Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

kjkent1 wrote:

.. do you have any regimen which can be repeated, the results of which shows that an intelligent designer is responsible for the existence of biological life on Earth?

There is no razzle-dazzle magic bullet test that proves ID. If there was then ID would be a fact and not a hypothesis. Why expect such a test? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and blind watchmaking. Or do you actually infer blind watchmaking without
any tests??

By applying what we do know about design to that which has the appearance of design we can make a reasonable design inference. Additional research can strengthen the design inference and generate testable hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality. That's good enough for me.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

kjkent1 wrote:

There is no razzle-dazzle magic bullet test that proves ID. If there was then ID would be a fact and not a hypothesis. Why expect such a test? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and blind watchmaking. Or do you actually infer blind watchmaking without
any tests??

Huh? The existence of design is quite testable. The U.S. Patent Office conducts such research every business day. I'm not being flippant, either.

Something is designed if there is evidence of a designer. A primitive design will display primitive technological underpinnings (stone arrowheads are chipped away by harder stones, etc.). An advanced design will display more advanced technological underpinnings. A Boeing 747 requires a huge effort from thousands of different industries, and an equally huge effort to utilize the design.

There is no evidence of any underlying technology to explain how living organisms were designed. No maker's marks are present, nor is there evidence of alien infrastructure or energy source.

In the adsense of such evidence, the rational scientific conclusion is that life on Earth was not designed. And, as there is all sorts of facts in support of evolutionary change, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of evolution and against design.

As for your "blind watchmaker" characterization:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from kjkent1:

Perhaps we should wait for a Christian to explain.

I'm Christian, but I've always been a science-lover. This is something I've never understood about my own brotherhood. There are exceptions of course: Catholic leadership, James Dobson, Francis Collins, etc. But, in general, the everyday Christian I meet will generally get uncomfortable and change the subject in spite of the fact that science has so generally and drastically changed their lives for the better.

It seems hypocritical, even paranoid to me, to put on contact lenses, accept medical treatment, drive in a car all the while being fearful to even discuss the relationship between science and God...

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from kjkent1:


There is no evidence of any underlying technology to explain how living organisms were designed. No maker's marks are present, nor is there evidence of alien infrastructure or energy source.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

OTOH, there is plenty of evidence that living organisms are full of errors, mistakes, useless organs, and inefficient machineries. If there ever was a designer, it must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent designer.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

OTOH, there is plenty of evidence that living organisms are full of errors, mistakes, useless organs, and inefficient machineries. If there ever was a designer, it must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent designer.

This is a very weak argument imo. When every a piece of machinery is built it is done not with the idea of perfection but with the idea of "error tolerance". A hole is drilled at +-.05 mm, etc. This could very well be true on planet earth: life was designed to go through certain error tolerances evolutionarily.,

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

This is a very weak argument imo. When every a piece of machinery is built it is done not with the idea of perfection but with the idea of "error tolerance". A hole is drilled at +-.05 mm, etc. This could very well be true on planet earth: life was designed to go through certain error tolerances evolutionarily.,

This is wrong on two points.

1. If life was ever designed with "error tolerance" in mind, then the designer was also grossly incompetent in that regard. Note the millions of species that went extinct - certainly they were not "designed" with sufficient error tolerance.

2. You missed my point about redundant, useless body parts. How would useless organs serve the purpose of "error tolerance?"

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This is wrong on two points.

1. If life was ever designed with "error tolerance" in mind, then the designer was also grossly incompetent in that regard. Note the millions of species that went extinct - certainly they were not "designed" with sufficient error tolerance.

You're showing your bias here. An aircraft carrier, which is full of design specification almost all of which have error tolerances, is impressive. But a human being, almost infinitely more complex than an aircraft carrier, that has error tolerances is not?? The sword cuts both ways...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:


2. You missed my point about redundant, useless body parts. How would useless organs serve the purpose of "error tolerance?"

Researchers just found out the purpose of the appendix - don't know if you read about that. It was apparently to repopulate the good flora in the intestine during man's early low population years.

But think about this: imagine if the earth was terraformed from a beginning seed and through certain inevitable design spaces came the vertebrates and life as we know it. Only a superintellect could do this and a few bad mutations or vestigal organ do not in any way disprove the supergenius of the mathematics behind it...

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You're showing your bias here. An aircraft carrier, which is full of design specification almost all of which have error tolerances, is impressive. But a human being, almost infinitely more complex than an aircraft carrier, that has error tolerances is not?? The sword cuts both ways...

You're the one showing the bias here. I gave you counter examples and you did not address them. Are humans extinct? You're answering the wrong questions.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Researchers just found out the purpose of the appendix - don't know if you read about that. It was apparently to repopulate the good flora in the intestine during man's early low population years.

But think about this: imagine if the earth was terraformed from a beginning seed and through certain inevitable design spaces came the vertebrates and life as we know it. Only a superintellect could do this and a few bad mutations or vestigal organ do not in any way disprove the supergenius of the mathematics behind it...

Really?

What's the use of your pubic hair and armpit hair?