Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

FerdinandAlx wrote:

But the problem with intelligent design is that in its explanation it focuses not on the design but on the designer.

Not true. ID is focused precisely on the design and not the designer. It is the ID critics that insist on bringing the designer into these discussions.

Go back to page 534 and read the article Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1).

 

[FerdinandAlx]

Quote from Teleologist:

FerdinandAlx wrote:


Not true. ID is focused precisely on the design and not the designer. It is the ID critics that insist on bringing the designer into these discussions.

Go back to page 534 and read the article Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1).

In order for ID to be a scientific theory the designer and more importantly the process of design need to be identified. Untill that time Intelligent Design is no more able to explain how the bacterial flagellum came into existence then is the darwinian theory of evolution.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:The ATP synthase is a machine. It either originated via intelligent design or sheer dumb luck. I happen to think intelligent design is the better explanation. No logical fallacy there. [/B]

So, you concede that the ATP synthase could have evolved -- you just don't "think" that it did. Okay, well, the evolutionary "thinking" is summarized nicely in this video which affirmatively explains each step of the process, based upon only mutation and natural selection:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&feature=related

Now, what affirmative evidence can you produce to show how each part of the ATP synthase was manufactured? Something with more meat than just "God did it."

HOW did God do it? Show us how He gets in and out of the universe undetected and without leaving any evidence other than the work product.

Real intelligent designers have drawings and calculations and they use tools and there's an entire technological infrastructure upon which the designers rely on to create the design and then put it into production.

Please show us how it all gets done.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from stu:

Then by those same standards, it is a straightforward matter to be equally rational and hold a logically inferred notion that the Earth is flat . That can be successfully achieved by simply looking out to the horizon from a tall building.

The specific method of science employs logic and validity. The notions that the world was designed and that there was therefore a designer, or that the horizon is damn near a straight line therefore the Earth is flat, do not.
Science would be the very thing to validate those notions, but both can stubbornly remain only capable of being "logically inferred" .... if one wants them to

Interestingly, Eratosthenes devised a method 2200 years ago to determine not only that the Earth is round but exactly what its circumference is. This means that the flat earth notion prevalent in medieval times was prevalent in spite of the existence for at least a thousand years of scientific proof to the contrary.

To those people supporting Flat Earth, however, for a variety of reasons that scientific proof wasn't available so they had to rely on other means to arrive at their conclusions re the shape of the world; obviously the means many people relied on led to faulty conclusions.

Nevertheless...

You suggest that the flatness of the Earth would have been logically inferred by viewing the horizon from atop a tall building. That depends on what sort of horizon you were looking on, how tall the building was, and how ready you were to draw conclusions from that single observation.

For instance, if you stand atop a very tall building ( or a very high elevation of whatever kind ) and look out over a great body of water the curvature of the Earth would be obvious. If you were to conclude from this observation that the Earth may be round you would be reasonable and correct even though there was no science involved in your conclusion.

The conclusion you arrived at by this unscientific means would be much more vague than the one you could arrive at by means of Eratosthenes technique but nevertheless it would be correct.

- - - - -
But determining the shape of the Earth is a very minor task compared to determining the origins of the world...

Why do you assume that science is competent to determine the origins of the world given that we have only two logical alternative explanations to pursue:

1) The Universe appeared from nothing, or
2) The Universe has always been here....

both being illogical and therefore incompatible with science?

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from jem:

more misleading bullshit from STU. I just love reading the indignant, self righteous blather of people posing as open minded acolytes of science;when they can not even open their mind to the science of top string theorists on this very subject.

I would have thought by now stu would have caught on to the fact that national publications are writing about many top scientists converting to a belief in alternate parallel universes. (billions and billions of them) The magazines even discuss dopppelgangers.

Are you too damn dense to understand why they have to make these assertions of parallel universes without any proof?

You would think that after reading all the quotes I gave you from top physicists you would understand that some top scientists admit the universe looks designed.

QM's MWI ( Multi-World-Interpretation ) - the notion that there are infinite parallel universes - is merely a prediction of Quantum Mechanics that may or may not be fact. At this time it's an untestable prediction so it can't yet be considered valid science. It's quite possible that the model of the world presented by QM is flawed and that some of its predictions will fail.

Having said that I should also say that I believe the universe may have been designed.

 

[Teleologist]

FerdinandAlx wrote:

In order for ID to be a scientific theory the designer and more importantly the process of design need to be identified. Untill that time Intelligent Design is no more able to explain how the bacterial flagellum came into existence than is the darwinian theory of evolution.

You previously said: "the problem with intelligent design is that in its explanation it focuses not on the design but on the designer." Now you are saying ID needs to focus on the designer. I don't get it.

In any event, there is no reason to go looking for a designer or how the design was implemented before we have good reasons to suspect something was designed. First things first. I don't claim ID has progressed to a scientific theory. Right now ID is being investigated. All investigations begin with suspicions. The ID critics want to thwart any investigation into ID by arguing that ID doesn't even warrant a suspicion. That is what the debate on this thread is currently focused on.

 

[Teleologist]

KJkent1 wrote:

You concede that the ATP synthase could have evolved -- you just don't "think" that it did.

I think it could have originated via a goal-directed form of evolution. I reject the notion that it's the product of an accidental, coincidental process.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from Teleologist:

I think it could have originated via a goal-directed form of evolution. I reject the notion that it's the product of an accidental, coincidental process.

I'm not a full-fledged teleologist but I have teleological tendencies... but I'm puzzled by your treatment of the alternatives here. How can you present goal-directed evolution as a mere possibility as in "it could have originated.." but definitively reject the diametrically opposed accidental process which would seem to be a possibility if its opposite is only a possibility?

Or do you not see this as an either/or situation?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

KJkent1 wrote:


I think it could have originated via a goal-directed form of evolution. I reject the notion that it's the product of an accidental, coincidental process.

Okay, then what evidence do you have that evolution is goal directed?

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from kjkent1:

Okay, then what evidence do you have that evolution is goal directed?

What are your standards for evidence and why should those standards be applied here?