Search results

Didn't you previously say that the only way to distinguish design from non-design was to see the designer in action? If seeing the designer in the act of designing isn't proof of design then what is! In any event, I don't assert design. I suspect design. Not so. Evolutionists argue against...

Yes, and they can also lead us to the truth. Your attitude, if applied consistently throughout science, would be the end of the whole enterprise. All our evidence for the existence of physical laws, for instance, ultimately boils down to our intuition that things look like they were caused in a...

What counts as useful? Proving design? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and non-design. Or do you actually infer...

What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions does the blind watchmaker hypothesis make that would not turn out true in the null hypothesis?

Dembski has always been upfront that he believes the designer to be God. He merely claims that this can't be established via the logic of ID.

Yeah, right. When you're losing an argument play the religion card. As if your metaphysics don't play an important part in how you interprete the evidence concerning design. It wasn't a religious person that coined the term "molecular machine". And you haven't presented a shred of evidence...

You are not paying attention. Molecular machines are not chemical processes they are literal machines! One more time: This peer-reviewed article is saying that the F1-ATPase enzyme IS a tiny engine. It isn't saying that it is a chemical process that "behaves" like an engine. Chemical...

If you ask me what would cause me to merely suspect design I would point to certain aspects of biotic reality that look much more like products of advanced bioengineering and nanotechnology than the tinkering of a blind watchmaker. "Much of what we call biology is really nanotechnology ," says...

Michael Polanyi once wrote: Life itself is machine-dependent. Under the sub-heading "The machinery of life" an article in Physics Today says: One can view life as carbon-based nanotechnology or one can view life as something strung together by an irrational tinkerer. Neither view...

I agree and I'm not aware of any ID scientist that equates any chemical process to an engine. What they equate to an engine are things the peer-reviewed literature refers to as "molecular machines". In an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines, Bruce Alberts, then...

TraderNik, Arguments should be judged on their merits regardless of the source. If you can't do that then get off this thread.

And that's exactly how design theorists work. Certain clues cause them to tentatively conclude something may be designed and then they follow up their suspicion with an investigation.

If someone thinks design has been established or proven simply because it looks that way to them, they have obviously jumped the gun. But there is nothing wrong with the argument, “it looks designed, thus I suspect it may have been designed.” We know this for several reasons. First, Nobel...

I asked you what you would count as evidence for design not what you would count as absolute proof of design. Let me put it this way: what evidence would cause you to merely suspect something in nature was designed?

What would you count as evidence for design?

D2.0 wrote: Wrong. Just because the majority of ID proponents are Christian it doesn't necessarily follow that ID is based primarily on creationism of one type or another. The majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists. Does that mean evolutionary biology is based on an atheistic...

Stu wrote: Pure bunk. ID has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism. ID is not based on the Bible, does not invoke the supernatural, and is not anti-evolution. While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the...

Stu wrote: Nonsense. ID doesn't invoke an omnipotent Creator, is not based on the Genesis account and isn't anti-evolution.

Stu wrote: My ID views go above and beyond the Discovery Institute. I merely quote them when they are being misrepresented. Letting them defend themselves as it were. Would you consider it valid if I attempted to discredit evolution by focusing on the anti-ID movement (i.e., the Secular...

Stu wrote: It is absolutely false that Gonzalez had no grant funding. Besides, outside research funding is not a published criterion for earning tenure in Dr. Gonzalez's department. Here are the facts. The Truth about Research Grants, Gonzalez and ISU by John West As evidence has...