Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from luxor:

Evolutionary theory is the lazy man's way of explaining nature. That is why evolutionary biology has basically been a dead science since the hey-day of neo-darwinism. ID at least posits that there may be other mechanisms out there to be discovered that create evolution. Evolutionary theory is still stuck in the Newtonian phase of its existence. I'm hoping an "Einstein" will someday appear that will uncover a novel, testable, macro-evolutionary mechanism.

Here is the most recent available citation data on evolutionay biology:

Journals Ranked by Impact:
Evolutionary Biology
Rank

2003 Impact Factor Impact 1999-2003 Impact 1981-2003
1 Trends Ecol. & Evolution(12.45) Ann. Rev. Ecol. & Syst.(23.92) Ann. Rev. Ecol. & Syst.(104.44)
2 Systematic Biology(7.74) Trends Ecol. & Evolution(18.16) Trends Ecol. & Evolution(36.93)
3 Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S.(6.18) Systematic Biology(12.54) Evolutionary Biology(35.37)
4 Molec. Bio. & Evolution(6.05) Molec. Bio. & Evolution(10.27) Evolution(34.76)
5 Molecular Ecology(3.87) Yearbk. Phys. Anthropol.(9.00) Molec. Bio. & Evolution(34.35)
6 Evolution(3.83) Cladistics(7.82) Cladistics(32.88)
7 Cladistics(3.50) Evolution(7.78) Systematic Biology(29.55)
8 Evolution & Development (3.25) J. Molecular Evolution(6.98) Evolution & Development (27.86)
9 Evolution & Development (3.11) Molecular Ecology(6.11) Yearbk. Phys. Anthropol.(19.92)
10 J. Evolutionary Biology(3.01) Mol. Phylogen. & Evol.(5.90) Paleobiology(19.64)

These are very decent impact factors comparable to most other fields of biology. For example,

Journals Ranked by Impact: Marine & Freshwater Biology
Rank

2004 Impact Factor Impact 2000-04 Impact 1981-2004
1 Oceanogr. & Marine Biol.(4.12) Oceanogr. & Marine Biol.(6.71) Oceanogr. & Marine Biol.(61.07)
2 Adv. Marine Biology(2.94) Canad. J. Fish. Aq. Sci.(5.13) Adv. Marine Biology(30.76)
3 European J. Phycology(2.51) Journal of Phycology(4.92) Rev. Aquatic Sciences(21.54)
4 Microbial Ecology(2.50) Marine Ecol.-Prog. Ser.(4.79) Marine Ecol.-Prog. Ser.(21.45)
5 Journal of Phycology(2.49) J. N. Amer. Benth. Soc.(4.70) Adv. Marine Biology(21.43)
6 Aquatic Toxicology(2.42) Aquatic Microbial Ecol.(5.54) Netherlands J. Sea Res.(20.60)
7 Aquatic Microbial Ecol.(2.26) Aquatic Toxicology(4.54) Marine Biology(19.36)
8 Freshwater Biology(2.21) Microbial Ecology(4.41) Rev. Fish. Biol./Fisheries(19.19)
9 Fish/Shellfish Immunol.(2.15) Freshwater Biology(4.30) Dana-J. Fish. Mar. Res.(18.72)
10 Marine Environ.(2.06) Rev. Fish. Biol./Fisheries(4.25) J. Exp. Mar. Biol./Ecol.(17.05)

There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that "evolutionary biology has basically been a dead science." You're either ignorant or lying.

 

[I am...]

Quote from luxor:

I'm hoping an "Einstein" will someday appear that will uncover a novel, testable, macro-evolutionary mechanism.

Einstein noted that past, present and future all occur simultaneously.

What he did not figure is that they never happened at all.

Nevertheless, he noted that man's experience is an optical delusion of his consciousness.

If time is simultaneous, then evolution must be a delusionistic device of a devious designer.

In such a universe, the chicken and the egg are made simultaneously and made to appear separate in time and space.

Energy, ultimately, is thought. And if the thoughts that gave rise to this universe were not ultimately possible, the universe is not possible.

Impossible thoughts like, "I am separate from my source", are delusional, and give rise to a delusional consciousness, which gives rise to a delusional universe populated with delusional thought.

There seems to be a "distance" lag between simultaneity and the events it prescribes. Again, the reason for this is thought...delusional thought. Guilt is the mechanism that translates simultaneity to one-way, linear time. Guilt requires a past for what has been "done", while the future is held in place by the inevitable "punishment" such guilt must invoke.

Thus, time and space key off of a guilt complex. When guilt is removed from the equation, time and space begin to collapse upon itself. Therefore, guilt is necessary to keep the design intact. Without guilt, you could not appear in a body...you would simply disappear...and so would the universe.

Because you value bodies as homes, you are attracted to a certain amount of guilt. Not too much, not too little. The innocent are attacked in such a universe because they represent the ending of such a delusion. So each is afraid to assume innocence...and the world keeps turning.



Jesus

 

[luxor]

Practicioners of evolutionary biology, and related sciences, such as anthropology, paleontology, etc, will always continue to publish in their disciplines, and for the majority of them, Neo-darwininian evolution as the causal mechanism for every phenomena is a given. That's why there is nothing "new". Take cladistics, for example. New methods are always discovered to construct phylogenies, such as the increasing use of molecular systematics. But cladists still can't tell us how,step by step, A became B (other than "by evolution").

With ID, you still get the same type of generic response, but at least it forces one to break free from dependence on natural selection and opens doors for further research. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is a good starting point and something that CAN be modelled, tested, proved or disproved.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

As long as you ID critics keep repeating the same old arguments I'm going to respond with the same old arguments. Count on it.

Hi Teleologist

You mentioned that you had some empirical data which supported your inference that the first cells were designed. Could you give us either a link or a summary of the research in question? Seeing as this would mark a major change in the thread (since proof of any kind is what the ID detractors have been asking for) I would think you'd be eager to share this data!

Thanks
Nik

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from luxor:

Practicioners of evolutionary biology, and related sciences, such as anthropology, paleontology, etc, will always continue to publish in their disciplines, and for the majority of them, Neo-darwininian evolution as the causal mechanism for every phenomena is a given. That's why there is nothing "new". Take cladistics, for example. New methods are always discovered to construct phylogenies, such as the increasing use of molecular systematics. But cladists still can't tell us how,step by step, A became B (other than "by evolution").

With this definition, physics is a dead science, since it still cannot tell us how the universe was started.

Quote from luxor:

With ID, you still get the same type of generic response, but at least it forces one to break free from dependence on natural selection and opens doors for further research. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is a good starting point and something that CAN be modelled, tested, proved or disproved.

How do you propose that we model, test, prove or disprove "irreducible complexity?" If it's irreducible, how does one model it (without first reducing it to something simpler)?

 

[luxor]

Behe uses the example of a moustrap as a mechanism that cannot be deconstructed without destroying its essential function

That's his theory. If you can imagine a way to do this, then you've just tested and disproved his theory.

Regarding physics, I think its a little different than biology. Scientists can describe step by step, even down to seconds, what they believe occurred at the creation of the universe. That is something that cannot be done in evolutionary biology. In this regard, Behe gives us the example of bacterial flagellum, an engineering marvel under any viewpoint. How did an organism get from not having one to having one?

I believe in God, but I also believe that completely natural processes operate in the universe. I believe evolution occurred, but I'm still waiting for a better explanation than neo-Darwinism offers (undirected, purposeless evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations and recombinations).

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

You mentioned that you had some empirical data which supported your inference that the first cells were designed. Could you give us either a link or a summary of the research in question? Seeing as this would mark a major change in the thread (since proof of any kind is what the ID detractors have been asking for) I would think you'd be eager to share this data!

Yes, I would be eager to show open-minded inquirers how ID theorists process subtle clues and use them to make an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for ID. But I'm not dealing with persons like this here on this forum am I? I'm dealing with persons that consider ID a bust if it can't identify the ULTIMATE designer.

For instance, ddunbar after granting that life at its core looks like the product of advanced bioengineering said this:

But you must understand that the question that is BEGGED is, "who is the bioengineer?" Do you not understand that as a necessary question? I don't care who or what you ascribe as the bioengineer. But if the bioengineer is anything less than an ultimate entity, the line of questioning will continue until you get to that ultimate bioengineer.

That might be true if one is trying to prove ID . But what if one is merely looking for evidence that strengthens the initial design inference and uses the design inference to guide scientific research?

I'm not going to waste my time presenting data that supports a circumstantial case for ID to a bunch of critics that will only accept one thing, the identity of the ultimate designer. Is there anyone on this forum that's really interested in data that supports a design inference? If so, here's a clue. It's the same data that Richard Dawkins was referring to when he said:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”

Does anyone know what he had in mind?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from luxor:

Behe uses the example of a moustrap as a mechanism that cannot be deconstructed without destroying its essential function

That's his theory. If you can imagine a way to do this, then you've just tested and disproved his theory.

Lol. Behe doesn't understand how inventions are made, nor does he understand how evolution works. Your "irreducible complexity" theory only proves that the assumption "without destroying its essential function" does not work. But this is already well-known in science.

A more plausible line of thinking, for example, is to ask whether a catapult can evolve into a mousetrap with incremental changes, and whether catapult evolved from incremental changes of simpler machines.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

It's the same data that Richard Dawkins was referring to when he said:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
Does anyone know what he had in mind?

The answers are here
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=appearance+of+designed#post1359097
and here
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=appearance+of+designed#post1333262
and here
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=appearance+of+designed#post1332941

You just refuse to learn.

 

[ddunbar]

LOL.

Ok take the show CSI. Now technically, the role of CSI is to package evidence. Yes? Ok. They ultimately hand the evidence to a DA so he can go ahead and prosecute based on the evidence.

With me still?

So pretend you're CSI, Teleologist. You shouldn't care less if there are open or closed minds. It's irrelevant. Doing so shows adolescence. Just present your evidence.

Think of the rest of us as DAs who will be rather interested in postulating who the designer is if the evidence suggests a designer.

Very easy process.

Oh and BTW, your prior analogy - the one where you imagined that in 1000 years, humans could seed a planet... makes ZERO sense in relation to the question at hand. If the humans "created" the life, then there is no question as to who designed it.

Please, for the love of God, understand this very simple and basic thing: Design implies a designer. Otherwise we do not use the word design. If evidence points to design, the evidence implies a designer.

No one is asking you to prove WHO the ultimate designer is. But you have to understand that NOTHING can be designed without a designer.

I know you're following me so far.

Now, since the ID movement was founded by Theists, we already know who they believe the designer is. It's no big deal.

The big deal is, providing evidence which leads to the conclusion that something is designed. Seems easy enough. But the problem is, this evidence has to be objective. This is difficult because, without empirical knowledge of a designer, one defaults to presupposing design based on a belief in a designer. (This is called a worldview). All emiprical evidence will not be objectively compelling because there is no non-presupposed evidence of design as a frame of reference. In other words, there's nothing to compare say, a supposedly designed cell with one that is known to be designed. That is the only objective way to interpret between design and non-design.

You can't compare a motor (which we know to be designed) to a biological cell and conclude design. That's utterly senseless. Think about it.

Anyway, I'm off this reservation. You are of course free to believe whatever you wish to believe.