. The reason the universe appears to complicated or complex to just happen is because your intelligence (not just yours, mine and everyone elses' too) is not great enough to comprehend the universe completely. Your logic may tell you that it is incredibly intricate and complicated, but what is complicated or complex? Who is the third person who decides is something is complicated or not when I say it is and you say it isn't? As I'm sure you know, as intelligence increases, things that are very complicated or complex or hard to understand no longer appear to be so difficult. The universe being to "beautiful" can be explained similarly. Who is this third person who decides that something is beautiful or not if I say it is when I say it is and you say it isn't? There is no third person who can make this decision, so it is subjective not objective. Let's say that we create machines more intelligent then we are (which i assure you we will in the fairly near future), they may not see the universe as nearly so complicated or complex. In fact if they build machines more intelligent then they, and those machines do the same and so on and so forth, eventually the universe will probably be seen by them as "simple". Do not let your human perceptions and "logic" get in the way of your accepting of a theory.

I'm sorry if there are a lot of spelling errors as it is very late and I must get to sleep. I will try to correct them as I see them.


[edit on 17-8-2006 by Liquid Swords1]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Fair enough, I enjoy a good debate and you and Rren are great debaters - I have in fact gone out and learnt much more not just about ID, but about evolutionary theory and the nature of science itself from previous debates. Still, your style can be quite annoying, as I'm sure mine can be at times.

Glad to hear this daddyo. Sorry to have annoyed you, but glad to hear I inspired you to read some, even if you're doing it in spite of me instead of because of me.

Would it really predict that there should be no "junk" DNA? Wouldn't this imply that not only was there a designer but that it was capable of perfection? Why would ID predict a perfect designer? (he asks, innocently)

Thanks for actually asking a question that can be responded to. This is great!

Perhaps the description 'no' junk DNA is a bit excessive. I would imagine, there are degrees, or different schools of thought here. For example, perhaps Behe is okay with some junk DNA, having accepted the common descent of apes and man. Perhaps, for example, he accepts that the alu pseudogenes really are what scientists claim them to be.

On the other hand, an ID proponent isn't likely to see large islands of non-coding sequence as non-functional. They would likely predict that there is some function for these islands.

Take another example: Perhaps one is interested in the ability of enyzmes to improve their function. For example, if you mutate an enzyme, making it less functional, can selection alone restore its original efficiency, or in fact any efficiency at all? The ID based perspective might predict that when 'enzyme functionality' is plotted vs. 'number of generations,' the trend would have no slope, or perhaps even a negative slope, while ToE would likely predict a positive slope as 'better' enzymes were selected for.

As far as the second part of your question is concerned: Do you really believe that no junk DNA implies a perfect designer? I don't make that connection. No junk DNA implies perhaps a moderately efficient designer, but not necessarily perfect. The prediction would probably call for most DNA to have a function, but that doesn't equal a perfect designer.

There are a lot of cars, etc. without excessive non-functional apparatus, and do you feel this implies that those who desing autos must be perfect?

Though I would like to point out that once again, we've left the realm of talking about design, and are back to the designer.

Complex computer programs that have been put together over a number of years (sometimes decades) usually contain quite a bit of useless code. All of it would have been once used for something, but certain parts are now bypassed by more recent functions. These programs have definitely been produced by a designer but still contain 'junk' instructions. Why should shouldn't the program code that is the genome have now useless instructions in it? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

It's a great point. To be honest with you, computer code is something I am not too familiar with. I would imagine the degree of useless instructions one would be willing to accept would depend on one's perspective. As I mentioned since Behe accepts the common descent of apes and man, then perhaps he's okay with a certain amount of junk DNA. On the other hand, someone like Phillip Johnson who doesn't accept this might not be okay with calling non-coding DNA 'junk.'

Personally, I am not a fan of the concept of 'junk' DNA. I must admit to believing the we will eventually find some functions for non-coding DNA.

In any case, do you have any examples of junk code you'd be willing to share. Also, is the code not functional in all contexts? For example if you are using an older OS, does the code then become functional? Is it functional perhaps in some 'software context.'

It sounds as if the 'junk' code from computer programs is junk because it's replaced by other code. Is this so? If that is the case, it seems that it wouldn't be directly analogous to the situation in the genome. What I mean is the code that is junk in computer programs is junk because it's been replaced. Whereas the junk in the genome is thought to be junk because it's 'broken' so to speak.

Thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking post.

Perhaps the description 'no' junk DNA is a bit excessive. I would imagine, there are degrees, or different schools of thought here. For example, perhaps Behe is okay with some junk DNA,

I believe this puts ID proponents in pretty much the same place as "mainstream" scientists, as there are degrees of opinion on the percentage of DNA that will eventually turn out to be "junk". Haven't some sequences that were previously classified as junk turned out to have function?

Personally I don't see either ID or standard evolutiony theory making any prediction about so called junk sequences. Obviously classical Darwinian theory wasn't aware of DNA and made no predictions concerning it - I was under the impression that the discovery that 97% of the genetic code apparently did nothing was a surprise to everyone.

Take another example: Perhaps one is interested in the ability of enyzmes to improve their function. For example, if you mutate an enzyme, making it less functional, can selection alone restore its original efficiency, or in fact any efficiency at all? The ID based perspective might predict that when 'enzyme functionality' is plotted vs. 'number of generations,' the trend would have no slope, or perhaps even a negative slope, while ToE would likely predict a positive slope as 'better' enzymes were selected for.

Hmmm...not sure about this. I can't see why standard ToE wouldn't allow for a flat (or even negative) slope of effeciency for a particular enzyme (though if the slopes for all enzymes were negative we might have a problem). Though of course standard ToE states that generally less effecient mutations will be discarded, this isn't always so in the short term. It is now increasingly understood that genes have their own internal dynamics that means they can only mutate in certain ways, and that certain mutations may "lock" the genome down a certain path. Many species stay "flat", ie don't appear to evolve over very long periods of time, so I don't see why this wouldn't be so for enzymes (though I might be completely wrong, and I realise that punctuated equilibrium is controversial). Darwin favoured gradualism, but of course was referring to species and had no idea about enzymes or the dynamics of DNA.

I would be interested to read more about this though - have you any links that would be suitable for someone without specialist knowledge (me)?

As far as the second part of your question is concerned: Do you really believe that no junk DNA implies a perfect designer?

Yeah, you're right it probably doesn't. I was just been a bit cheeky and implying that some proponents of ID don't just think that there was a designer but that it was a perfect one (ie God).

Though I would like to point out that once again, we've left the realm of talking about design, and are back to the designer.

I know *sigh*, but you must admit it is very tricky to talk about design without referring to the designer. I am not sure why ID can make the prediction about no junk DNA without implying something about the designer.

In any case, do you have any examples of junk code you'd be willing to share. Also, is the code not functional in all contexts? For example if you are using an older OS, does the code then become functional? Is it functional perhaps in some 'software context.'

My best example I can give you is from a reasonable sized a application I coded over a number of years and which certainly has chunks of instructions that don't do anything.

These have got there for different reasons, an example would be: deleting a button off the user interface as that function is no longer needed but leaving the code behind that button in place. Sometimes this was just sloppy and sometimes it was because I thought I might put that button back into use sometime in the future and would need the code again.

There is also the case where I have written a certain generic function which is called upon several times from the main body of code. However over time I have re-written the main body of the code until it is no longer utilising this function - which then just sits there as apparent "junk". This function might be used again in a future itteration, and anyway only adds 1kb onto the final install file, so is irrelvant on a modern computer (though of course would not have been in the past). The point I'm trying to make, in rather labourious style, is that the program is definitely designed (if not in the most effecient manner), and definitely contains instructions that are currently useless - though they weren't always and may be used again.

I'm sure my analogy of old computer code and "junk" DNA can't be an original thought, it is too obvious to anyone who has ever coded - I will look to see what might have been written

Thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking post.

Cheers!

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I believe this puts ID proponents in pretty much the same place as "mainstream" scientists, as there are degrees of opinion on the percentage of DNA that will eventually turn out to be "junk". Haven't some sequences that were previously classified as junk turned out to have function?

Personally I don't see either ID or standard evolutiony theory making any prediction about so called junk sequences. Obviously classical Darwinian theory wasn't aware of DNA and made no predictions concerning it - I was under the impression that the discovery that 97% of the genetic code apparently did nothing was a surprise to everyone.

Perhaps it was a surprise, but I think that's somewhat peripheral. But in actuality, the fact is that much of the DNA was seen as non-coding, since it was believed that all DNA did was encode proteins, it was assumed that the non-coding DNA was leftover from sloppy evolutionary mechanisms. That is from the evolutionary perspective, it was imagined that this DNA didn't have a function, and could be explained away as leftover garbage.

Perhaps that's not a prediction, but rather an unwarranted assumption. The point is that an ID perspective is less likely to take that viewpoint.

And yes you are correct, much of this 'junk' DNA is turning out to have a function. In fact it's being learned alll the time. For example, it's now believed that some processed pseudogenes have a function, not an encoding function... but a function nonetheless.

This field of research in fact languished for years because of the faulty junk DNA assumption.

Hmmm...not sure about this. I can't see why standard ToE wouldn't allow for a flat (or even negative) slope of effeciency for a particular enzyme (though if the slopes for all enzymes were negative we might have a problem). Though of course standard ToE states that generally less effecient mutations will be discarded, this isn't always so in the short term.

If you pick an essential enzyme, it pretty much has to happen. For example if we picked the ATP Synthase, something that is pretty much required for growth, it has to be selected for. Yes, your point is well taken though... if you pick an enzyme that is for some peripheral function... say production of penicillinase, but don't subject it to selective pressure, then there is no reason to assume the enzyme will need to become more efficient. In the case of something like the ATP synthase, this assumption , IMO, is valid.

I would be interested to read more about this though - have you any links that would be suitable for someone without specialist knowledge (me)?

Nothing off the top of my head, with the exception of stuff that I've posted on other forums. I believe the ATS T&C don't permit to post a link to other forums. I may have some refs. in the adaptive mutation category. Unfortunately, I am visiting my dad in NY now, and won't be able to rifle my stuff until I get back to NC. I won't be home until Mon.

I know *sigh*, but you must admit it is very tricky to talk about design without referring to the designer. I am not sure why ID can make the prediction about no junk DNA without implying something about the designer.

Perhaps there is a fine line... I don't think a finding that implies something about a designer is so bad... the problem is outright assumptions about the designer, and implying that you can subject the designer to some sort of naturalistic scientific method. Because to a certain extent, I am forced to agree with you about this.

My best example I can give you is from a reasonable sized a application I coded over a number of years and which certainly has chunks of instructions that don't do anything.

These have got there for different reasons, an example would be: deleting a button off the user interface as that function is no longer needed but leaving the code behind that button in place. Sometimes this was just sloppy and sometimes it was because I thought I might put that button back into use sometime in the future and would need the code again.

There is also the case where I have written a certain generic function which is called upon several times from the main body of code. However over time I have re-written the main body of the code until it is no longer utilising this function - which then just sits there as apparent "junk". This function might be used again in a future itteration, and anyway only adds 1kb onto the final install file, so is irrelvant on a modern computer (though of course would not have been in the past). The point I'm trying to make, in rather labourious style, is that the program is definitely designed (if not in the most effecient manner), and definitely contains instructions that are currently useless - though they weren't always and may be used again.

I'm sure my analogy of old computer code and "junk" DNA can't be an original thought, it is too obvious to anyone who has ever coded - I will look to see what might have been written

The analogy certainly has been made before in these types of discussions. One thing, and I'm not sure if I brought it up yet or not. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but in any case, what you're talking about isn't exactly what evolution refers to... that is junk DNA and useless code do both represent loss of function type activities. Certainly no one denies that things break down, things malfunction, etc, even things that were designed well. But evolution, colloquially, refers to the construction of new structures, etc, not the destruction.... just wanted to clarify this point.

Originally posted by RrenFor arguments sake the estimate (Crick's) for life happening by chance is: 1:10^2,000,000,000. Here's a critique of another, yet similar, argument against the design inference. Covers the playing card analogy/argument also. Specification is key; mechanism is key... the card analogy is weak imo, because it glosses over the actual issues/details (eg: the search space/possible configuration, mechanism.) ~ s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n ~

For your whole theory you incorrectly assume specification. You incorrectly assume that everything as it is on Earth was the only possible outcome. One slight event in the past could have change the evolution of our species.
One more major comet/meteor impact and life on Earth would be completely different. One less impact and dinosaurs may have been the dominant species on Earth today. Your argument is invalid. The odds of a significant number of events happening perfectly is improbable, alas, they did happen.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Aiyaeyaeyae

:bnghd:

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Intelligent Design is the belief that the universe and life itself was created by an Intelligent being above our level of comprehension.

Thats the basis, correct.

Ladies and gents, and we’ve reached the point where the cult falls apart and ID proves its self to be not a theory.


Looking for clues to support a predetermined conclusion, in this case being that the universe was “created” by an “intelligent designer,” is not a scientific theory. Using clues that exist to formulate a probable conclusion is a theory, i.e. evolution or relativity.

A scientific theory isn’t an episode of Blue’s Clues as ID cult members would have the world believe. ID claims that it doesn’t try to predict who the creator is, how the universe and life were designed or created, what technology was used, where it came from, et cetera, et cetera.
If ID does not make a prediction about how the universe was created, then it is not a theory.

Based on internal documents, we know that ID cultists do believe that the Christian deity created the world. This is a guarded secret by ID cultists so that they don’t have the stigma of being associated with classical creationism.

Remember, the goal of ID is to have their religion taught in schools, which they know cannot happen unless they keep their distance from Jesus and pals.
Give it up, you people have already been defeated. Once your puppet Bush is out of office, you’ll all be done for good.



[edit on 20-8-2006 by Rev Paine]

mattison0922, we can go around and around in a circle till the cows come home on Grant's Theory. However, as you yourself said that the scientific community decides then so be it. They have and it's fine to be used in teaching.

However, got one questio to you. What's the basic idea of intelligent design? Just briefly explain the hypothesis.

Originally posted by Odium
mattison0922, we can go around and around in a circle till the cows come home on Grant's Theory. However, as you yourself said that the scientific community decides then so be it. They have and it's fine to be used in teaching.

However, got one questio to you. What's the basic idea of intelligent design? Just briefly explain the hypothesis.

They believe in something that they invented called irreducible complexity which says that the parts of an organism are too complex to have been created through the gradual process of evolution, however, every "irreducibly complex" system that they find can be reduced to individual working parts, thus, it's a hoax.

They also use Pen and Teller esque smoke and mirror math tricks to give the illusion that the "odds" are too great for life to have evolved.

They ignore any potential link between species, such as between homo erectus and homo sapian sapians, and they do not provide an explaination for, well, anything.

Their answer is "Well, we were created."

By who?

"Well, I don't know, and we're not going to try to figure out the how and who and why, those aren't important details, what is important is that we had a creator!"

Most ID supporters know that they are being dishonest, but they justify spreading ID because they feel it will help to spread the word of Jesus. The goal is to identify the Christian deity as the creator.

Rev Paine, I want his own version of it though.

Where I went to school, they teach ID but not in a Science Class. In a Religious setting instead. I want to see what he thinks ID is, before I continue with this thread. Otherwise, he'll use the tactic he has used on all of the others and to disagree with the wording and so on and so fourth instead of actually answering the questions.

Originally posted by Rev Paine
Most ID supporters know that they are being dishonest, but they justify spreading ID because they feel it will help to spread the word of Jesus. The goal is to identify the Christian deity as the creator.

Thats a rather poor assesment. The basic idea behind ID is that design can be detected.

please explain why design in objects can't be detected. please explain why we can't find something that is different between, say, a rock, and a rock made into a cutting surface by ancient man.

Please explain why the only possible reason that a person could think that there is a difference that is detectable between things that have been considered and designed and things that are not designed can be that you're a lying jesus-freak.

Originally posted by Odium
mattison0922, we can go around and around in a circle till the cows come home on Grant's Theory. However, as you yourself said that the scientific community decides then so be it. They have and it's fine to be used in teaching.

So? When did I ever say it shouldn't be used to teach? I simply pointed out that the 'evidence' the Grants see fits perfectly within the models offered by YECist's and OECists. Point being, if you want to offer this as support for the evolutionary model, it can't be ignored that it fits perfectly within the Creationist model framework also.

Teach it all you want, just don't call a shift in pre-existing alleles macro-evolution, because it's not. It's a shuffling of things that were already in the population. Evolution, in the broad definition important in these types of discussions, is concerned with the origin of species, not how they adapt locally.

As I've pointed out multiple times, this isn't evidence for 'evolution' as it is colloquially used, that is the creation of new biological structures and novelty.

However, got one questio to you. What's the basic idea of intelligent design? Just briefly explain the hypothesis.

Rev Paine, I want his own version of it though.

Where I went to school, they teach ID but not in a Science Class. In a Religious setting instead. I want to see what he thinks ID is, before I continue with this thread. Otherwise, he'll use the tactic he has used on all of the others and to disagree with the wording and so on and so fourth instead of actually answering the questions.

This is just such a complete line of rubbish it's practically unbelievable.

First of all, I've stated what 'the basic idea of intelligent design' is right here in this thread - multiple times. Don't be lazy, use your scroll bars and look for yourself.

My 'tactic' is simply trying to keep these ridiculous topics on the Intelligent Design movement, not what you think the ID movement is. I disagree with the wording because despite 17 or so pages you can't manage to keep the thread on topic, and try to obfuscate it with irrelevant info. For example, your little tirade about how I never read your Transitional Fossils FAQ.

Guess what? Here's news for you: Transitional Fossils fit perfectly well within an ID based hypothesis. There's no reason to address it, as it's not a problem for ID. Then you move on and say I obfuscate the issue by refusing to stick with a definition for ID. Please. I am practically the only person in this thread who can manage to stick with the correct definition.

You should realize that your making grave errors in assumptions when Nygdan, an ardent evolutionist and ID opponent jumps in the thread to support what I am saying.

Weird, huh?

So like I said, use your scroll bar and find one of the many times I have consistently defined 'the basic idea of intelligent design,' right here in this thread.

Edit to correct reference re: Nygdan. Nygdan is an ID opponent not proponent, sorry for almost tarnishing your rep, bud.


[edit on 21-8-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by Rev Paine
Looking for clues to support a predetermined conclusion, in this case being that the universe was “created” by an “intelligent designer,” is not a scientific theory. Using clues that exist to formulate a probable conclusion is a theory, i.e. evolution or relativity.

Baloney. All scientific theories have some 'assumptions' that go along with them. Evolution operates under the assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origins of all species. This may or may not be the case. Similarly, there may in fact be a naturalistic origin of life scenario that doesn't rely on evolution at all. But this is peripheral. Science makes assumptions, period. There's no way to get around this. The major assumptions can be summarized as follows:

1. Creationism: The God of the Bible Created the Universe. There are of course different schools of thought here, YEC and OEC, with everything in between.
2. ID: Certain aspects of the universe and biology in particular show the signs of having been created by a pre-existing intelligence.
3. Evolution: There is a natural law, process, or mechanism by which life gained its present level of complexity.

Three huge assumptions about the origins of universe and in particular biological complexity, each no more valid than another... ie: they're origins topics... facts subject to inference, and not absolute proof.

People make assumptions in science, deal with it. Guess what, sometimes the assumptions are incorrect: Like the assumption that DNA/RNA information was a one way street, or the assumption that non-coding DNA is 'junk,' or the assumption that nucleic acid is a requirement for infection and transmissable disease to occur, or the assumption that radiation damage to biological systems can be extrapolated linearly to 0, all assumptions that scientists used for years that have, and are turning out to be patently false.

Simply because you hold one world view very near and dear to your heart doesn't make it so.

ID claims that it doesn’t try to predict who the creator is,

Correct.

how the universe and life were designed or created,

Not entirely true. It lays out specific criteria for those systems that might be worthy candidates of design theory. Additionally, the theory isn't about how things are designed, only with the detection of design, and other issues relevant to design. There is no 'requirement' that science be mechanistic. Big Bang Theory isn't mechanistic, that is it doesn't explain how the singularity came into being, it only explains the evidence we see in context with the hypothesis. IOW it's a descriptive science. Gravity is similar. Yes, we can quantify it and put numbers to it, etc. But it's not a description of the nature of gravity, that is we can't explain how gravity works, but we can predict the way it acts on mass. No mechanism there, no descriptions of particles waves, etc.

I'm sure the bioinformatics Ph.D.s cranking out oodles of sequence data would be just thrilled to know that people don't consider what they do science. There's no mechanism in generating sequence data... it's just information.

what technology was used, where it came from, et cetera, et cetera.

Correct.

If ID does not make a prediction about how the universe was created, then it is not a theory.

I'm perfectly comfortable not calling ID a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
Then again, I think we better tell the String theory people, and pretty much the entire world of theoretical physics the same thing though.

However, ID is capable of making predictions in a manner at least equivalent to that of ToE.

Based on internal documents, we know that ID cultists do believe that the Christian deity created the world. This is a guarded secret by ID cultists so that they don’t have the stigma of being associated with classical creationism.

Baloney. First of all, the DI isn't ID. While it may house many of the most prominent ID supporters, ID isn't encompassed by the DI, just like the NCSE doesn't speak for the entire ToE, the DI doesn't speak for ID movement as a whole.

This is great stuff though... I really like this statement:

"This is a guarded secret by ID cultists"

What I find particularly amusing is that this 'closely guarded secret' is freely available at the DI website. Download it for yourself... have a look at a 'Top Secret' document that anyone with an internet connection can view themselves.

Remember, the goal of ID is to have their religion taught in schools, which they know cannot happen unless they keep their distance from Jesus and pals.

Hmmm... the two most prominent ID supporters on this site, myself and Rren don't support the teaching of ID in public schools. I've stated this on record many, many times here, a couple of times right here in this thread. If you'd bothered to check out the opinions of some ID supporters you'd realize that most average people who support ID don't support politicizing the issue by trying to legislate it into schools.

Give it up, you people have already been defeated. Once your puppet Bush is out of office, you’ll all be done for good.

Okay. Any other sage advice re: origins topics

Ummm... just FYI. I support ID's pursuit of scientific freedom, but I ummm.... don't, never have, and never would support GWB. I know it's fun to make blanket assumptions about people, but it's just not true.

Not sure if Rren supports GWB... I know he's a pretty hard core carnivore though.


[edit on 21-8-2006 by mattison0922]

mattison0922, just place it here now.

Don't write anything else, but the answers to these questions on Intelligent Design. It's pointless to keep tracking back and fourth or to say go here and there. Otherwise, this thread might as well be locked with links to previous discussions on the issue.

So just answer these questions for me:

What is the definition of intelligent design?
What is the hypothesis of intelligent design?
How can this hypothesis be tested?

Once they are, then we can get this information from you we can debate it from your view point. Especailly, since I find your posts conflicting in what you define Intelligent Design as on the previous pages.

Because let's take this quote:

ID: Certain aspects of the universe and biology in particular show the signs of having been created by a pre-existing intelligence.

Surely, if because the complexity of things points to some form of intelligent design. This force must have also been intelligently designed. So, in the end the arguement is a cycle. Every form of intelligent creater must have in turn has its own creater. This is very much a scientific problem to over-come.

Thank you,
Odium.

[edit on 21/8/2006 by Odium]

Originally posted by Odium
mattison0922, just place it here now.

Don't write anything else, but the answers to these questions on Intelligent Design. It's pointless to keep tracking back and fourth or to say go here and there. Otherwise, this thread might as well be locked with links to previous discussions on the issue.

Bull. You have just chosen to ignore or otherwise not acknowledge the definitions posted multiple times. This is why this discussion goes nowhere, because the 'opponents' - in their utter lack of understanding, have no idea where to start asking questions.

But for the sake of argument:

What is the definition of intelligent design?

Last time. ID is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.

What is the hypothesis of intelligent design?

What is the hypothesis with respect to what? This question is far to general to answer as asked. I might as well ask what is the hypothesis of evolution. There is no broad, encompassing hypothesis. Hypotheses, for the purposes of testing, cannot be this vague and non-specific. If you truly want to continue this discussion, you'll have to be more specific.

This is of course likely to be met with cries of 'avoiding the issue,' etc. Rest assured it is not.

Just to head off that type of argument, please answer the following about ToE.

1. What is the hypothesis of evolution?
2. How can this hypothesis be tested?

How can this hypothesis be tested?

Please see above. If you'd care to talk about more specific hypotheses, I am game.

In fact, I'll start, just so I'm not accused of avoiding the issue. There is a protein that is so essential it is required in practically every living organism: the ATP Synthase. The enzyme is biological rotary motor, producing approximately 90% of a cell's ATP. ToE states that this enzyme evolved gradually from other systems into it's current form. ID describes this protein as irreducibly complex and futhermore is nested in an irreducibly complex pathway, and thus couldn't have come about by a gradual mechanism. Two competing ideas or hypothesis about the origins of this enzyme, both of which are mutually exclusive.

For this enzyme to have been produced via mutation selection, two events must have taken place:

1. Assembly of the 'prototype' enzyme, and
2. subsequent improvements in the enzyme via mutation/selection. Therefore we can test either hypothesis by starting with either step.

Starting with step two is easier. Proteins that are already assembled gives the system a head start. The way would test these various hypotheses, is via site-directed mutagenesis experiments.

Mutate this enzyme to a point where it still assembles but is significantly less efficient then it currently is... mutate it say, less than 10% of its' current activity. Grow the mutant cells up in culture, with various selective pressures for several thousand generations in bacteria. Plot enzyme efficiency as a function of number of generations.

IMO, ID is likely to predict stasis, that is a flat line in enzyme activity as a function of number of generations. ToE is likely to predict a line or trend rather that slopes upward over time as the enzyme improves in efficiency.

So there you go, a hypothesis, predictions, and quantifiable results from an ID based hypothesis, with an evolutionary hypothesis about the same system for comparison.

Especailly, since I find your posts conflicting in what you define Intelligent Design as on the previous pages.

Hmmm... conflicting? That's funny, especially since everytime I get a 'definition' for ID I get it from the exact same source. I just cut and paste it. I'm not sure how this could be considered conflicting. Everytime someone asks for a definition of ID I post the exact same thing. This is just more smoke and mirrors meant to detract from your utter lack of knowledge about this topic.

[philosophy]

Because let's take this quote:

ID: Certain aspects of the universe and biology in particular show the signs of having been created by a pre-existing intelligence.

Surely, if because the complexity of things points to some form of intelligent design. This force must have also been intelligently designed. So, in the end the arguement is a cycle. Every form of intelligent creater must have in turn has its own creater. This is very much a scientific problem to over-come.

What is it with this? Why can't you get off this designer argument?

Why must an intelligent creator have a creator? The only things that require creation are those things that have a beginning. 'Beginning' is a temporal reference. Time is a function of spacetime, and in effect didn't exist prior to the big bang. Time has a beginning, because the universe has a beginning. A creator that created the universe created time and thus time isn't subject its constraints of its creation that is spacetime specifically. It's a logical impossibility.

Of course none of this is Intelligent Design; this is strictly philosophy.
[/philosophy]


[edit on 21-8-2006 by mattison0922]

Actually the string/M-theory is just not provable with present technologies. There are number of proposed experiments that could be performed or phenomenon that could be detected that might help prove or disprove the string theory (including experiements which could be performed with the soon to be finished Large Hadron Collider). Also the string theory is incomplete and much of it is not well understood. A better understanding of many the ideas and predictions made by the string theory could be help develop an experiment of some sort that could prove or disprove the theory.

However there is no technology that could be developed in the forseeable future that would be able to prove the existence of a creator of the universe. I am also interested in what evidence you see that shows that the universe was created by a god or creator. If any of this evidence has anything to do with Evolution so far being unable to account for certain things or events in nature then this isn't actually evidence for a creator. Rather it is simply evidence that Evolution SO FAR is unable to account for certain things or events in nature or that possibly, but unlikely, the theory of evolution is not the correct theory. HOWEVER, even if this is used as evidence that the theory of evolution is incorrect, it is not evidence that ID is correct. Saying the ID must be correct because evolution isn't doesn't make any sense, there could very well be other theories out there with substantial and provable evidence that have nothing to do with either ID or evolution.

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Actually the string/M-theory is just not provable with present technologies. There are number of proposed experiments that could be performed or phenomenon that could be detected that might help prove or disprove the string theory (including experiements which could be performed with the soon to be finished Large Hadron Collider). Also the string theory is incomplete and much of it is not well understood. A better understanding of many the ideas and predictions made by the string theory could be help develop an experiment of some sort that could prove or disprove the theory.

Right. And this is exactly my point. People come on these forums and throw around the word theory like it has no scientific meaning. Then suddenly when someone says "Intelligent Design Theory" (something I never or very rarely use), the ID opponents throw a hissy fit and say that a theory means something different to scientists. I could say very much the same things about ID as you have in your paragraph above re: string theory - with one big difference. The experiments that could detect or falsify design hypotheses can be performed today. So the ID opponents are willing to casually use the word the word theory, but can't live up to their own standard was my point.

If you insist that people not refer to ID as a theory, then the same should be stated for such unsubstantiated ideas such as string theory.

If the word theory does really mean "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world," then stop calling string theory a 'theory.'

In reality I couldn't care less if someone says ID Theory or string theory. I would appreciate people living up to their own standard, however

However there is no technology that could be developed in the forseeable future that would be able to prove the existence of a creator of the universe.

ID isn't about proving any such thing, and more-or-less all the available ID literature very clearly states this.

I am also interested in what evidence you see that shows that the universe was created by a god or creator.

Where did I write I know of evidence that shows the universe was created by a god or creator? I've written no such thing.

The only thing I ever write about God in the ID threads is 'Stop talking about God,' and 'God has nothing to do with ID.'

If you people (that is ID opponents) would stop bringing God up, I'd never have to mention it.

If any of this evidence has anything to do with Evolution so far being unable to account for certain things or events in nature then this isn't actually evidence for a creator.

Negative evidence doesn't qualify as evidence for anything.

HOWEVER, even if this is used as evidence that the theory of evolution is incorrect, it is not evidence that ID is correct. Saying the ID must be correct because evolution isn't doesn't make any sense, there could very well be other theories out there with substantial and provable evidence that have nothing to do with either ID or evolution.

Okay... So what?

I've never stated that evidence against evolution is for ID. Furthermore, I've never stated that ID must be correct if evolution isn't. These are things I've NEVER stated, here or anywhere else in the forums.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to refuting arguments that I actually made, and stop just making stuff up.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by mattison0922]

i just want to point something out here, interrupting whatever is up on this chaotic argumentative thread

where is the evidence that SUPPORTS ID?

if i were a mod i'd award ats points for evidence to support it.

want evidence for evolution, we've got well over 100 years worth of papers written on evolutionary theory

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i just want to point something out here, interrupting whatever is up on this chaotic argumentative thread

where is the evidence that SUPPORTS ID?

if i were a mod i'd award ats points for evidence to support it.

want evidence for evolution, we've got well over 100 years worth of papers written on evolutionary theory

Hmmm... I'll tell you what. Why don't you read just one of these articles alleged to support ID, evaluate it on its scientific merit, and we'll discuss it here.

I have access to more or less all the major journals, so u2u me if you need a .pdf. If I can't download it personally, I'll get it through ILL.

Certainly that link would be a good starting place for you.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by mattison0922]