Yet more desperation at the DI

How sad, not only are they denouncing God in their insistence that ID is not about God but they are also hiding the obvious fact that ID is all about the supernatural. Just as Minnich who testified at the Dover trial.
Remember how Dembski was looking forward to put the vice on evolutionists when under oath? Seems that he sort'a got his wish.
Only thing different is that it were the ID activists who had to 'fess up'

Seems that someone took Dembski's suggestion to heart and applied it quite effectively. Thank you Bill, Dover could not have been won so successfully without your assistance.

The support for ID from YECs will continue to be an insurmountable problem for IDists. Without YEC support ID would never have left the torpid backwaters of pseudoscience but, with it, they are saddled with a bunch of religious fanatics who will not and cannot toe the official ID party line.

Without YEC support ID would never have left the torpid backwaters of pseudoscience

... for the fetid sewers of pseudoscience, where it thrives now with help from the YECs?

Here's a question: who is the bigger liar? Casey Luskin or his protege in propaganda, Michael Francisco?

I think Casey remains the master liar. Francisco, sadly, seems far too stupid to reach the heights of intentional misrepresentation scaled so ably by Luskin.

The only thing these two bozos seem capable of remembering is that they are, under no circumstances, allowed to engage commenters in this forum and answer direct questions.

How do I know this?

A little mole told me.

OK, ID is different to creationism - in word count. But when it comes down to detail where is there a difference:

Creationists: the designer did it not too long ago.
IDots: the designer did it.
Therefore ID=Creationism (but without the detail)

That must be one of those self-evident truths?

On conflating ID with creationism:

http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html

There's the real deal.

FL

People who claim the ID is not creationism are either stupid or dishonest. Pick one.

After all, is it a coincidence that every one who uses the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" also just happens to think that ID is nonsense?

— Mike Gene

Comment #96110 Posted by FL on April 12, 2006 05:12 AM (e) On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html There's the real deal.

On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html There's the real deal.

On conflating ID with creationism:

Registered User, please email me at stevestoryREMOVETHESECAPS@gmail.com

On conflating ID with creationism:

http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html

There's the real deal.

idthink.net? id*think*? Isn't that kinda like amish.com?

People who claim the ID is not creationism are either stupid or dishonest. Pick one.

Creationists think they can put their Sky Pappy as a cause in our cause and effect multiverse.All they are saying is"SKY PAPPY did it . That is a pseudo-explanation.

On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html There's the real deal.

Well, you don't have to look any further than the evidence presented at Dover that showed that the book "Of Pandas..." was originally written with Creation and then after the court decision, the term Intelligent Design was substituted without any other change to supporting content.

Yet as far as I know, all "Creationists" accept some kind of Intelligent Design, as all Creationists believe God is both "Intelligent" and the "Designer." (snip) Yet the inverse is not true. That is, not all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists.

Of course, this all turns on how we define "Creationist."

By the way, FL, since you're back for another drive-by, would you mind explaining to me why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than anyone else's?

And then there's that letter that he sent to the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, in response to their rejection of Intelligent Design:

My educational background provided me with thorough understanding of science [sic] and the theory of evolution. Our nation, however, was founded on self-evident truths. . . . From my perspective, it is not a matter of faith, or religion, or theory. It is similar to basic self-evident objective truths that are the basis of knowledge.

— The Questionable Authority

See Bart Ehrman's ' Misquoting Jesus to see that scribes changed your fables. And see WHO WERE THE EARLY ISRAELITES ANDWHER DID THEY COME FROM TO FIND OUT THERE NEVER WAS AN EXODUS AND THAT MUCH MORE OF YOUR FABLES ARE JUST LEGENDARY.S EE ALSO BIBLICAL NONSENSE AND THE BORNAGAIN SKEPTICS GUIDE TO THE BIBLE FOR TRUTH ABOUT YUR FABLES. I DON'T FAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST MAKES ME LAUGH1 SUCH GIBBERISH!

Morgan-LynnLamberth, you're making my ears hurt!

BUT..... the inverse is not true, like Mike said. Not everyone who supports ID is a creationist nor even a Christian. (Agnostic David Berlinski, for example). So Mike Gene's quotation above is totally accurate.

But in an e-mail message, Berlinski declared, "I have never endorsed intelligent design."

As a biblical creationist who accepts Genesis as historically accurate and factual, I can certainly accept and support the ID hypothesis. Why? Because Scripture DOES present God as both "Intelligent" and a Designer", and so does ID, clearly. And unlike naturalistic evolution, the ID hypothesis does NOT conflict with Scripture at any point (try it and see!).

— FL

FL claims that God is mentioned in the Bible as a Designer. I could not find the term Designer in reference to God, so this appears to be a heresy of his (and others) making.

"Bottom line, I'd still prefer that we didn't say that ID "is" creationism."

I see your point about ID being even less science that YEC. But since ID very obviously is a form of creationism, I don't see how we can avoid saying ID is (a) creationism? The basic problems (unambigious delineation, in FL terms) of demanding nonnatural creators and giving nonfalsifiable creation is the same. To say ID is creationism isn't conflating, it's placing it in a larger set.

Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's. That statement is honestly yours, not mine.

— FL

How can you say Berlinski is a "supporter" of ID when he says himself that he does not "endorse" ID?

I agree with some things that my buddies over there at the DI advocate--giving Darwinism a remarkably swift kick in the pants, for example--and I disagree with other things.

It's not just that ID activists tend to be mostly Christians, it's that logically there is a requirement that the Intelligent Designer is supernatural

And unlike naturalistic evolution, the ID hypothesis does NOT conflict with Scripture at any point (try it and see!). BUT..... the inverse is not true, like Mike said. Not everyone who supports ID is a creationist nor even a Christian. (Agnostic David Berlinski, for example).

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.

FL,

"Due to the Kitzmiller case, it is now becoming widely known that the modern "intelligent design" movement originated as nothing more than a new label for 1980's creationism. The intermediate form was Of Pandas and People, which was originally written as an explicitly creationist book, but when published in 1989, became the first book to systematically use the term "intelligent design."

You are being totally disigenious. Explain please.

You remind me of someone caught in a lie....all of the sudden..."it was declassifed".

Typical.

(2) there's honestly no rational way to tack the label "creationism" on the ID hypothesis, since it's neither locked into, prior-assuming, or dependent upon anybody's creation story.

— FL

And when it comes to defining the term "creationism", since you guys are the ones doing the conflating of ID and creationism, it's ~~you guys~~ whose inability to define creationism in a standardized way comes back to haunt you, and visibly disembowel your attempts at such conflation.

— FL

The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.Id. at 1267. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute could have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66.

Defendants' expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means "not designed by the laws of nature," and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.(11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).

It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer. A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism.Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas.

So ID "clearly" presents God as the "Intelligent Designer."

ID does not take the Genesis creation story (nor any other religion's creation story) as it's foundational starting point nor as its prior assumption, therefore------

The 3-point ID hypothesis, if found to be true, would rationally IMPLY (or lend philsophical support to the claim of) the existence of an unspecified Intelligent Designer, but that's all it would do. The nature and identity of that Intelligent Designer is beyond the scope of the 3-point ID hypothesis and the hypothesis ends ~prior~ to that point. That leaves it to the theologians, philosophers, and you and I as well, to decide that issue on our own dime.

— FL

FL wrote: (2) there's honestly no rational way to tack the label "creationism" on the ID hypothesis, since it's neither locked into, prior-assuming, or dependent upon anybody's creation story.

So let's recap what we have established so far:

1. ID is scientifically vacuous
2. ID logically refers to supernatural designer
3. ID is historically tied to a particular religious faith

So while it may not point to a particular Creator(s), it is clear that the Creator(s) are supernatural entities who 'created' life and the universe.

well, PV, ya gotta remember that FL lives in his own little tent, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of management...

now if the management themselves could only be consistent about what their opinions are.

Dembski seems to change his mind almost daily; so does Nelson.

Behe can't even keep clear his definition of the concept of IC from month to month, not that that really has any bearing on the scientific value of ID as a whole, anyway.

just more denial and projection.

These folks pluck a sympathetic cord only with those similarly afflicted.

The ID hypothesis merely offers you a scientific, empirical way to find out whether or not an object, (including a biological object or system), is ACTUALLY designed as opposed to merely "apparently designed" (as per Dawkins.)

Right. And just because every single supporter of the ID agenda at our school board meetings just happens to be a fundamentalist christian, doesn't mean it's a fundamentalist christian movement. And don't assume that every regular church-goer is a christian, either. Rank stereotyping of the crudest order! There are any number of atheists that go for the music.

The 3-point ID hypothesis, if found to be true, would rationally IMPLY (or lend philsophical support to the claim of) the existence of an unspecified Intelligent Designer, but that's all it would do. The nature and identity of that Intelligent Designer is beyond the scope of the 3-point ID hypothesis and the hypothesis ends ~prior~ to that point.

— FL

So as you can see, the advocates of ID are NOT lying at all, Jeremy. They never were lying in the first place.

— FL

ID is NOT forcing that choice on you, and it is NOT presenting the Genesis story nor the God of the Bible to you.

— FL

(And, unlike evolution, neither does ID contradict or conflict with Genesis or otherwise force you to devalue Genesis' historicity.)

— FL

David Berlinsky supports evolution

FL: Two words: "cdesign proponentsists." Get the picture? These two "words" are proof that "intelligent design" was nothing more than a flimsy cover for religion-based creation stories disguised as science -- in other words, "creationism" by a new name.

Sorry,Leon,I am trying to use simpler sentences . I used capitals ,because I was tired of going to and fro between cpaitals and lower case letters. Corn. ,you make my points. I suffer from neurological disorder and a personality one,too.

Corkscrew,I meant you, not some body named Corn. Sorry. You do know what you state, I ,as a soft determinist, know it is hard to go against ones genes , enviornment, and so forth. As Albert Ellis maintains there is no free will,but we have to really, really exert ourselves to change. So we ahve to consider that self-deluded creationists will have a very,very hard time to change. have

There are any number of atheists that go for the music.

ID = Creationism: Proof!

Just click this link, and don't blink!

http://www.creation-science.com

Cheers, Dave Thomas

...I just snorted coffee through my nose.

The ID hypothesis merely offers you a scientific, empirical way to find out whether or not an object, (including a biological object or system), is ACTUALLY designed as opposed to merely "apparently designed" (as per Dawkins.)

I remember the previous discussions you PT folks had on that subject. You all had something to say, but you NEVER DID arrive at a standardized single definition of creationism. To this day, you're collectively unable to unambiguously delineate just who is a creationist and who is not.

Which means that evolutionist attempts to conflate ID and creationism are, ummm, worse than useless, and that's why you're seeing a few PT posts right here and now that don't support conflation.

— FL

FL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

"
1- Define the question
2- Gather information and resources
3- Form hypothesis
4- Perform experiment and collect data
5- Analyze data
6- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7- Publish results
"

I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed some of the literature the ID scientists are putting out. I'm sure this is riveting stuff if you actually have a set of experiments refuting evolution. Could you please refer me to where I might find these, either on the internet and in print, and clearly explain what your hypothesis are and what the result of experimentation on those testable predictions were?

Thanks.

I'm sure this is riveting stuff if you actually have a set of experiments refuting evolution.

I think part of the problem here is that the faithful have a different definition of 'truth' than the rest of us. For the devout, 'truth' is what their faith tells them. For the rest of us, 'truth' is what's actually out there for any of us to discover for ourselves.

I think part of the problem here is that the faithful have a different definition of 'truth' than the rest of us. For the devout, 'truth' is what their faith tells them. For the rest of us, 'truth' is what's actually out there for any of us to discover for ourselves.

I think the problem is more that the faithful have all their eggs in one basket, and are thus made happier by evidence that it's a well-woven basket than evidence that the handle's about to break. As such, they tend to convince themselves that the former is correct and the latter is merely misguided anti-basket sentiment.

The result? They end up as complete basket cases.

One of the best lines from the Montreal Just For Laughs festival was the definition of religious wars: people killing each other over who has the best invisible friend.

My brother once cautioned me: Just because they're invisible doesn't mean they're your friends.

fnxtr

Hopefully you'll choose to agree with Genesis and its historical presentation, (after all, Jesus Christ did!)

— FL

So ID "clearly" presents God as the "Intelligent Designer." What about all of those ID promoters who claim that ID isn't necessarily about God? Are they lying?

Nope, that is flat out incorrect. Sincere, but incorrect. It is Genesis that presents the person of God as an Intelligent Designer. The 3-point ID hypothesis, if found to be true, would rationally IMPLY (or lend philsophical support to the claim of) the existence of an unspecified Intelligent Designer, but that's all it would do.

As a biblical creationist who accepts Genesis as historically accurate and factual, I can certainly accept and support the ID hypothesis. Why? Because Scripture DOES present God as both "Intelligent" and a Designer", and so does ID, clearly.

— FL

As a biblical creationist who accepts Genesis as historically accurate and factual, I can certainly accept and support the ID hypothesis.

Why? Because Scripture DOES present God as both "Intelligent" and a Designer", and so does ID, clearly.

And unlike naturalistic evolution, the ID hypothesis does NOT conflict with Scripture at any point (try it and see!).

BUT..... the inverse is not true, like Mike said. Not everyone who supports ID is a creationist nor even a Christian. (Agnostic David Berlinski, for example).

You raised a question on the Panda's Thumb and since it was specifically addressed to me, I'll take a moment to answer it specifically. I have NO religious interests or beliefs beyond a curiosity about pre-Humean arguments in 11th century Arabic theology. I have never endorsed intelligent design in any way, and I have written a long essay in Commentary ('Has Darwin Met his Match') taking issue with all of the intelligent design arguments --- those of Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and anyone else I could think of. I have been since the publication of 'The Deniable Darwin' on record as a critic of intelligent design. Every time I publish a serious piece, I go out of my way to affirm my skepticism.

For the devout, 'truth' is what their faith tells them.

Which means that evolutionist attempts to conflate ID and creationism are, ummm, worse than useless, and that's why you're seeing a few PT posts right here and now that don't support conflation.

I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's.

I hate KwickXML.

Lenny responded to part of my comment:

For the devout, 'truth' is what their faith tells them.

With the following:

And yet "devout Christians" have been being told different thigns by their "faith" for 2,000 years now.

Which once again brings up the question that you don't want to answer ---- why is YOUR faith interpretation of "the truth" any more authoritative or valid than anyone else's? Other than your say-so?

Are you claiming that your interpretation of "the truth" is infallible? If not, then what makes your interpretation any better than anyone else's? If so . . well ... sorry, FL, but I simply do not believe that you are infallible. Would you mind explaining to me why I *should* think you are infallible?

--------------------------------
Lenny, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I'm one of the faithful. I've never had much truck with primitive superstions and I'm not about to. I was just trying to point out the incompatible interpretations of the word 'truth'.

Uh, that'd be 'superstitions'.
I hate kwickXML even more now.

The 3-point ID hypothesis, if found to be true, would rationally IMPLY (or lend philsophical support to the claim of) the existence of an unspecified Intelligent Designer, but that's all it would do. The nature and identity of that Intelligent Designer is beyond the scope of the 3-point ID hypothesis and the hypothesis ends ~prior~ to that point. That leaves it to the theologians, philosophers, and you and I as well, to decide that issue on our own dime.

But the Supreme Court has said, on the other hand, that the establishment clause does not prevent schools from teaching non-religious material that is consistent with religious belief, and the Court has noted that the Constitution does prevent schools from being hostile to any religion or favoring a secularistic religion. Is instruction in scientific creationism an establishment of religion? Scientific creationism is not a religious doctrine, and unlike classroom prayer and Bible reading it can be taught in public schools. Instruction in scientific creationism involves presentation of the scientific evidence for creation rather than use of Genesis in the classroom. For example, it discusses the evidence that man does not have an ape-like ancestor rather than the Biblical statement that God created Adam and Eve; it summarizes the scientific proof that a worldwide flood shaped this planet's geology rather than the scriptural teaching that Noah and his family survived the flood in an ark. Wendell Bird, ICR Impact #69, March 1979)

Creationists working to introduce creation into public schools must distinguish sharply between scientific creationism and religious creationism. Scientific creationism consists of the scientific evidences for creation, while religious creationism consists of the Biblical doctrines of creation. Scientific creationism can be taught in public schools, while religious creationism cannot under current law. Creationists approaching public schools must avoid reference in discussions, resolutions, or classroom materials, to the Bible, Adam, the fall, or Noah, except in showing that evolution is wholly contrary to religious convictions of many individuals." (ICR Impact #70, April 1979)

Treatment of either evolution-science or creation-science shall be limited to scientific evidences for each model and inferences from those scientific evidences, and must not include any religious instruction or references to religious writings. . . . Creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine just as evolution-science can, because there are scientists who conclude that scientific data best support creation-science and because scientific evidences and inferences have been presented for creation-science. Arkansas Act 590 (the creation "science" equal-time bill)

Defendants argue that : (1) the fact that 4(a) conveys idea similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis does not make it conclusively a statement of religion; (2) that reference to a creation from nothing is not necessarily a religious concept since the Act only suggests a creator who has power, intelligence and a sense of design and not necessarily the attributes of love, compassion and justice; and (3) that simply teaching about the concept of a creator is not a religious exercise unless the student is required to make a commitment to the concept of a creator. Overton decision, Maclean v Arkansas

for some reason you are still afraid to place your own "religious opinions" on the PT table likewise. That is what I'd like to see more of.

Lenny, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I'm one of the faithful.

And, while we're at it, it's precisely because you CAN be an ID supporter and also Muslim, or a Moonie, or Jewish, or a Hindu, or any other Non-Chritsian religion, that evolutionist attempts to conflate ID with "creationism" are fatally undermined.

Comment #96150 Posted by FL on April 12, 2006 11:57 AM (e) So as you can see, the advocates of ID are NOT lying at all, Jeremy. They never were lying in the first place. FL

So ID "clearly" presents God as the "Intelligent Designer."

Nope, that is flat out incorrect. Sincere, but incorrect.

Published statements by DI associates confirm that "renewing our culture" by replacing "scientific materialism" with "God" or a "theistic understanding of nature" is indeed the only aim and purpose of "intelligent design theory". DI associate George Gilder wrote an entire piece entitled "The Materialist Superstition" which decries "the Darwinian materialist paradigm", and advocates replacing it with "intelligent design", which, Gilder implies (but is very careful not to explicitly state), is non-materialistic. ("The Materialistic Superstition", Discovery Institute Website, 2005). Other ID advocates, however, have at times been less circumspect. Phillip Johnson, who talks much more openly than the others about the explicit anti-atheistic goals of "intelligent design theory", specifically contrasts "scientific materialism" with "divine intervention"; "It is the alleged absence of divine intervention throughout the history of life -- the strict materialism of the orthodox theory -- that explains why a great many people, only some of whom are biblical fundamentalists, think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." (Johnson, "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism", First Things, November 1997, PP 22-25) "Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. . . . The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe." (Johnson, "The Church of Darwin", Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999). "For now we need to stick to the main point: In the beginning was the Word, and the 'fear of God'- recognition of our dependence upon God-is still the beginning of wisdom. If materialist science can prove otherwise then so be it, but everything we are learning about the evidence suggests that we don't need to worry. (Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship; A Call to Separate Materialist Philosophy from Empriical Science", address to the 1996 "Mere Creation Conference") Johnson explicitly calls for "a better scientific theory, one genuinely based on unbiased empirical evidence and not on materialist philosophy" (Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship). Johnson doesn't tell us what this non-materialistic philosophy might be that he wants to base science on, but it is clear from the rest of his statements that he, like every other IDer, wants to base science on his religious beliefs. DI associate Michael Behe also makes the connection between fighting "scientific materialism" and "theistic understanding of nature" explicitly clear. "Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has tremendous difficulties and the evidence garnered so far points to its inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent mechanisms can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That's as far as the argument against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have other reasons for believing in a personal God who just might act in history, and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they already hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God, just as valid negative advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, even though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is either the result of exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the evidence against the unintelligent production of life is clearly evidence for intelligent design." (Behe, "The God of Science", Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, p. 35) "Naturalism is a philosophy which says that material things are all that there is. But philosophy is not science, and therefore excluding ideas which point to a creator, which point to God, is not allowed simply because in public schools in the United States one is not allowed to discriminate either for or against ideas which have religious implications." (Behe, Speech at Calvary Chapel, March 6, 2002) Another DI associate, William Dembski, makes the connection between ID and Christian apologetics even more explicit: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005). Indeed, Dembski titled one of his books Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (Dembski, 1999). In that book, Dembski makes the religious basis of ID "theory" explicit: "The conceptual soundings of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." (Dembski, 1999, p. 210). Other statements by Dembski make it clear that his designer cannot be anything other than God: "The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." (Dembski, "The Act of Creation", ARN website, Aug 1998) "From our vantage, materialism is not a neutral, value-free, minimalist position from which to pursue inquiry. Rather, it is itself an ideology with an agenda. What's more, it requires an evolutionary creation story to keep it afloat. On scientific grounds, we regard that creation story to be false. What's more, we regard the ideological agenda that has flowed from it to be destructive to rational discourse. Our concerns are therefore entirely parallel to the evolutionists'. Indeed, all the evolutionists' worst fears about what the world would be like if we succeed have, in our view, already been realized through the success of materialism and evolution. Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term "Wedge" has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial." (Dembski, "Dealing with the backlash against intelligent design", 2004) "But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." (Dembski, address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004) "Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Dembski, Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design, 2005) As the Wedge Document puts it: "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. . . . " Under the heading "Governing Goals", the Discovery Institute lists, "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." (Wedge Document, 1999)

ID is NOT forcing that choice on you, and it is NOT presenting the Genesis story nor the God of the Bible to you. (And, unlike evolution, neither does ID contradict or conflict with Genesis or otherwise force you to devalue Genesis' historicity.)

... (X) 'is' creationism ... ?

Here is my current take:

ID is a form of creationism. It is motivated by religion, specifically christian, but most religions has a creator.

ID hypotheses intelligent design. This by itself is unfalsifiable since it can happpen any number of times, so it's not a scientific theory. Philosophically it's begging the question of what the designers are.

Assume that you want to try to make it a theory by supplying an observable mechanism, designers. Assume you can observe a designer in action. You can distinguish if it's a natural design (conservation of energy and probability) by a natural designer (extraterrestrial seeding) or a nonnatural design by a nonnatural designer (poof).

Assume it was a natural designer. That designer was also designed, so you must go further back and observe again. Keeping going back you hit the bigbang, so the initial designer must be nonnatural (supernatural). You can repeat this procedure for any number of independent final natural designers, to end up with a set consisting of independent initial supernatural ones.

OK, the ID core is religious, unfalsifiable and demand supernatural designers. What about the auxiliary concepts of IC and CSI?

Those are falsifiable in principle (in fact they have been falsified a number of times) but are currently logical nonstarters due to inept definitions. They also don't map onto intelligent designers, they map onto nondescribable mechanisms; human, malevolent, benevolent, intelligent - take your pick.

Furthermore they are negative argument against evolution, but conversely since evolution is a negative argument against them and it has already passed a massive number of tests, we already know they will never work.

ID is religious screams made in the darkness of human minds shuttered from the light of facts.

So, FL, are you gonna show us someone ELSE who is not religious but supports ID?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Didn't think so.

C'mon, FL. Tell us all about the Raelians.

Or don't you want everyone to know that the only non-religious supporters of ID are a lunatic fringe of flying saucer/space alien nutters? (snicker) (giggle)

"Furthermore they are negative argument against evolution"

The correct description would be "Their reason to exist is as negative arguments against evolution".

How many people in this discussion thread have religious beliefs?

How many people in this discussion thread have religious beliefs?

I think the problem is more that the faithful have all their eggs in one basket, and are thus made happier by evidence that it's a well-woven basket than evidence that the handle's about to break. As such, they tend to convince themselves that the former is correct and the latter is merely misguided anti-basket sentiment. The result? They end up as complete basket cases.

How many people in this discussion thread have religious beliefs?

My (rough) definition of religion, AD, would be: any belief system that contemplates the alleged realm that lies beyond this alleged material curtain.

It`s really no surprise that people belonging to non-Christian religions would want to jump onto the ID bandwagon. The scientific-sounding arguments that ID proponents put forth sound sufficiently technical and "rigorous" that the average layman with religious leanings would be more than happy to take them at their word. The people in religious authority would be more than happy to cash in on this reinforcement of their faith. This seems, however, a double-edged sword for the main supporters of ID. On the one hand, they can crow about ID having supporters that aren`t fundamentalist Christians, and that this proves that ID doesn`t rely on the bible, while on the other hand, it completely undercuts their true motive of spreading their narrow brand of fundie Christianity. Like everything else they do, it`s telling one thing to some people, and just the opposite to others.

I surfed some discussion threads here, Lenny, before making my initial post, and it's graphically apparent that few her are fans of this "intelligent design" theory.

Would it be correct to surmise that house objections to this design stuff are not borne of atheisitic beliefs so much as other factors?

It's completely disingenuous to claim that Intelligent Design doesn't require God.

Let's allow, for a moment, the Behe-ism that the designer could be someone other than God. A mortal creature of some description. An pan-spermian alien biologist, but flesh and blood (or the working equivalent) whatever.

That simply doesn't answer any kind of question about evolution or the origin of life since that guy had to come from somewhere. Given our current understanding of bio-systems, it implies that he came to be via Darwinian evolution

Simply iterating it one more time still doesn't answer the question.

The only option that breaks the loop is a God that doesn't have to evolve, he just is and presto. the loop stops.

Of course, you still have to figure out where God came from, but apparently, creationists find it more probable to believe that an infinitely powerful, infinitely wise meta-being somehow just came into existence spontaneously than it is to contemplate that a couple of simple protein molecules could.

OK, so there's no logic. I accept that.

But there's simply no escaping the fact that ID requires GOD, either to design us, or to design our designers, or our designers designers, or their designers.

Or else maybe a time machine. That would work too, but somehow I don't think the creationist crowd is pushing that angle.

So c'mon guys, if you're not claiming God did it, then tell me where the first designer came from? Did the designer evolve, which is the only other option?

More critically, some ID proponents not only claim that "life" is irreducibly complex (IC), and therefore intelligently designed, but that the very fabric of the universe, the physical constants regulating all of matter and energy are so finely tuned to nurture and create life, that the universe itself is IC, and therefore intelligently designed. Unfortunately, there's no way to claim that some really intelligent "natural" agent created all of reality as we know it. The only intelligent agent with a resume capable of designing all of reality is, GOD. Or Shiva. Or Vishnu. Or Zeus.

Or maybe an exceptionally bright teenage boy experimenting with warp fields on a starship boldly seeking new life, and new civilizations. ;-)

Comment #96235 How many people in this discussion thread have religious beliefs?

— Opera Fan

If the intelligent designer behind ID is not God, nor a supernatural being, but an ET, how did ET appear? You can say all you want that the designer is not God or any God kind (i love the kind idea). But then how did ET appear in the universe? If it wasn't abiogenesis and evolution into an intelligent being, it must have been God or a God kind. Right?

Is ID just what happened here on Earth and not on ET's home planet? If it was ID on ET's planet, how far does this cascade go? Would it have to go on infinitely into the past? Or is it acceptable that life began on ET's planet without an Intelligent Designer? At what point would it have to stop being ET and another ET behind the first ET, and be God or a God kind?

There can only be 2 scenarios then, if God did not design the Earth and us, but an ET.

a.) Either the universe is in the throes of an infinite ID cascade to account for all the ET's that intelligently designed Earth and the ET's that designed us, and the ET's that designed them. It would be like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the Earth was created and the life forms designed by an ET. Then that would have cascaded infinitely from the past

Or

b.) It stops somewhere and God or a God kind is behind them.

So either the universe goes infinitely into the past to account for every generation of ID ETs, or it stopped somewhere and God or a God kind was involved.

So how old is the universe? If it has an age, then there must have been a God or God kind behind life. If it wasn't God or a God kind, then the universe has an infinite age.

But if it wasn't an infinite cascade of ETs, it must have been God or a God kind. But was would a God kind be?

Would it be correct to surmise that house objections to this design stuff are not borne of atheisitic beliefs so much as other factors?

So c'mon guys, if you're not claiming God did it, then tell me where the first designer came from? Did the designer evolve, which is the only other option?

drvr2hrdwr wrote: Mr. Behe, may I get your comment or opinion on the theistic verses atheistic nature of intelligent design theory? It seems to me that ID proposes that all life requires an intelligence to design it. So, if God did not design life on Earth, then some other intelligent creatures (space aliens presumably) must have. These creatures would then require an intelligence to their design, and so on for as many level of regression as one my choose to suggest. Since life could not have existed at the first instant of the Big Bang, there must be a terminal point to this regression, requiring that the original intelligent designer must have been God. Thus, ID theory is inherently theistic. Or would you and other ID proponents suggest that only life on Earth would require an intelligent designer, but life elsewhere would not require an intelligent designer? Would you suggest that a Godless abiogenesis could occur elsewhere giving rise to extraterrestrial intelligence, which in turn designed life on Earth, thus making ID theory potentially atheistic? Neil Habermehl

From: Michael Behe To: drvr2hrdwr Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: Re: Atheistic ID? Hi, Mr. Habermehl. Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn't require irreducibly complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us, as I speculated in Darwin's Black Box ("Aliens and Time Travelers", pp. 248-250). I don't think that's the case, but it isn't logically impossible. Best wishes. Mike Behe

Would it be correct to surmise that house objections to this design stuff are not borne of atheisitic beliefs so much as other factors?

— Opera Fan

Would it be correct to surmise that house objections to this design stuff are not borne of atheisitic beliefs so much as other factors?

Sorry, my last post didn't directly answer Opera Fan's question, which was why do we oppose ID, rather than why do we support evolution.

We all oppose ID because it is useless, scientifically vacuous, and if followed, leads to a suppression of good scientific practices. We all agree that it should not be taught as science, because it is not science but rather an obfuscation of a particular set of religious beliefs. In addition, the religious among us oppose ID because it is bad theology. Of course, the strong atheists here will oppose it because it is part of a set of religious beliefs.

To be pithy, we oppose ID because it replaces "I don't know, yet" with "God did it".

I'm not a religious person, but I consider myself a spiritual one. I believe there are things that science cannot explain today, but that is only because our understanding is not great enough at the moment. there are many theories in science that cannot be tested because our understanding or our technology is not at the required levels.

Yet.

But we will get there eventually. To stop now and attribute the answers to something that is intangible and unknown is ignorance. I might as well say my dog is responsible.

To be pithy, we oppose ID because it replaces "I don't know, yet" with "God did it".

To be pithy, we oppose ID because it replaces "I don't know, yet" with "God did it". - stated by W. Kevin Vicklund.

That statement really struck a chord with me, Kevin-I like that. My "inner agnostic" really warmed up to that thought!

In other words, an instant appeal to a designer acts as a retardant to further investigation? I think it can. And that's dangerous, because if we stop probing, looking and listening for particulars, we would become cases of arrested development.

Some (NOT all) religious people seem to insist on faith and printed "revelation", and stop looking and seeking. That's a problem-it keeps these people in a mental bodybag. Mr. Corkscrew said something about faith, ah, all eggs in one basket. To quote you, sir:

"I think the problem is more that the faithful have all their eggs in one basket, and are thus made happier by evidence that it's a well-woven basket than evidence that the handle's about to break. As such, they tend to convince themselves that the former is correct and the latter is merely misguided anti-basket sentiment. The result? They end up as complete basket cases."

If people embrace all their beliefs out of faith rather than proof, they suffer mightily when something comes along and dashes their "basket"-namely their worldview- to the ground? That's how I take these words. Better off with two baskets, one filled with beliefs, another one with doubts, and the doubts basket should be the one with the greater number of eggs.

As an aside, sounds like Mr. Corkscrew had Easter on his mind when he wrote those words!

I read the most interesting article about the Christian far-right, Lenny. Yikes! These guys really want to play King of the Mountain!

Two things for Opera Fan, and I'm speaking only for myself here -

1) With your definition of religion, it is quite possible everyone has religious beliefs. Even atheists address the question of the supernatural (by denying it), and while many of them would strenuously object to being called a traditional "religion", there's no doubt that by answering a question in the negative, you've addressed it. Maybe agnostics fail to qualify for your definition. I suspect only a scant minority of PT posters would not be religious by your definition.

To be more precise, many of the posters would self-identify as believing in a major world religion.

2) My strong opposition to ID is almost purely political in reasoning. I mean, it's junk and not science, but I don't rail against astrology or homeopathy simply because nobody is attempting to insert them into schools. I'm a huge believer in the separation of church and state for both the protection of the state and for the protection of the church.

I oppose anyone who would attempt to destroy that distinction; I think this is also why you see more forward-thinking members of many churches opposing ID. Government endorsing religion is always a dangerous thing, for both government and religion.

If people embrace all their beliefs out of faith rather than proof, they suffer mightily when something comes along and dashes their "basket"-namely their worldview- to the ground? That's how I take these words.

— Opera Fan

and while many of them would strenuously object to being called a traditional "religion"

— AD

As an aside, sounds like Mr. Corkscrew had Easter on his mind when he wrote those words!

— Opera Fan

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank,

A YEC has made a post about you on his blog:

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/

Check it out.

Necro ....yeah the nut-jobs think that an "idea" is a person.

Next they will be calling "Darwinists" Flankists ..... they are making a Hero out of Lenny..... PTL and Hallelujah!

But ID is not creationism oh no...or anything to do with dog science politics nuisanceship?.

Lenny, you're being vilified by a creationist. I suppose that counts as a compliment, in a strange sort of way.

I see this author too has fallen on the tactic of "Oh, they accuse us of using canards! Well, we'll show them by accusing them of the same thing!"

That article also has a link to a "Lenny Flank dissection", which seems to be arguing that "Lenny attacks us for this, this, and that, but those are due to errors in translation of the Bible". These "errors in translation" are things Christians believe (eg, the virgin birth). So, they tell the world that you must believe A, B, and C, but when challenged on it, they call you silly for pointing out what are really errors of translation...? WTH?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank, A YEC has made a post about you on his blog: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/ Check it out.

— necro

Many people consider [Galileo] the classic case of what happens to science in a theocracy. A Fundie's utopia...

I have no problem with church/state separation, either, AD. Indeed, that is a blessed concept! :)

This "ID" stuff does seem to be a trojan horse, and indeed, a Trojan War has started because of the efforts of these ID lobbyists!

I read the most interesting article about the Christian far-right, Lenny. Yikes! These guys really want to play King of the Mountain!

My strong opposition to ID is almost purely political in reasoning. I mean, it's junk and not science, but I don't rail against astrology or homeopathy simply because nobody is attempting to insert them into schools. I'm a huge believer in the separation of church and state for both the protection of the state and for the protection of the church. I oppose anyone who would attempt to destroy that distinction; I think this is also why you see more forward-thinking members of many churches opposing ID. Government endorsing religion is always a dangerous thing, for both government and religion.

What's funniest is that the creist isn't even dealing with Lenny's argument. It's not information that's at stake; it's just the rate of allele development.

Well, of the several dozen creationist/IDers I've presented that argument to, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM knew what an "allele" is. (shrug)

Dizzy, Galileo did not demonstrate that the earth goes around the sun. He did show that Ptolemy's geocentric model was false, due to his observations of the phases of Venus.
As Robert Bellarmine correctly pointed out to Galileo, disproving one of two contradicting hypotheses does not prove the other. The creationists continue to make the same mistake.

Bob C

religion: any belief system that contemplates the alleged realm that lies beyond this alleged material curtain.

— Opera Fan

They KNEW it was wrong, of course, though they didn't know what it was...

— AD

I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's.

Then there's no reason why anyone should listen to your religious opinions, right? So how about if you shut up and quit preaching here?

I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's. ....You did not deny that claim. Indeed, you could not! But then you inexplicably turn nasty about the whole thing: Then there's no reason why anyone should listen to your religious opinions, right? So how about if you shut up and quit preaching here?

And btw, I have not advocated teaching any religion in any public school. But you knew that already.

And btw, I have not advocated teaching any religion in any public school. But you knew that already.

I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's. ....You did not deny that claim. Indeed, you could not! But then you inexplicably turn nasty about the whole thing:

— FL

If you are too fearful to offer and explain your own personal "religious opinions" when the opportunity presents itself in various threads, that's fine.

FL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method " 1- Define the question 2- Gather information and resources 3- Form hypothesis 4- Perform experiment and collect data 5- Analyze data 6- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses 7- Publish results " I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed some of the literature the ID scientists are putting out. I'm sure this is riveting stuff if you actually have a set of experiments refuting evolution. Could you please refer me to where I might find these, either on the internet and in print, and clearly explain what your hypothesis are and what the result of experimentation on those testable predictions were? Thanks.

And btw, I have not advocated teaching any religion in any public school. But you knew that already.

AD wrote "Have you realized that most of us couldn't care less what someone's religious beliefs are unless they interfere with teaching science?" and here in lies the antitheses with the ID movement,they DO care about their religious beliefs For the likes of Heddle,Clouser and company, science does not encompass the "Outside" to the universe which,they all assume exists,and which they gain knowledge to through some blurry vision of faith and personal intuition. However, because this realm is (by definition) outside the scope of science,, there is no way to distinguish between the "facts" the religious offer about this realm, and that is their ploy. There's is the conviction that subjective experience gives you a truth that you should teach, publish and legislate.To ID ers there seems so much that science still does not know, that plenty of room remains for them to fill in the gaps with their own philosophic or religious convictions."
When religionists speak of science being blind to the otherworldly, and when they speak of the scientific mindset as devoid of all the human values, there are few other religionist who contradict them.
When Lenny expounds"Who gives a flying fig about your religious conviction' the answer is, they do.

For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must --- at least in principle --- be possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not actually been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable proposition or theory must define in some way what is, or will be, forbidden by that proposition or theory (for example, in this case a white crow is forbidden). The possibility, in principle, of observing a white crow to disprove this proposition thus makes it falsifiable. The property of being contingent, defeasible, or falsifiable is a logical property. Thus, for example, to show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it, one need show only that an exception to the law is logically possible.

Have you realized that most of us couldn't care less what someone's religious beliefs are unless they interfere with teaching science?

For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must --- at least in principle --- be possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not actually been made. The property of being contingent, defeasible, or falsifiable is a logical property. ... Thus, for example, to show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it, one need show only that an exception to the law is logically possible.

(2) there's honestly no rational way to tack the label "creationism" on the ID hypothesis, since it's neither locked into, prior-assuming, or dependent upon anybody's creation story.

— FL

Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's.

— FL

The ID hypothesis merely offers you a scientific, empirical way to find out whether or not an object, (including a biological object or system), is ACTUALLY designed as opposed to merely "apparently designed" (as per Dawkins.)

— FL

FL,

The wiki version of falsfiability is probably good enough for the context that we are discussing in, which would be "in principle" falsfiability.

To that end - what testable and observable predictions does ID theory make, and how would one go about falsifying them in a logically viable manner?

I finally went ahead and called Lenny out.

Whether true or false, the claim would not affect the religious opinions and responses I present from time to time, because I keep my stuff relevant to the posts and threads that are on the table.

Now FL is changing the subject yet again - but nearly every point he has made so far (except for the completely irrelevant "Lenny won't spell out his religious beliefs) has been dissected and found to be either misguided or a lie.

It's hard for any reasonable person to see this as a fruitful discussion - rather, it appears FL is here to pound his chest and shout rather than to teach or learn. Troll?

Gee, it looks like FL has tucked tail and run.

And I was soooooooo looking forward to seeing him shred my religious beleifs to itty bitty pieces.

Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my "religious opinions" are more authoritative than anyone else's.

My post (96138) presented evidence that your religious opinion differs substantially (i.e. leads to the opposite conclusion regarding ID/Creationism) from some major religious figures. No response - instead, subject change (i.e. attack Lenny).

FL, The wiki version of falsfiability is probably good enough for the context that we are discussing in, which would be "in principle" falsfiability. To that end - what testable and observable predictions does ID theory make, and how would one go about falsifying them in a logically viable manner?

The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information. http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/151teachnote.htm

The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set of and language system could have arisen. All that would be needed would be diversification, environmental selection, and continuing optimization. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for sponttaneously generated genetic instruction. What is needed is a plausible mechanism for natural-process-generation of functional algorithms. We need empirical evidence of prescriptive genetic information arising spontaneously, without artificial investigator selection and amplification. "Chance And Necessity Do Not Explain The Origin Of Life", JT Trevors, DL Abel.

...complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents.

— FL's ARN link

An example of what is needed, according to Trevors & Abel, would be to come up with the natural, spontaneous algorithm-writing needed to generate nucleic acid algorithms where none have ever existed before. (emphasis mine)

— FL

If you are unaware of the gradual mechanisms by which such things occur, I can see how it would appear to you to come, fully-formed, out of nowhere.

No known hypothetical mechanism has ever been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.

1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Commplexity are well-defined and empirically detectable.

— FL

Ah F.L.

an appeal to religious apologetics disguised as science in the form of

But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction

Is plainly wrong, "time" or "extended time" is not a mechanism nor a process,nor clothing for your emperor.

At some time in the future a testable mechanisms *may* be found for each tiny step on the 3.5 billion year journey to the first stromatolites (some scientists are saying there may never be a solution to the problem), until either that time arrives or the second coming, do not base your faith on faulty semantics, internally inconsistent statements, logic you do not understand, concepts you do not have the intellectual ability to deconstruct. Or your consistant choice of ignorance over reason. It makes you look like a little boy parading around in his big brothers boots.

On the other hand you could found/create a "pseudo prize" group to try and catch a fish. There is one called the "The Origin-of-Life Prize" on whose board there is only one person who has any 'biology' in their interests, he is the ...ah treasurer and one of his other interests is "Biosemiotics" which is something like "evolutionary epistemology". (guffaw)

F.L. you should take this advice from a Biosemiotics booster "It is not the goal of science to prove that Got(sic) does not exist; science has other more important goals."
From http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/geninfo.html

Hermmm bit of a Freudian slip there by that apologist and of course vica versa
"It is not the goal of science to prove that Got( not sic) does exist; science has other more important goals."

All the evidence (the history of life on earth) shows that a random event or events formed the precursors to life which as with evolution was not dust to man as creationists would have it but a series of events that changed little over a short time producing large changes over a longer time and is no more less likely than the planet earth forming from dust spat out by exploding stars.

Note F.L they do not provide an "explanatory mechanism" , they actually are unable to imagine , conceive or create one and by conveniently skipping that step can then jump to storks bringing babies and placing them under cabbages as a valid (in their eyes anyway) implied alternative "explanatory mechanism".

Now where in the scientific literature does "spontaneously generated genetic instruction" feature as a the step from a naturally occurring polymer to naturally occurring replicating polymer (just to name one of the possible steps)?

A genome which is the part of living creature or plant that separates living things from non living things IS NOT a genetic instruction, it contains what we humans may call intsructions but you may as say that the 'big bang' contained instructions to make the earth.

Information theory and the origin of life.

Real Scientists don't just make a statement as though it were a fact they provide *evidence*.

By the way if you are going to use their argument then you agree with them that the Theory of Evolution after abiogenesis (however it happened) explains life on earth today.?
A simple YES or NO will suffice.

And do you accept that the earth formed as the result of a set of random events?
YES/ NO?

What other random events do you find unacceptable?

The outcome of lotteries ?

F.L. have you ever actually done any biology or any science? and if so please explain.

What is the limit of mutation and selection to produce complexity? ID predicts that mutation and selection are not capable of producing irreducible complexity. Yet what is the limit of what it is capable of producing? Answering this question will require mutation of literally trillions of organisms, and selection schemes that would allow us to detect the few mutants that would have new characteristics. With most organisms, this is not possible. However, bacteria and yeast offer the possibility of such experiments. http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/seelke.html

"What is the limit of mutation and selection to produce complexity?"

Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. As a result, the principal argument for intelligent design, the contention that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, has failed. Kenneth Miller Expert Report, Kitzmiller v. Dover

F.L.
Go Back and read the Dover decision
ID is *nothing more* than a negative argument against evolution (for religious purposes as you so gallantly demonstrate) and is *no more useful* than saying LGM or FSM's produced Behe's Flagellum.

Compare:
ID predicts that mutation and selection are *not* capable of producing irreducible complexity.
With:
Evolution predicts that mutation and selection are capable of producing a *genome capable of generating all aspects of a living plant or animal/bacteria* AKA Behe's pseudo science borrowed term and meaningless "irreducible complexity".

And strangely the court found ID is not science but then you already knew that didn't you?

Do you realize your arguments are classic creationist hand waving ?

And as for your falsifiability?

"a black cat is not white" is the level of inanity you are operating at.

Now a quiz yes or no is all that is needed.

Do you accept that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old ?

Do you accept Homo Sapiens and Chimpazes share a common ancestor ?

Do you accept the earth was formed from matter expelled by exploding stars ?

F.L. have you ever actually done any biology or any science? and if so please explain.

By the way if you are going to use their argument then you agree with them that the Theory of Evolution after abiogenesis (however it happened) explains life on earth today.? A simple YES or NO will suffice.

And do you accept that the earth formed as the result of a set of random events?

F.L.
A fuzzy arts/religionist eh?

What do you understand cause and effect to be?

And if the earth was not formed from clouds of dust thrown up by happenstance then drawn together by gravity then then how do you explain the earths weather a near analogue of a chaotic system ? or did the Grand Old Person take a holiday after he created gravity ?

You still haven't answered the earths age question 6000 or 4.5 billion years old ?

"At ANY rate, ID is scientific, because ID is surely falsifiable via observation, just as Wiki demands."

This is obviously wrong. You are drawing this conclusion based on three premises that each have difficulties.

"1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Commplexity are well-defined and empirically detectable."

It is well known that Specified Complexity (SC) is badly defined and contradicts information theory basics - it is a non-starter. Irreducible Complexity (IC) have several definitions - each time one is tested, which IDC's fails to do spontaneously, and found falsified ID pseudoscientists comes up with a new definition. IC's definition status is questionable.

"2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity."

SC is too badly defined to be testable, but forms of IC have been tested and falsified. This hypotheses has been found false, and there are no reason why it should not continue to be so for any realistic definition of IC.

"3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity."

This is totally unsubstantiated. IC isn't implied by ID alone. What "best" means here is not defined.

While (each definition of) IC is testable, IC isn't ID. The ID core of 'intelligent design' is creationism. As such, its narrative accounts can never be falsified.

Go Back and read the Dover decision

You still haven't answered the earths age question 6000 or 4.5 billion years old ?

"Behold, I am the God of all mankind: Is there anything too hard for Me?" (Book of Jeremiah)

good luck F.L. perhaps you could take your Bible and help out the next bunch of rubes who try and put Creationism in a science class.

Its illegal you know.

And Behe's response bwhahhahahahahahahha

How did he go on the stand ?

Legendary "God no longer exists" Behe said so .........after swearing on a stack of Bibles so help you g_d.

F.L how does it feel to be a twit?

How old is the earth BTW,

desperation = the act of a desperate man

Run along now F.L. and desperately seek Behe's (and your) lost God.

After GWB is gone you may have to wait an awful long time for the second coming.

"2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity." SC is too badly defined to be testable, but forms of IC have been tested and falsified. This hypotheses has been found false, and there are no reason why it should not continue to be so for any realistic definition of IC.

— Torbjörn Larsson

As for me, I defer to Genesis

For example, Behe has responded to the Dover decision, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/behe_respon... ...and his is not the only rebuttal, either now or later.

And in the OT, "evening" and "morning" are used, well, literally----the same 24-hour-based evenings and mornings that we are totally used to today.

"What is, is. And you are part of what is. So be yourself."

After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you FOLLOW it. If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you.

As I thought. FL is all blow and no go. (shrug)

(For example, I can see your emphasis on raw individualism---"be yourself"

I don't see any mention of community, of putting others BEFORE yourself. Why the omission there?)

Huh? Wasn't Mother Theresa being herself? If not, then, uh, who WAS she being? Wasn't Martin Luther King being himself? If not, then, uh, who WAS he being?

Not to belabor the point, but the two examples you cited are best known for 'putting others before themselves', rather than merely 'being themeselves'.

FL

(For example, I can see your emphasis on raw individualism---"be yourself"---and there is a place for 'being yourself', but I don't see any mention of community, of putting others BEFORE yourself.

We could also say that Adolf Hitler was just being himself too. Or Tim McVeigh. Just being himself.

Anton,
I agree with what you are saying. The redefinition game and use of nonrealistic IC modeling is the ID way of making IC nonfalsifiable. My comment regarding falsifiability was directed to realistic concepts of IC. Realistic IC is falsified, but ID goes on and pretends it is not by making new and thoroughly unfalsifiable versions of it.

FL,
"No time to explain it now, but if somebody wants to drag up the old moldy "deceiver" argument, be aware that Dr. Kurt Wise has completely killed that argument stone dead in his excellent YEC book "Faith Form and Time.""

The philosophical deceiver argument and its good use of lawfulness has its scientific complement in that theories such as "miracle" YEC that have an unfalsifiable and unnecessary basis is not usable (nonscientific).

Since you agree that a scientific theory must be testable, you should see that your YEC deceiver/second old universe theory isn't something that can be used in this argument.

"We could also say that Adolf Hitler was just being himself too."

Ahh, nazis... this thread is officially dead now.

We could also say that Adolf Hitler was just being himself too.

— FL

I agree with what you are saying. The redefinition game and use of nonrealistic IC modeling is the ID way of making IC nonfalsifiable. My comment regarding falsifiability was directed to realistic concepts of IC. Realistic IC is falsified, but ID goes on and pretends it is not by making new and thoroughly unfalsifiable versions of it.

— Torbjörn Larsson

Plus I simply like looking at the moon through my small telescope and looking at Vorticella and Paramecium through my small microscope, and knowing the labels and descriptions for what I am seeing. Who could possibly choose Atheism or Agnoticism after seeing such wonders?

— FL

So the Nazis weren't just devotees of Darwin, they were champions of "raw individualism!" You learn the most interesting things from creationists.

— Anton Mates

Nope, nope, nope. I do not live within the boundaries of Judge Jones' district, which covers Dover and vicinity.

I am a bald Inuit rugby player.

I've managed to save up roughly $47363 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?