Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is pretty simple actually.

Let's just get to the bottom line.

Here is a reasonable scientific definition of evolution:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

The point of contention is not change itself within a gene pool.

The point is, what is really in debate here, is why did change occur?

The common explanation by science is the term "mutation."

This mutation can come about in 3 ways. By environmental factors such as radiation, by human intervention, and by some unknown factor such as the explaining change away as being "an error in the copying of the DNA during cell division."

Interestingly, error often means "not by design" or "mistake" or "unintended consequence."

So we are going deeper, and deeper into what is going on, searching for explanations.

If man applies his efforts to alter the gene pool, that is by design.

If radiation impacts the gene pool, that is by design or chance? If we can see no causal relationship between the radiation and the gene pool, does that mean there is no design because we are unable to see a relationship? If we can't see a plan, that means one does not exist?

When the DNA supposedly makes an "error" in the copy process during cell division, is that by design or chance?

First, is there such a thing as ignorant design? I would say yes, just look at some automobiles.

Seriously, I think we should just drop the "intelligent" aspect of the debate, and get down to the nitty gritty, i.e. design.

That is the central issue, are changes by design or chance. Is mutation by design? Is there some planning behind mutation that we don't see? Is it following some script?

How exactly do we know if the changes are by design or chance?

Postulating that they be by design might be the place to start, if one is trying to make a case for chance. Show how it is both logically impossible, and scientifically impossible for there to be any process but chance.

This is not what science has done though. A galaxy sized assumption of chance has been made in favor of chance, and then all the thinking has gone to develop a theory based on that assumption of chance.

Since they can come up with no way to measure design, they have ruled out design.

How much sense does that actually make?

Since when in the search for truth do we rule something out, simply because we have no way of finding it out?

Do we teach children to ignore things that they can't explain, favor an ignorant guess out of convenience, do anything possible to generate explanation for life simply because they feel good, or work out of denial of other possibilities?

Why the lack of inquiry into design? Why not an assumption of design?

Is there an agenda going on that is not actually science?

Quote from john dough:

It would be really great if everyone could agree on the definition of the term "intelligent design," before arguing about it.

Some possible definitions for "design:"

1. Absence of chance/absolute determinism.
2. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of chance.
3. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of determinism.
4. Absence of determinism.

Now define "intelligent:"

1. Purposeful.
2. Knowing.
3. Logical.
4. Aware.

Now define "chance:"

1. Absence of determinism.
2. Absence of causality.
3. Absence of logic.
4. Something from nothing.

Now define "determinism:"

1. Absence of chance.
2. Absolute causality.
3. Absolutel logic.
4. Absence of nothing.

That's 256 different possible definitions, so far. And, I haven't even included any theological possibilities yet. Hard to successfully resolve anything about a subject with so many possible definitions.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is pretty simple actually.

Let's just get to the bottom line.

Here is a reasonable scientific definition of evolution:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

The point of contention is not change itself within a gene pool.

The point is, what is really in debate here, is why did change occur?

The common explanation by science is the term "mutation."

This mutation can come about in 3 ways. By environmental factors such as radiation, by human intervention, and by some unknown factor such as the explaining change away as being "an error in the copying of the DNA during cell division."

Interestingly, error often means "not by design" or "mistake" or "unintended consequence."

So we are going deeper, and deeper into what is going on, searching for explanations.

If man applies his efforts to alter the gene pool, that is by design.

If radiation impacts the gene pool, that is by design or chance? If we can see no causal relationship between the radiation and the gene pool, does that mean there is no design because we are unable to see a relationship? If we can't see a plan, that means one does not exist?

When the DNA supposedly makes an "error" in the copy process during cell division, is that by design or chance?

First, is there such a thing as ignorant design? I would say yes, just look at some automobiles.

Seriously, I think we should just drop the "intelligent" aspect of the debate, and get down to the nitty gritty, i.e. design.

That is the central issue, are changes by design or chance. Is mutation by design? Is there some planning behind mutation that we don't see? Is it following some script?

How exactly do we know if the changes are by design or chance?

Postulating that they be by design might be the place to start, if one is trying to make a case for chance. Show how it is both logically impossible, and scientifically impossible for there to be any process but chance.

This is not what science has done though. A galaxy sized assumption of chance has been made in favor of chance, and then all the thinking has gone to develop a theory based on that assumption of chance.

Since they can come up with no way to measure design, they have ruled out design.

How much sense does that actually make?

Since when in the search for truth do we rule something out, simply because we have no way of finding it out?

Do we teach children to ignore things that they can't explain, favor an ignorant guess out of convenience, do anything possible to generate explanation for life simply because they feel good, or work out of denial of other possibilities?

Why the lack of inquiry into design? Why not an assumption of design?

Is there an agenda going on that is not actually science?

(eyes roll back)

Here we go again.

I don't agree that your definition is accurate, obvious or even agreed upon by a majority of ID advocates/detractors. But, assuming your definition as operative, then the following:

A card unseen is a card unseen, whether it is dealt to you or to your neighbor at the table, whether it is a burn card, or whether it is still in the deck. As long as it is unseen it is unknown, and until it is known, the probability of your drawing any particular card is exactly the same as if you had never dealt or burned any cards at all.

So, when you say that a change is caused by an "unknown," what you are saying (although you don't comprehend it yet), is that the probability of the outcome is scientifically RANDOM.

Similarly, when you attribute a change to ambient radiation from sources "unknown," you are saying the identical thing -- the change is scientifically random, because it cannot be measured with any certainty in advance.

So, while you may ultimately always be able to say, that just because there is no perceivable pattern, that I cannot exclude the possibility that some pattern may appear in the future, the reality is that until you actually ascertain a pattern, none exists -- exactly the same as the deck of cards where all of the cards are dealt, but are nevertheless all unseen.

The "design" which you are attempting to impute into organic change depends on your knowing in advance, not just the composition of the deck, but also its order.

And, unless you know that order prior to dealing, the deck's composition is randomly distributed.

So, the scientific answer is: random until proven designed and not visa versa.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"(eyes roll back)"

See your doctor for this condition. There may be some medication that will help you keep your eyes level.

"So, the scientific answer is: random until proven designed and not visa versa."

Balderdash...

The scientific principle is to investigate what we know and what we can prove, and to leave it at that.

Since chance is a guess, not a known, and no proof for chance, it is unscientific to assume chance is true.

It becomes even more unscientific to invest emotionally in such assumptions to the point of closing the mind non chance, or indoctrinating others into non chance belief systems.

Real scientists admit when they don't know, they don't build a philosophy and theory of existence on the basis of their ignorance...

Quote from john dough:

(eyes roll back)

Here we go again.

I don't agree that your definition is accurate, obvious or even agreed upon by a majority of ID advocates/detractors. But, assuming your definition as operative, then the following:

A card unseen is a card unseen, whether it is dealt to you or to your neighbor at the table, whether it is a burn card, or whether it is still in the deck. As long as it is unseen it is unknown, and until it is known, the probability of your drawing any particular card is exactly the same as if you had never dealt or burned any cards at all.

So, when you say that a change is caused by an "unknown," what you are saying (although you don't comprehend it yet), is that the probability of the outcome is scientifically RANDOM.

Similarly, when you attribute a change to ambient radiation from sources "unknown," you are saying the identical thing -- the change is scientifically random, because it cannot be measured with any certainty in advance.

So, while you may ultimately always be able to say, that just because there is no perceivable pattern, that I cannot exclude the possibility that some pattern may appear in the future, the reality is that until you actually ascertain a pattern, none exists -- exactly the same as the deck of cards where all of the cards are dealt, but are nevertheless all unseen.

The "design" which you are attempting to impute into organic change depends on your knowing in advance, not just the composition of the deck, but also its order.

And, unless you know that order prior to dealing, the deck's composition is randomly distributed.

So, the scientific answer is: random until proven designed and not visa versa.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Since chance is a guess, not a known, and no proof for chance, it is unscientific to assume chance is true.

Continuously restating this false premise will not render it true, unless you start wearing a brown shirt and carry a club to enforce your misunderstanding of reality.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Continuously stating that chance is a cause will not render it true...

Interesting that force and brown shirt would even come into your mind, maybe that would be a strategy you would consider when people start to understand what so called scientists have actually done, which is to push atheism in the name of science in the public school systems.

Nothing, absolutely nothing factual about biology or biological processes would change if design were assumed rather than chance, in fact if no assumption of either design or chance were taught, there would still be no difference in what we actually know...

Quote from john dough:

Continuously restating this false premise will not render it true, unless you start wearing a brown shirt and carry a club to enforce your misunderstanding of reality.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from john dough:

Continuously restating this false premise will not render it true, unless you start wearing a brown shirt and carry a club to enforce your misunderstanding of reality.

Always remember, jd, that Z is in his glory, goading you to respond. He is making his statements strictly in order to elicit a response from you. This is called trolling. We have all tried to engage Z, and we have all experienced his dialectic technique, which can be summed up as 'I know you are but what am I?'

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from I am...:


What will you choose to demonstrate? Aha! You will demonstrate that you are a gnat shouting at the universe! Excellent! It takes the power of God to PERCIEVE that. It is no less honorable than my contribution.

All depression stems from resistance, the obstruction of the flow of awareness, the attempt to limit the unlimited. Here then is another experience that you can desire. Is that what you desire?


Jesus

OMG (forgive me jesus) but this is too funny. i would laugh but it is infinite intelligence. tradernicole = "gnat shouting at the universe" i couldn't have put it better. the visual i just got was of "atom ant" (ant /gnat, close enough) with his little antennas sticking through his helmet. "i am," thank you.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Continuously stating that chance is a cause will not render it true...

You're correct. Fortuitously, however, since Pascal, Bayes, Heisenberg, Bohr, et. al., have already rendered the statement true for me and for every other thinking person on planet Earth, I don't need to add any additional force to my position.

You on the other hand, have a somewhat more difficult task ahead of you. Which is why I suggested the brown shirt and the club.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Care to link to a quote where Heisenberg and other physicists claim that the Heisenberg principle applies directly to the observed changes in biological organisms in support of the conclusions of Darwinism?

Didn't think so...

Oh, and by the way, uncertainty doesn't mean non design...the uncertainty may very well be by design, in the same way that a computer can generate a table of random numbers...


DOH!

Still, I find it quite amazing how with so much "uncertainty" floating around, that the the atheists are so certain of non design...

Quote from john dough:

You're correct. Fortuitously, however, since Pascal, Bayes, Heisenberg, Bohr, et. al., have already rendered the statement true for me and for every other thinking person on planet Earth, I don't need to add any additional force to my position.

You on the other hand, have a somewhat more difficult task ahead of you. Which is why I suggested the brown shirt and the club.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Care to link to a quote where Heisenberg and other physicists claim that the Heisenberg principle applies directly to the observed changes in biological organisms in support of the conclusions of Darwinism?

Didn't think so...

Oh, and by the way, uncertainty doesn't mean non design...the uncertainty may very well be by design, in the same way that a computer can generate a table of random numbers...


DOH!

Still, I find it quite amazing how with so much "uncertainty" floating around, that the the atheists are so certain of non design...

Why would I provide you with a link to such a quote, when in your next paragraph, you dismiss the idea as meaningless to your position (obviously, just in case I were to actually provide you with such a quote -- which I could, but I won't bother -- you wouldn't read it anyway).

Uncertainty is a scientifically estabilished reality that is beyond reasonable dispute. The laws of probability provide all the scientific background necessary to prove evolution is the product of random mutation and natural selection (along with gene shift and recombination, etc.). That these facts may not fit well with your nonsensical metaphysical delusion about God manifesting ministers of the universe from pure potentiality is your personal problem -- not mine.