Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"One can only define a non-random process."

That of course is nonsense. It is logically possible to have a process that is without any non random elements.

The larger point is that there is no reason to assume non random or random as the instigator of the changes we see in living organisms.

If we stick to the narrow vision of Darwin, ID is perfectly compatible with the concept of a planned, managed, and programmed evolutionary mechanism.

Nature is following the plan, the question is if nature created its own plan, or if something external to nature created it, and nature is simply the mindless agent that executes the plan.

It is the infestation of atheism where it doesn't belong any more than theism belongs in defining the narrow scope of things and ignoring the bigger picture. It is the argument from partial value to what the whole is that makes no real sense.

I still see nothing in the strict ideas of
the actual known processes of life that is incompatible with the idea of ID or an intelligently programmed Universe. It may be incompatible with Christians, or any other religion, but that is exactly why the real wave of ID that in not Creationism of the Bible has equal weight as any theory of non ID.

Quote from yip1997:

When a process is not random, it doesn't mean that the process is deterministic.

We including myself have used the term loosely. Is a stochastic process "pure" random? Is a guassian process pure "random"? A pure random process cannot be defined. One can only define a non-random process.

Whenever we can describe a process in finite length of words, it is not a "pure" random process.

Sound like we can define it in the following way - "A random process is one that cannot be described in finite length of words" but the definition is wrong. Logically it is correct but this type of questions fall outside the scope of logics.

 

[yip1997]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"One can only define a non-random process."

That of course is nonsense. It is logically possible to have a process that is without any non random elements.

The larger point is that there is no reason to assume non random or random as the instigator of the changes we see in living organisms.

If we stick to the narrow vision of Darwin, ID is perfectly compatible with the concept of a planned, managed, and programmed evolutionary mechanism.

Nature is following the plan, the question is if nature created its own plan, or if something external to nature created it, and nature is simply the mindless agent that executes the plan.

It is the infestation of atheism where it doesn't belong any more than theism belongs in defining the narrow scope of things and ignoring the bigger picture. It is the argument from partial value to what the whole is that makes no real sense.

I still see nothing in the strict ideas of
the actual known processes of life that is incompatible with the idea of ID or an intelligently programmed Universe. It may be incompatible with Christians, or any other religion, but that is exactly why the real wave of ID that in not Creationism of the Bible has equal weight as any theory of non ID.

Can you give me your definition of "pure random"?

 

[stu]

Quote from yip1997:

I believed and still believe in intelligent design. I just made a point that there is no "scientific" evidence to prove/disprove it.

Okay, chaotic, confused and contradictory it is then.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Purely without a governing design, method, or purpose.

Quote from yip1997:

Can you give me your definition of "pure random"?

 

[yip1997]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Purely without a governing design, method, or purpose.

With such a definition, the nature is not random because it is governed by the Laws of nature whether it is known or unknown to us.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The issue is whether or not the changes that occur in the genetic code are a result of programming, planned causation, and governance or if they occur as a consequence of spontaneously, ignorantly, randomly, purposelessly caused factors.

The issue of causation is not something that anyone needs to know to study and evaluate a process in a partial manner, but when theories are advance that point to holistic conclusion, i.e. non ID or ID, then causation becomes essential.

Even though the Universe is governed by the laws of nature, it is logically possible for a law of nature to program spontaneous events which have no predetermined conclusions in and of themselves.

This of course gets to the question of who or what governs nature itself.

If the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning, and what caused the universe to begin and maintain itself again becomes a factor.

The position of the non ID proponent is mostly untenable because everything follows a pattern, even their suggested random mutations follow a so called pattern of life randomly mutating...except they believe these mutations themselves are going on without any pattern having caused them, which would suggest that they are not following any law of nature or programming. Almost as if these mutations were happening on their own, by their own, completely disconnected to all the other programming of the Universe.

It is quite a stretch, but that is what atheism will do, cause a person to ignore the obvious nature of causation in favor of some concept that would eliminate God from the equation.

Quote from yip1997:

With such a definition, the nature is not random because it is governed by the Laws of nature whether it is known or unknown to us.

 

[Teleologist]

Yip1997 said:

I believed and still believe in intelligent design. I just made a point that there is no "scientific" evidence to prove/disprove it.

Well, there is no scientific proof for a non-teleological origin of life either but that doesn't stop scientists from investigating it. Some scientists have a strong suspicion that the origin of life involved advanced bioengineering. Maybe an investigation from that perspective will help us better understand biotic reality.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Well, there is no scientific proof for a non-teleological origin of life either but that doesn't stop scientists from investigating it. Some scientists have a strong suspicion that the origin of life involved advanced bioengineering. Maybe an investigation from that perspective will help us better understand biotic reality.

A teleological origin of life by definition will require its own teleological origin. That teleological origin in turn will need its own teleological origin, then in turn that will need ……..

teleology may eventually help you better understand infinite regress Tele, but little else

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The infinite regress issue is just a red herring.

I would not need to know the simian primate ancestors from which you believe you are the spawn of to know you are a closely related to the average monkey...an infinite regression of monkeys doesn't change your monkey business...monkey poo all the way down.

Quote from stu:

A teleological origin of life by definition will require its own teleological origin. That teleological origin in turn will need its own teleological origin, then in turn that will need ……..

teleology may eventually help you better understand infinite regress Tele, but little else

 

[yip1997]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The issue is whether or not the changes that occur in the genetic code are a result of programming, planned causation, and governance or if they occur as a consequence of spontaneously, ignorantly, randomly, purposelessly caused factors.

It is very difficult to know if the random nature is programmed or planned as such.

Look at the following thread. One can observe a meaningful trend from a randomly generated data.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118599

Of course, it is also possible to create a random sequence from a well planned program. The question is "How do we know?"