Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from jem:

They too think anyone arguing against their understand of evolution is an uneducated religious wacko.

Can you blame us? We have heard in this thread that

1) A child in a pediatric cancer ward is there because of some error he or she made, since 'God does not make mistakes, people do'.

2) ID proclaims itself to be a scientifically provable alternative to evolution, and yet the proponents of ID here (at least the disgusting troll and a few others) have spent hours bashing the scientific method, calling it 'faith'.

3) We have seen these zealots trying and failing to employ scientific terminology. When it's pointed out that they are mistaken, they respond with the classic tactic of the troll - they take the argument being used against them and simply shoot it back.

4) We saw the mission statement from the creators of ID, those who seek to rebrand creationism, and we read that the whole concept of ID is an attempt to reshape the world along theistic lines. Hmmm.... there's actually another group of zealots who are attempting to do the same thing, albeit in the name of a different God. The ID'ers in this thread studiously avoid answering problematic questions, like 'Why in the hell should I be asked to live my life in a civic environment shaped by a religious belief I don't adhere to? Religion is a private matter. There are a bunch of religions. Choose one and keep your mouth shut and pray if that's what you want. No one is stopping you.

In any even, as I have said, the fanatics in this thread, exemplified by the Disgusting Hypocrite, are clearly not representative of the mainstream of Christian thought.

We live in a secular society. Learn to live with it or move.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Thanks.

You have nicely framed the argument in exactly the way it really is.

The argument you are making is this:

Scientific faith is superior to non scientific faith.

My argument, is that we should not be indoctrinating children into any particular faith, scientific or non scientific.

The movement to push scientific faith by claiming superiority as to the unknown and unknowable, which is just another misrepresentation of science of course, is just an atheistic movement dressed up in fancy scientific language and pseudo science.

People are being duped in the name of real science, it is a fraud upon the people of America.

There is an agenda at work, which is atheistic, and political in nature.

Atheists of course have the right to their own beliefs, and push for them, be political for them...in the same way theists do.

However, to publicly fund these beliefs, so that they may be used to brainwash children in the public school system is wrong, wrong, wrong...

We need to teach children how to think, how to reason, not what to think, nor what conclusions they should be reasoning to...

No, sir, you are mischaracterizing what I am saying. I am saying that if you have a scale and one side contains 99.999999 oz of gold and the other side contains 0.000001 oz of gold, that it is completely reasonable to conclude that the side with the least amount of gold is empty for all practical purposes -- while it is completely unreasonable to conclude that both sides are equally weighted in the amount of gold.

Evolution takes the former position, while design takes the later.

Despite all of the protestations of the ID movement, no one has yet to come up with any experiment confirming the existence of even 0.0000001 oz of ID.

This doesn't mean that it's not there. It does mean that it's absurd to contend that there's any weight to the argument.

Faith does not come into the calculation, because even if you discover that tiny speck of gold, you won't get any money for it, until it at least starts to tip the scale in the direction of ID and away from Evolution.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

John dough wrote:


This statement makes no sense to me. You are pitting ID against evolution. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative to the blind watchmaker hypothesis, the supposition that the evolutionary process is devoid of design.

Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says:



Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design. ID is an investigation into these possibilities.

Things "can" be designed to evolve. Indeed they may "be" so designed.

Now, conduct an experiment that proves up the hypothesis, and publish your findings. Until you do, ID is not scientific.

 

[Teleologist]

John Dough wrote:

Things "can" be designed to evolve. Indeed they may "be" so designed.

Now, conduct an experiment that proves up the hypothesis, and publish your findings. Until you do, ID is not scientific.

All in due time. I'm glad to see you backed away from ID being anti-evolution. Are you aware that it was 60 years before Darwin's theory began to be tested? Was it unscientific all that time? Have experiments been conducted that proves the evolutionary process is completely non-teleological? If so, I guess Simon Conway Morris hasn't got the news.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Seriously, you are joking right?

We have a baseline for 100% pure gold, right? We know the exact molecular structure, right?

What exactly is the baseline for ignorant chance?

How about design?

LOL!

See, it all breaks down when you put the pencil to the paper, because the fundamental factor, design or non design has no test to rule it out.

Evolution takes an arbitrary position, you could just as easily take the polar opposite position, as it simply is not known, or knowable if the changes we see are truly chance, or by design.

The dogged determination to begin with ignorant chance, then construct a belief system on that basis, is without any logical foundation.

It make much more sense to begin with order, than with disorder. Much more sense to begin with intelligence, than with ignorance. Much more sense to begin with design than order.

Faith in the first and primary cause being chance requires full faith, as it simply is not known to be by chance, it is assumed on the basis of incomplete knowledge.

Even some of the Darwinists are breaking down to admit that it is logically possible that change that appears random and "evolutionary" could be programmed into nature...which begs the question:

Who or what is the programmer?

Show me a program without a programmer...

And imagine the intelligence to program nature to appear as if random, to allow for so called chance to work so darn well, as to produce human beings.

It is ultimately more reasonable to begin with intelligence over ignorance, in every endeavor...

To assume ignorance is...well...just plain ignorance...

To then teach it as fact, or a belief that should be embraced by children is criminal...

Quote from john dough:

No, sir, you are mischaracterizing what I am saying. I am saying that if you have a scale and one side contains 99.999999 oz of gold and the other side contains 0.000001 oz of gold, that it is completely reasonable to conclude that the side with the least amount of gold is empty for all practical purposes -- while it is completely unreasonable to conclude that both sides are equally weighted in the amount of gold.

Evolution takes the former position, while design takes the later.

Despite all of the protestations of the ID movement, no one has yet to come up with any experiment confirming the existence of even 0.0000001 oz of ID.

This doesn't mean that it's not there. It does mean that it's absurd to contend that there's any weight to the argument.

Faith does not come into the calculation, because even if you discover that tiny speck of gold, you won't get any money for it, until it at least starts to tip the scale in the direction of ID and away from Evolution.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Seriously, you are joking right?

We have a baseline for 100% pure gold, right? We know the exact molecular structure, right?

What exactly is the baseline for ignorant chance?

How about design?

LOL!

I used gold simply because it is an efficient symbol of value. the contents of the scale is irrelevant. What matters is the relative weight of the evidence in favor of, or against a particular hypothesis.

There is no weight in favor of ID, and there is plenty favoring Evolution. So, Evolution wins, until you start proving up ID.

You constantly talk as if things are self evident. If you were to pretend for the balance of this discussion that nothing is self-evident, and restrict yourself to exactly what you can verify, then you would reconstruct Evolutionary theory, because there is no evidence to support ID, unless you adopt the position that it is self-evident -- as you have done.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

John Dough wrote:


All in due time. I'm glad to see you backed away from ID being anti-evolution. Are you aware that it was 60 years before Darwin's theory began to be tested? Was it unscientific all that time? Have experiments been conducted that proves the evolutionary process is completely non-teleological? If so, I guess Simon Conway Morris hasn't got the news.

Darwin's theory was tested by Darwin, sir. His observations confirmed his theory. Organic life is definitely shaped by its environment.

Whether that environment is designed is irrelevant. Clearly, modern environments "are" designed. An urban area that contains flocks of birds, may channel those birds over time to evolve to the "designed" environment.

But, that is NOT the same thing as what the ID community, as demonstrated throughout this thread by ZZZzzzzzzz, is attempting to advance. The ID community wants to prove the existence of a supernatural designer. No natural actor will do -- it must only be the Almighty Lord of the Universe who designs all.

Proving that some alien from Alpha Centauri is responsible for human evolution would be an unacceptable outcome to someone like Z, because he would still contend that this is not the answer, but rather that the answer lies in God until you prove otherwise, scientifically -- which is impossible.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Tested by Darwin?

So if I say some behavior is random and from ignorant chance, and have no way to verify that, or rule out design, you consider that a valid test?

LOL...

It is all based on assumption, not fact in evidence...

Oh, and if you would read this thread, I am not trying to advance ID, I am showing how non ID should not be taught in public school systems to children, indoctrinating them into a belief system founded on sheer assumption and ignorance, running counter to common sense.

Oh, and some alien from another planet would confirm ID, i.e. that life doesn't come from ignorant chance, but rather is here by design...

You are either demonstrating ignorance of my position, completely by your own design, or by ignorant chance, or by a combination of the two....I don't know which, but I would rather credit ignorance that could be rectified with knowledge, and not willfulness that has you completely misconstruing my position.

Design means some designer, some programming, some plan...intelligence expressed means coming from a source of intelligence, so ID really means what it says: Intelligent design, rather than ignorant non design (chance).

I am not a Christian, I oppose teaching ID in schools, but if, and only if non ID is also purged from the public schools, allowing children to learn facts, learn how to think for themselves, culture the ability to reason critically, for themselves...then and thereby allowing them to adopt whichever belief they want, not be indoctrinated with some dogma that is pushed down their throats in the name of "science" by those with an atheistic and political agenda...

From what I have read, the so called proponents of science are terrified that children will have the opportunity to reach their own conclusions...

Quote from john dough:

Darwin's theory was tested by Darwin, sir. His observations confirmed his theory. Organic life is definitely shaped by its environment.

Whether that environment is designed is irrelevant. Clearly, modern environments "are" designed. An urban area that contains flocks of birds, may channel those birds over time to evolve to the "designed" environment.

But, that is NOT the same thing as what the ID community, as demonstrated throughout this thread by ZZZzzzzzzz, is attempting to advance. The ID community wants to prove the existence of a supernatural designer. No natural actor will do -- it must only be the Almighty Lord of the Universe who designs all.

Proving that some alien from Alpha Centauri is responsible for human evolution would be an unacceptable outcome to someone like Z, because he would still contend that this is not the answer, but rather that the answer lies in God until you prove otherwise, scientifically -- which is impossible.

 

[Teleologist]

John Dough wrote:

Darwin's theory was tested by Darwin, sir. His observations confirmed his theory. Organic life is definitely shaped by its environment.

Sure, that's how things looked to Darwin but his idea had to wait 60 years before it was tested by science.

Big ideas take time
by Krauze

Having finished Michael Ruse’s latest book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, I can confirm that it is indeed very good. One of the things Ruse describes is how long it actually took from when Darwin published Origin of the Species until evolution took off as a proper scientific research program.

In the chapter “Failure of a Professional Science”, Ruse writes:

Evolutionary biology as a professional science was distinctly second-rate. It failed to be properly causal; its “laws” often failed to predict; and worst of all it was riddled with cultural values, especially related to notions of progress. Deservedly, evolution was pushed out of the universities. [p. 101]

It wasn’t as if research required some sophisticated technology that didn’t exist at the time. “A professional science could surely have been started which looked not only at issues in the wild but also studied variation in the laboratory, by, for example, breeding generations of organisms to the point where reproductive barriers between the earlier and later variations arose. Not all of these experiments would have worked, but something would have succeeded and taken the issue a step further.” (P. 88) Henry Walter Bates had done some work on mimicry in insects, but went on to become a secretary for the Royal Geographic Society (ironically, with Darwin’s help), and no one took up his work.

It wasn’t until the 1930’s, more than 60 years after Darwin had published Origin of the Species, that an actual theory of evolution was proposed, dubbed “the synthetic theory”. The mathematicians Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright did the work necessary to make the effects of natural selection quantifiable, the journal Evolution was founded, and empiricists like Bernard Kettlewell and Ernst Mayr could carry out their field work, studying evolution in the wild.

In Ruse’s terminology, evolution only gradually arose from pseudoscience, through popular science, before finally becoming a professional science in the 1930’s. You could say that evolution evolved. Similarly, intelligent design has passed from being expressed in creationist pamphlets as a flimsy support for apologetics, to being expressed in popular science books. ID critcs often inquire as to why intelligent design still isn’t doing any research, “10 years after Behe published Darwin’s Black Box“. However, they should remember the lesson taught to us by Darwin’s followers: Big ideas take time.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Tested by Darwin?

So if I say some behavior is random and from ignorant chance, and have no way to verify that, or rule out design, you consider that a valid test?

LOL...

It is all based on assumption, not fact in evidence...

Most of your post is hyperbole, intended to try to generate an emotional reaction. I have no dog in the ring here, so to speak, so this sort of behavior is wasted on me -- although it may inflame others -- and you do appear to genuinely enjoy inflaming others, by repeating the same thing over and over, without making any attempt to understand what your opponent is actually saying. So be it. On to your substantive comment:

Yes, it is possible to demonstrate that some behavior is random within the limits of scientific measurement, and yes that is a valid scientific test.

You laugh at this like it is preposterous. Yet, such a test is entirely reasonable.

If I calculate PI to 100,000 decimals and a statistical analysis of the numbers reveals no pattern, then it is reasonable to conclude that no pattern exists for all practical purposes.

That is a scientific conclusion.

Yet you laugh, and contend that the conclusion is not scientific until I calculate PI to infinity, and you describe this as the only sound science.

I don't know where you have your diploma or in what scientific discipline you are schooled, but no scientist anywhere does science in the manner you describe.

Real scientists limit their conclusions to the constraints of the test.

That some high school biology teacher may reach a conclusion not necessarily proved by the science is irrelevant to the scientific investigation.

It is however, relevant to public policy discussion. Your entire thrust is actually based on your desire to obtain a political end: the adoption of no conclusion as to the randomness of evolutionary change. Yet that change is statistically demonstrable as random within the limits of scientific measurement, so it is not unscientific to reach the conclusion.

The alternative conclusion, i.e., that evolution is the product of an unseen intelligent hand, is not scientifically demonstrable within limits, yet you laugh and suggest that it should attain equal weight to the scientifically demonstrable conclusion of randomness.

Thus your position is an unscientific political opinion.

Ruling out evolution because the statistics are only measurable within limits is an absurd conclusion drawn from no evidence.

Ruling out design because the statistics are unmeasurable within limits is a scientific conclusion drawn from the observed evidence.

One conclusion is science. The other is non-science.