Intelligent Design is not creationism

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I am not a young earth creationist, and don't care.

Design is in evidence, requires no proof.

Now, rule out that statement, show how it is false.

See, your foundation of ignorant chance is just a guess too...

I didn't say you were a YEC. You asked for a scientific test that rules out design. YEC is a theory of design which has been ruled out by scientific tests, therefore I have satisfied your request.

The statement that "design is in evidence, requires no proof" is just your unsupported opinion. I don't need to absolutely rule out every possibility of design, because it's not required for any reasonable scientific conclusion.

Randomness can be measured, and so can design. Science measures evolution within limits and does not find design -- it finds randomness.

A politician needs to hang on to what cannot be proven in order to maintain a public policy. A philosopher needs to hang on to what cannot be proven in order to maintain a philosophy.

A scientist just needs to measure within reasonable limits and report the result.

And, the result, within limits, is random.

 

[Teleologist]

John Dough wrote:

I didn't say you were a YEC. You asked for a scientific test that rules out design. YEC is a theory of design which has been ruled out by scientific tests, therefore I have satisfied your request.

Nonsense. Show how refuting YEC rules out design. Science has no test to distinguish between design and non-design. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You have not ruled out design at all. You can't even say what test would rule out design.

Events happen, fact.

Events have a cause, fact. There is a reason behind everything, even when the reason is unknown.

This propagation of random ignorant chance is just pushing mythology. Science has shown repeatedly what was once thought to be random, say catching disease for example, was not random at all. There was cause, and then effect. So we don't know what causes something...therefore we must conclude random ignorant chance, and not possibly design?

Too funny...

Events are caused by ignorant chance or design?

Fact is, you really don't know, do you?

So why in the bloody hell are we teaching an unknown as the origin of life, that requires faith to maintain it's position to children in public schools?


Makes zero sense...

Quote from john dough:

I didn't say you were a YEC. You asked for a scientific test that rules out design. YEC is a theory of design which has been ruled out by scientific tests, therefore I have satisfied your request.

The statement that "design is in evidence, requires no proof" is just your unsupported opinion. I don't need to absolutely rule out every possibility of design, because it's not required for any reasonable scientific conclusion.

Randomness can be measured, and so can design. Science measures evolution within limits and does not find design -- it finds randomness.

A politician needs to hang on to what cannot be proven in order to maintain a public policy. A philosopher needs to hang on to what cannot be proven in order to maintain a philosophy.

A scientist just needs to measure within reasonable limits and report the result.

And, the result, within limits, is random.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Do you know anyone who suggests an apple is not limited?

LOL.

Now, back to the universe, is it limited or unlimited?

Science would have to conclude it is limited right? Because instrumentation is limited, right?

So ignorant chance is concluded through limited instrumentation, right?

So limited instrumentation would always conclude limitations, and an ignorant mind would always conclude ignorant conclusions...

So, tell me again why we should have faith in ignorant chance, because the concept of ignorant chance it is the product of a limited instrument, i.e. the human mind?

Quote from john dough:

Infinity is definitionally limitless, so stating that it is measured when we reach a limit, is no different than stating that an apple is measured when we reach an orange, because an apple is not an orange.

Silly comparison.

 

[Teleologist]

John Dough wrote:

Science measures evolution within limits and does not find design -- it finds randomness.

Total rubbish. I refer you to the Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11

Therein you will find this article:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Non-random Mutations and Evolution

Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

Weismann, the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation. This mini-review will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


That evolution occurs has been tested and confirmed but ID doesn't dispute that evolution occurs. The dispute is over what causes evolution. Now, as I see it, evolution and life's history is wide-open and vulnerable before ID. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). Science has no test that can confirm that any major evolutionary innovation originated through accidental mutation and coincidental selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection.

Then ID has recently changed tack.
There need be no major evolutionary innovation as such, for evolution to begin. Also, the definition you offer for ID is trivial, because ANYTHING could be an Intelligent Designer where no test is possible for the proposition.
Right the way through from ZZzz's obsessive dumb ignorant chance - the designer, to Santa - the deigner, to some non specific thing - the designer. All contestants are up for proposal because none can be tested and even where one is favored, someone else need only pass by and say "no it wasn't 'cause a designer needs to be designed " and straight back to square one the ID proposal goes.

ID is a trivial concept, as is God and ‘Creators’ and mysterious imaginary things that design, as are all sorts of Goblins and other such fabulous abstract notions. All such things that lack the quality of verification in any substantial way.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

John Dough wrote:


Total rubbish. I refer you to the Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11

Therein you will find this article:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Non-random Mutations and Evolution

Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

Interesting article. Fortunately, the entire text is online:

http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/182/11/2993.pdf

The article reports that environmental stresses may create faster and more predictable changes than those which would be produced by purely random conditions.

It supports the conclusion that evolution is subject to environmental stress, and if the stresses are predictable then so is the evolution.

But, this is not the "design" that the ID community advocates. So, if you are advocating that environment channels evolution and that evolution is therefore predictable, I have no argument.

If you advocate that this proves that some alien intelligence has shaped the Earth's environment to create the life which exists here, then you'll need to demonstrate an experiment proving your conclusion.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You have not ruled out design at all. You can't even say what test would rule out design.

Events happen, fact.

Events have a cause, fact. There is a reason behind everything, even when the reason is unknown.

This propagation of random ignorant chance is just pushing mythology. Science has shown repeatedly what was once thought to be random, say catching disease for example, was not random at all. There was cause, and then effect. So we don't know what causes something...therefore we must conclude random ignorant chance, and not possibly design?

Too funny...

Events are caused by ignorant chance or design?

Fact is, you really don't know, do you?

So why in the bloody hell are we teaching an unknown as the origin of life, that requires faith to maintain it's position to children in public schools?


Makes zero sense...

Arguing with you is pointless, because you don't actually respond to any point that I make. You just keep repeating the same thing, as if I have said nothing at all. Nothing productive can come of this, so, I'll try to discuss the issue with some of the others here who actually attempt to address the issue, rather than with someone who prefers to simply bulldoze his opinion over that of others.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

John Dough wrote:


Nonsense. Show how refuting YEC rules out design. Science has no test to distinguish between design and non-design. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

Refuting YEC rules out a particular theory of design proposed by a particular group of design theorists. As previously stated, no scientific experiment can absolutely rule out anything -- design included.

So, your request is silly.

Within limits of scientific knowledge, there is no scientifically verifiable evidence of an alien designer.

Which is what I've been asking for since entering the discussion. Where is your science proving an alien designer?

 

[Haroki]

JD -

ZZ and Teleologist are the same guy, different alias.

Quit wasting your time...