Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Maybe chimps are "your" ancestory...

Not mine...

All of your "facts" are speculative...

This could all be by ID, not some "random" mutation process...

Quote from vhehn:

This is all covered in the video i posted. genetics researchers have pinpointed the mutation that relates to our ancestory with chimps.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html

Evidence that human chromosome #2 resulted from the fusion of two formerly distinct chromosomes has been found. See "Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry".

"The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true in reference 3 ... The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4." [Teleomeres are the end regions of chromosomes and what is an end region doing in the middle of human chromosome #2? Moreover, what is it doing there in reverse order? (See the article.) Centromeres are the tight knots in the middle regions of chromosomes. If two distinct chromosomes each with their own centromere were fused together, you would find remnants of those centromeres in the fused result, both above and below the new centromere, as you do in the case of chromosome #2 in human beings.

 

[drtomaso]

Quote from Teleologist:
Define creationism.
...
I'm waiting for your definition of creationism. It will be interesting to see who you don't think is a creationist.

You must have missed it in my somewhat lengthy post. Creationists believe life was created by a deity.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Maybe chimps are "your" ancestory...

Not mine...

All of your "facts" are speculative...

This could all be by ID, not some "random" mutation process...

genetics data is speculative but belief in the supernatural is not?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So we agree that the "conclusions" are speculative.

The data itself is not speculative, that's what makes it data.

Quote from vhehn:

genetics data is speculative but belief in the supernatural is not?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from vhehn:

here is a good college lecture on id.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Thank you for the link. I watched and listened to the lecture and Q&A that followed, and it was almost 2 hours very well spent. I wish that the people who stand behind ID would at least take the time to listen to what Ken Miller has to say. (Dr. Miller was an expert witness in the ID court disputes.) I would welcome their comments AFTER they took the time to listen to this engaging, educational and occasionally humorous lecture.

In fact, vhehn, why not start a thread with the link in the first post, offering a forum for debate among those people who at least listened to Miller's lecture of about 70 minutes or so? Then we would all at least have the same frame of reference in the debate that would invariably follow.

Although I do not believe in a deity of any kind, I can't help but think, "Thank God for Ken Miller."

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

jem take the time to listen to this. it is by a catholic scientist. he very carefully goes over all of the design arguments behe makes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

I will watch the link after hours but I am not talking about anyone named behe.

I am talking about the Chair of the physics department at Stanford, one of the three considered to be the founders of string theory and many many other astrophysicists who understand the implications of the anthropic principle.

 

[drtomaso]

Quote from Teleologist:

Here are two explanations that avoid the "infinite regress problem" as it relates to the origin of life on earth:

1. Abiogenesis did occur on another planet, intelligence evolved, and this intelligence seeded this planet.

2. The ETI that seeded the earth with life owes its origin to some supernatural intervention at some point in its history.

Point one speaks to a natural, intelligent life form that seeded life on this planet but arose from abiogenesis on their homeworld. Ok, I will bite- this sounds like something science should be able to handle. But note the choice of competing theories isn't ID vs Evolution but abiogenesis here vs abiogenesis elsewhere. Theres plenty of evidence for abiogenesis here, and none for elsewhere. Not to say that life couldn't be out there someplace haven arisen by abiogenesis- just that theres no reason to supplant a perfectly working theory with one for which we have no evidence.

A point has to be made: if abiogensis can happen elsewhere, and in sufficient quality to foster a race of life-seeding intelligent beings, why is it so far fetched to believe it happened right here?

Further, moving the goal post to another planet, or parallel universe, doesn't help either. We still have to answer the question of where life came from there. We're back to the infinite creators problem.

Point two skips right to the supernatural (though apparently on another planet) which by definition lies out side the realm of science. "God did it!" has no explanatory power because theres literally nothing it cannot explain. This is the argument most Intelligent Design proponents make, minus of course the extra planet. Life begat from the supernatural- its really the only option to avoid the infinite creators problem without ascribing to abiogenesis.

The important point is that as soon as something supernatural comes into the argument, you're making a theological, rather than a scientific argument.

Oh and before we get started- no abiogenesis isn't a complete theory- its not nearly as strong as evolution, but it suffers from a distinct lack of competing theories that dont resort to logical fallacy and arguments from incredulity.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

It won't work. ID IS creationism. It calls for - intelligence antecedent with design - in order for creation to take place. Design defined as the result of intelligent "creation" is altogether the 'creationists' ID argument.

Provide a quote from any dictionary or encyclopedia that defines creationism this way. Stu has invented his own watered-down definition of creationism in order for it to include the concept of intelligent design.

From the Encylopedia Britannica:

Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of all things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Both types of creationists, however, believe that changes in organisms may involve changes within a species or downward changes (negative mutations), but they do not believe that any of these changes can lead to the evolution of a lower or simpler species into a higher or more-complex species.

Now compare that to what William Dembski says about ID:

Intelligent design is perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution.

ID isn't anti-evolution. What ID disputes is this:

Evolution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.
(Biology, Miller & Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 658)

The only way Stu can pin the "creationist" label on ID proponents is to define creationism so broadly that anyone that disputes that evolution is undirected and devoid of purpose is a creationist. Does Stu think everyone except atheists are creationists?

What would happen if the creationists began to embrace Stu's watered-down definition of creationism? Consider:

One may attempt to define “Creationist” as anyone who believes Nature or Life or some form of Life was “created” rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. But if one waters down the definition in this way, they end up putting various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of “Creationist.” Yet imagine if a creationist organization put out a pamphlet stating, “Creationist Francis Crick (who helped discover the Double Helix nature of DNA) was so incredulous of abiogenesis that he proposed the first life forms were designed and deposited on this planet.” I think it obvious those previously proposing the watered down definition would now accuse the creationist organization of misrepresenting Crick as a creationist, indicating that they really don’t take their watered down definition seriously. Clearly, if the definition of “Creationist” can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution like Crick, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate.”

Let’s expand on this. Let’s say a creationist organization puts out an article crediting Creationists for discovering the double helix and sequencing the human genome. Upon reading, we find that the creationists are Francis Crick and Francis Collins. How do you think the critics would respond? It would be interesting to then watch them come up with a tailor-made definition that works to exclude Crick, Collins, Miller and others from the creationist label, yet include people like Behe. I’m sure it could be done; but it would also be blatantly obvious that they were painting targets around arrows.

 

[drtomaso]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Real ID is scientific, which is why there are some scientists who embrace it as a theory worthy of investigation.

Ok....I see- so this ID that has been going around for going on 10 years isnt the real, scientific ID. The Discovery institute allowed the fake ID to get into court so it could get ruled unconstitutional by mistake.

ID is not, and never will be science. It is allegory at best and logical fallacy at worst. Its a con game designed to dupe people into beleiving there is some empirical evidence for their faith.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

No, the theory doesn't claim to be scientific, no theory does.

Scientists claim a theory is scientific or not.

We're debating semantics here, but Ok...agreed. I win- there are 0 scientists claiming ID is science. Lots of hacks... lots of con men... 0 scientists. If you wish to disprove me, send me links to published, peer reviewed ID papers in recognized scientific journals. Heres a hint to save you some time: there are none.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
If it was illiterate, scientists could not understand it sufficiently to take issue with it.

The appeal to science made by ID is pure smokescreen designed to dupe people into believing it to be legitimate science. As I have already discussed, it cannot be science, never will be. You can put lipstick on it all you want, its still a pig.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Predict exactly when and where we will see a mutation.

As long as we are at it, give the formula for what exactly a mutation is, why it happens, and what causes it.

Mutations happen all the time. Grab a petri dish of bacteria, you will see several mutations per second. We can even induce mutations, allowing us to predict when, where, how, etc. This is early 1900s biology. We know of many environmental stimuli that spur mutations. Just because you don't personally know how this works doesnt mean the rest of the scientific community is clueless.

The only perfect science is mathematics. Physics happens to be pretty math intensive, but the underlying process of scientific inquiry is the same whether we talk about physics, chemistry, palentology, zoology or biology. Its on this level that ID fails to qualify.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
History shows other dominant theories that have since been discarded...

Agreed. But until one comes up with something other than 'God Did It!', we'll just have to suffer with the theory thats been vetted for over 150 years by intense scientific inquiry.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Indeed...it is a product of the mind of man, not a fact independent of the mind of man...
...
No need to supplant the theory of evolution to show the weakness of it.

See, unlike real science, hard science like physics, evolution hinges on this "thingy" called random mutation.

Yet there is no formula for this random mutation, no direct known cause, no way to measure or quantify it, just some mysterious "force" or process of mutation.

What are you talking about? There most certainly are formulae. Many causes of mutations are known. This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. You dont understand biology, therefore, evolution is wrong.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Could be God causing the "mutations" for all we know, which would blow the theory of random selection right out of the water.

Only if you can prove it. But you can't- its not provable. You either believe or dont- making it a theological, not a scientific argument. And stop calling it random selection - its called natural selection. Its an inherent survival bias. Theres nothing random about that.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Basing an entire philosophy on such an unprovable theory such as "random mutation" from an unknown and unknowable process is just plain faith, and becomes a dogma when it is preached by the Darwinists and neo-Darwinists.

What are you talking about? Its been proven, repeatedly. You can watch mutations happen at the cellular level. There is no faith involved. Further, only Creationists call people 'Darwininsts'- thats like calling physicists 'Newtonists' or 'Einsteinists'. All biologists are 'Darwinists'- his little theory has grown to become the cornerstone of modern biological sciences. The fact that you dont like it doesnt detract from it.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Building a foundation of science on the basis of ignorance, ignorance of what the so called "random mutations" is hardly scientific.

So is building a foundation for ID on the ignorance of, to name but a few, science, the scientific method, logic, and honesty.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
The perception of Darwin's theory has changed, but has it evolved?

I would say not at all...

No one cares what you say. You can deny reality all you want- the rest of us will continue to make progress with out you. You can cover your eyes and ears all you want to shield you from this uncomfortable truth- but it doesnt change the fact that ID is theology, not science. Evolution is tried and tested science.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Just show me how to predict evolution to the same precision as we can predict gravity, and I will listen...

Its been done. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the evidence is your problem. We know more about the cause of evolution than we do about the cause of gravity.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Theories that explain things are as old as man, but just because a theory appeals to the mind of man doesn't make it a correct theory...

Like ID you mean?

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You and I measure religiousness differently. The US gives lip service to religion, but the US is the most materialistic country on earth. Not spiritualistic, but materialistic.

I talked about contentment, and how science does not produce contentment, nor inner happiness, nor peace of mind. Clearly on the whole Americans have more material luxury than anyone else, but that is not bringing peace of mind, nor contentment...

Where's your contentment formula?

You are confusing materialism (as in Madonna's "Material Girl") with methodological materialism. The latter is just the realization that only material things can be empirically observed, measured, etc. The supernatural, spiritual, etc, is highly subjective and exists outside the realm of science.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Teleologist:

Intelligent design is often equated with creationism. They are not the same, not even close. ID is not based on the Biblical account of creation, it doesn't invoke the supernatural, and it isn't anti-evolution.

Not so. You need to hear the lecture by Ken Miller regarding what he said happened in 1987, when the term "Creationism" was essentially replaced with "Intelligent Design" by the very people who coined the semantic variation. You might say that the new term "evolved." Spend an hour or so and listen to what Dr. Miller has to say, and how he responds to so-called ID scientists who have refuted evolution. Miller was an expert witness in the ID court disputes, so you should find what he has to say fairly interesting and comprehensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(With thanks to vhehn for his earlier reference to this link.)