Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 12

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2011 :  22:54:26  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, looks like the last thread died, hehe. Let's move on and delve a bit into ID and see what it actually is. If you'll keep an open mind, it might surprise you and even enlighten you to truth in nature on this planet, our island home called Earth.

I hope by now that those of you not familiar with ID have grasped that it is not creationism but a science concept based on the philosophy of teleology [4] that goes back at least 300 years before Christ to a group of philosophers that had no concept of a personal god whatsoever:

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is falsely traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that it goes back far beyond that and much later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

One example of this is the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity..... he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies or leprechauns in it anywhere.

1) ID is defined as: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.

2) Other branches of science also use tenets of design to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, it is termed to be not science anymore by our detractors.

3) The reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide a collapse of the wave-function to make matter solid in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all.

http://ozarkfresh.com/quantummechanicsinmetaphysics.html

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science. Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

Sound like a start, guys?

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] http://www.theism.net/article/2
(an absolute must read as much of my intro is based on Gene's writings) Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)


Edited by - JerryB on 01/07/2011 23:22:33

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2011 :  23:56:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Everything I know about Intelligent Design I learned from the Dover Trial.

Besides, even if it originally started before christ, it's been used by christians for decades now since the failure of outright creationism to be allowed into schools. The only people who have really used it in the past several decades have been religious. It's ultimate origins are irrelevant, especially since ID has been shown to be scientifically useless.

The links above, plus more at TalkOrigins shoot down what you claim here:
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.



6) ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science. Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.

Read the Wedge Document. Modern ID is religiously motivated. "Science" has nothing to do with it.

Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 01/08/2011 00:11:24
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  00:37:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JerryB

Well, looks like the last thread died, hehe.
Because you were unable to support your assertions with evidence or decent logic. You're unable to comprehend simple algebra, your knowledge of thermodynamics and entropy begins and ends with SLOT, and you have ignored Feynman's famous warning that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
If you'll keep an open mind...
Poisoning the well already, I see.
I hope by now that those of you not familiar with ID have grasped that it is not creationism but a science concept...
What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
...based on the philosophy of teleology...
So, it's all based on the assumption that there is "purpose," then. Well, says who? Where is the evidence that some grand "purpose" exists?
...that goes back at least 300 years before Christ to a group of philosophers that had no concept of a personal god whatsoever...
This and the paragraphs that follow form an argument from antiquity wedded to an argument from authority, and so boils down to nothing more than rhetorical posturing.
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies or leprechauns in it anywhere.
Except for all those ID proponents who insist that the designer is God, like yourself.
1) ID is defined as: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.
Has it ever actually done so? Those of us who have been long-time critics of ID have been begging ID proponents to apply their methods to anything that we would agree has been designed, and show us how ID is supposed to work. The resulting silence has been deafening us for over ten years, now.
2) Other branches of science also use tenets of design to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics.
Describe these "tenets of design" and how any of those sciences have used them to "detect design."
Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, it is termed to be not science anymore by our detractors.
If you'll describe these "tenets," we will be able to gauge how accurate this statement is.
3) The reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide a collapse of the wave-function to make matter solid in the universe.
No, quantum mechanics does no such thing. You have mistaken the words used to describe QM experiments and created from them an anthropomorphic deity, no different from the non-existent gods you list below.
Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all.
No need to call it anything if it does not exist. Does it? Where is the evidence that isn't silly semantics?
4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers.
Describe this model.
Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.
Good job in getting that much correct. Darwinism doesn't pretend to be a theory of everything, there's no need for it to model abiogenesis. There are other models for that.
5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry.
Since there is no theory of ID, then ID can provide no models of anything.
We study science...
Since science is the study of the natural world, you have just claimed that design proponents study the study of the natural world. How would design detection mesh with that at all?
6) ID does not seek to replace evolution...
This is false according to Dembski, Wells, Nelson and Johnson, to name just a few.
...but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science.
What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.
What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
That list isn't itself evidence. Of course, evidence supports theories, and you claim that there is no ID theory, so your statement is nonsensical based upon your own claims.
Sound like a start, guys?
It sounds like a bunch of broad, self-contradictory claims with no support, actually.

Also:
[1] http://www.theism.net/article/2
(an absolute must read as much of my intro is based on Gene's writings) Site managed by Mike Gene.
Since Mike Gene admitted that there's enough evidence for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, he may be one of the more intelligent IDists around. Unfortunately, since back in 2000 (in your referenced page) he thought that "Science is built upon the faith that reality is rational," he was showing himself to be just another anti-science nutcase.

Really, what he said is extremely important. He's saying that all of science is a religion. This clearly undermines your contention, Jerry, that ID seeks to replace a religious idea with real science, since your own referenced author states that all science is based on faith. You can't have it both ways. According to Mike Gene in 2000, and your statements today, ID seeks to replace the faith of science with the faith in the quantum mechanical God. And since I think faith of any sort is a clear and present danger to a rational and peaceful society, I must clearly reject ID as a furthering of that threat if you're going to base any of your argument on Mike Gene's ideas from ten years ago.

But let's ignore that for now, for the sake of discussion. I'll assume for the moment that ID is not based on any faith at all if you'll do me the favor of answering my questions and points, above. And you can tell me how ID is a superior paradigm than modern biology for answering biological questions. This thread is all about your ideas. I'm ready to listen to them.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  00:52:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If anyone is interested in the progress of ID research:

As usual, there are things we didn’t see in 2010. For those, see 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. Somethings in life never change with the passage of time.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 01/08/2011 00:57:22
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9672 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  06:03:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JerryB

Well, looks like the last thread died, hehe.
Yes. Because of your inability to answer your critics and move the thread forward. Several points of criticism were left unacknowledged.

I hope by now that those of you not familiar with ID have grasped that it is not creationism
But you haven't shown any evidence to refute the connection between ID and creationism. We have the Dover trial as inrefutable evidence of this connection, and several websites you linked to in the last thread were creationist.

but a science concept based on the philosophy of teleology [4] that goes back at least 300 years before Christ to a group of philosophers that had no concept of a personal god whatsoever:
That is patently false, as both Zoroastrianism and Classic Greek Mythology was wide spread back then. Greek philosophers could not possibly have been totally isolated from religion. They may not have had a personal belief in those deities, but that doesn't mean they weren't exposed to the "concept of a personal god whatsoever".
If you insist, I would have to ask you for references.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:
And he did so without the benefit of modern science, biology, or evolutionary theory. He's making an appeal to incredulity.

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity..... he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."
Teleological arguments in biology are basically anthropomorphising. As such, they offer false analogies of what actually happens in nature.

This is getting tedious.

<yawn> You're just rehashing the same old unsupported dreck you've been spouting since you came here. <bigger yawn> Your lack of interest in addressing criticisms just proves that you aren't interested in anything but preaching and apologetics.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  07:00:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Already gots an intro to ID, Jerry.
On a spring day two years ago, in a downtown Columbus auditorium, the Ohio State Board of Education took up the question of how to teach the theory of evolution in public schools. A panel of four experts - two who believe in evolution, two who question it - debated whether an antievolution theory known as intelligent design should be allowed into the classroom.

Ok, I'll come out and say it: In the final analysis, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a cheap and entirely lame attempt to sneak creationism into the science classrooms through the back door. Thus far, the only door it's passed through is the one to the privy, showing that people in general are not as stupid as Dembski, et al. would have them be.

Until the "designer" can be identified, you've got no argument. Blithering up a smoke screen about quantum mechanics and intelligent particles won't cut it. All most people, including myself, know about QM is that the concept offended Einstein for some reason, and "intelligent" particles, if such exist, are following the basic rules of nature, as are we all.

Intelligent Design is the rigor mortis of creationism and it gets more ridged by the day.

And now you know why Uncommon Deciet Descent banned me to the Group W Bench. Heh, I'm in good company; Kil's there, too.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  09:02:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by the_ignored

Everything I know about Intelligent Design I learned from the Dover Trial.

Besides, even if it originally started before christ, it's been used by christians for decades now since the failure of outright creationism to be allowed into schools. The only people who have really used it in the past several decades have been religious. It's ultimate origins are irrelevant, especially since ID has been shown to be scientifically useless.

The links above, plus more at TalkOrigins shoot down what you claim here:
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.



6) ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science. Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.

Read the Wedge Document. Modern ID is religiously motivated. "Science" has nothing to do with it.

Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.



Does it surprise you that Creationists have jumped all over ID to further their cause?

Doesn't surprise me. As to the Wedge, I don't espouse that and I do not know of many IDists (ones who actually study science) that do. Having posted to and with Mike Gene in the Golden days of ARN, I can assure you that he doesn't either.

In fact, I knew at least 4 regulars there at the time who were openly agnostic. Crick (of Watson and Crick), the IDist--was an atheist. Brig Klyce who I sometimes link to because he is very knowledgeable about ID and writes extensively on the Web, is an atheist. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, avid IDist was an atheist.

So while it is quite true that Creationism has infiltrated ID in these modern times, one cannot say that ID has a basis in Creationism as it was espoused hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

One cannot use logic as you guys are doing in this thread, either: I know some Creationists who espouse ID, Jerry espouses ID, therefore Jerry is a Creationist. That is simply a non-sequiter in any logic class.

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  09:14:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
"science concept"
"study science"

WTF jerry, how is it that you keep increasing the level of your stupidity here? I mean, just how retarded are you? I think you were holding back in the other thread... come on, you have nothing to fear, go ahead and unleash the full 'tard! Its not like you can really humiliate yourself further, but at least you could provide us some entertainment.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  09:34:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's actually pro-hoc, ad hoc rather than non-sequiter, but who cares?

Jerry, you are committing the same fallacy as they do at UD. Sieze upon a topic such as genetics, which the average "man on the street" knows little or nothing about, and beat it to death with scientific sounding pronouncements.

And I must remind; the co-founder of the Discovery Institute was/is a double-dipped creationist who is considered to be the "father" of ID.

Now then, somewhere 'way, back yonder, you stated that the fossil record supports ID. Would you please demonstrate how this is so? Thanks in advance.....




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  10:00:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by JerryB

Well, looks like the last thread died, hehe.
Because you were unable to support your assertions with evidence or decent logic. You're unable to comprehend simple algebra, your knowledge of thermodynamics and entropy begins and ends with SLOT, and you have ignored Feynman's famous warning that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
If you'll keep an open mind...
Poisoning the well already, I see.
I hope by now that those of you not familiar with ID have grasped that it is not creationism but a science concept...
What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
...based on the philosophy of teleology...
So, it's all based on the assumption that there is "purpose," then. Well, says who? Where is the evidence that some grand "purpose" exists?
...that goes back at least 300 years before Christ to a group of philosophers that had no concept of a personal god whatsoever...
This and the paragraphs that follow form an argument from antiquity wedded to an argument from authority, and so boils down to nothing more than rhetorical posturing.
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies or leprechauns in it anywhere.
Except for all those ID proponents who insist that the designer is God, like yourself.
1) ID is defined as: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.
Has it ever actually done so? Those of us who have been long-time critics of ID have been begging ID proponents to apply their methods to anything that we would agree has been designed, and show us how ID is supposed to work. The resulting silence has been deafening us for over ten years, now.
2) Other branches of science also use tenets of design to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics.
Describe these "tenets of design" and how any of those sciences have used them to "detect design."
Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, it is termed to be not science anymore by our detractors.
If you'll describe these "tenets," we will be able to gauge how accurate this statement is.
3) The reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide a collapse of the wave-function to make matter solid in the universe.
No, quantum mechanics does no such thing. You have mistaken the words used to describe QM experiments and created from them an anthropomorphic deity, no different from the non-existent gods you list below.
Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all.
No need to call it anything if it does not exist. Does it? Where is the evidence that isn't silly semantics?
4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers.
Describe this model.
Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.
Good job in getting that much correct. Darwinism doesn't pretend to be a theory of everything, there's no need for it to model abiogenesis. There are other models for that.
5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry.
Since there is no theory of ID, then ID can provide no models of anything.
We study science...
Since science is the study of the natural world, you have just claimed that design proponents study the study of the natural world. How would design detection mesh with that at all?
6) ID does not seek to replace evolution...
This is false according to Dembski, Wells, Nelson and Johnson, to name just a few.
...but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science.
What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
Among that religious doctrine is a philosophy based on no science at all called Darwinism. Darwinism is not evolution as the latter is science based rather than religion based.
What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
That list isn't itself evidence. Of course, evidence supports theories, and you claim that there is no ID theory, so your statement is nonsensical based upon your own claims.
Sound like a start, guys?
It sounds like a bunch of broad, self-contradictory claims with no support, actually.

Also:
[1] http://www.theism.net/article/2
(an absolute must read as much of my intro is based on Gene's writings) Site managed by Mike Gene.
Since Mike Gene admitted that there's enough evidence for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, he may be one of the more intelligent IDists around. Unfortunately, since back in 2000 (in your referenced page) he thought that "Science is built upon the faith that reality is rational," he was showing himself to be just another anti-science nutcase.

Really, what he said is extremely important. He's saying that all of science is a religion. This clearly undermines your contention, Jerry, that ID seeks to replace a religious idea with real science, since your own referenced author states that all science is based on faith. You can't have it both ways. According to Mike Gene in 2000, and your statements today, ID seeks to replace the faith of science with the faith in the quantum mechanical God. And since I think faith of any sort is a clear and present danger to a rational and peaceful society, I must clearly reject ID as a furthering of that threat if you're going to base any of your argument on Mike Gene's ideas from ten years ago.

But let's ignore that for now, for the sake of discussion. I'll assume for the moment that ID is not based on any faith at all if you'll do me the favor of answering my questions and points, above. And you can tell me how ID is a superior paradigm than modern biology for answering biological questions. This thread is all about your ideas. I'm ready to listen to them.


Well, I HOPE my knowledge of entropy begins and ends with SLOT since that is what entropy is: SLOT, with any spontaneous reaction matter will tend to disorder. Entropy is simply a measure of that disorder. I would behoove you to learn that entropy is the measurement of SLOT. It's no more complicated than that and this is ALL that entropy is.

You'll never get thermodynamics until you understand this simple truism.

And I cannot grasp how that after all the discussions we have had on this subject that you still think I believe the designer to be a god rather than the quantum mechanics I've discussed with you. In fact, I KNOW you are aware of this. This tells me you are just being disingenuous.

What is the difference between evolution and Darwinism? Evolution is a body of thought that merges several sciences inclusive of, but not limited to, microbiology, virology and genetics to study mutating genes in organisms. It is an excellent science and one that has brought us huge steps in the field of say, medicine and others.

Darwinism is just a silly fairytale for grown-ups wherein they take the science of evolution and begin to add their own notions of poofs. Man poofed from an ape-like critter, The ape-like critter poofed from something else all the way back to an amoeba-like organism which no one can say how arrived on planet Earth in the first place.

Science recognizes certain limits. Darwinism claims there is no such thing.

ITEM: Man has been getting taller since at least the 1800s. I wonder how tall he will be in 10 million years?

Darwinist: I can extrapolate this. He will be 86.5 feet tall!

Evolutionist: Organisms have certain limitations programmed in their genes. I may not can tell you when this will level off, but level off it will.

ITEM: My wife has been working out in the gym and lost 10 pounds in a month. I wonder what she will weigh if she does this the rest of her life?

Darwinist: She will weigh exactly zero!

Evolutionist: This will level off when her metabolism catches up to the amount of calories she is working off.

I can't find my favorite Darwin quote and I forget what organism he began with because it's been years ago that I read it, but say it was a squirrel, and paraphrasing him: I can easily imagine a squirrel going through successive changes that it could turn into something so monstrous as a whale.

To that I say BAHAHahahahahah.......You call this science?

And this is why I am an evolutionist but not a Darwinist.

We will get into some evidence for ID as the discussion progresses.
Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  10:02:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by the_ignored

If anyone is interested in the progress of ID research:

As usual, there are things we didn’t see in 2010. For those, see 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. Somethings in life never change with the passage of time.



There is no such thing as "ID research" LOL.....We study the sciences as does everyone else.
Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  10:20:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

Already gots an intro to ID, Jerry.
On a spring day two years ago, in a downtown Columbus auditorium, the Ohio State Board of Education took up the question of how to teach the theory of evolution in public schools. A panel of four experts - two who believe in evolution, two who question it - debated whether an antievolution theory known as intelligent design should be allowed into the classroom.

Ok, I'll come out and say it: In the final analysis, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a cheap and entirely lame attempt to sneak creationism into the science classrooms through the back door. Thus far, the only door it's passed through is the one to the privy, showing that people in general are not as stupid as Dembski, et al. would have them be.

Until the "designer" can be identified, you've got no argument. Blithering up a smoke screen about quantum mechanics and intelligent particles won't cut it. All most people, including myself, know about QM is that the concept offended Einstein for some reason, and "intelligent" particles, if such exist, are following the basic rules of nature, as are we all.

Intelligent Design is the rigor mortis of creationism and it gets more ridged by the day.

And now you know why Uncommon Deciet Descent banned me to the Group W Bench. Heh, I'm in good company; Kil's there, too.






But I don't want Creationism taught in a science class at all. A class on theology is fine, but science? Nope.

I have introduced hard experimentation and mathematics that show there IS intelligence in QM. Reject that evidence at the peril of failing to glean an understanding of your universe around you.

I believe that the designer is intelligence, we find that intelligence in nature, therefore am I insinuating that nature was NOT the designer? No, just the type of nature that you people on here seem to think: random mutation and natural selection.
Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  10:25:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

It's actually pro-hoc, ad hoc rather than non-sequiter, but who cares?

Jerry, you are committing the same fallacy as they do at UD. Sieze upon a topic such as genetics, which the average "man on the street" knows little or nothing about, and beat it to death with scientific sounding pronouncements.

And I must remind; the co-founder of the Discovery Institute was/is a double-dipped creationist who is considered to be the "father" of ID.

Now then, somewhere 'way, back yonder, you stated that the fossil record supports ID. Would you please demonstrate how this is so? Thanks in advance.....






I will demonstrate it as the thread progresses and we begin to discuss evidence that supports ID.

And please remember that I have studied Genetics at a State university. So I MAY not be your average man on the street. I don't profess to be a geneticist, I'm far from one. But I'm not entirely ignorant in the subject, either.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  12:01:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
"Not entirely ignorant"?

Let's look at some of what you've just said:

Science recognizes certain limits. Darwinism claims there is no such thing.

ITEM: Man has been getting taller since at least the 1800s. I wonder how tall he will be in 10 million years?

Darwinist: I can extrapolate this. He will be 86.5 feet tall!

Evolutionist: Organisms have certain limitations programmed in their genes. I may not can tell you when this will level off, but level off it will.

ITEM: My wife has been working out in the gym and lost 10 pounds in a month. I wonder what she will weigh if she does this the rest of her life?

Darwinist: She will weigh exactly zero!

Evolutionist: This will level off when her metabolism catches up to the amount of calories she is working off.


All "Darwinism" is, is just the original form of the current theory of evolution. Though out of date, it does not say the weird shit that you claim it does.

Originally posted by JerryB

Originally posted by the_ignored

If anyone is interested in the progress of ID research:

As usual, there are things we didn’t see in 2010. For those, see 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. Somethings in life never change with the passage of time.



There is no such thing as "ID research" LOL.....We study the sciences as does everyone else.

What do you think that "study the sciences" means, then, if not research? You claim that ID is supported by the sciences; so do the ID people who have continually failed to provide evidence for ID.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  12:10:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
JerryB.

Darwinism is just a silly fairytale for grown-ups wherein they take the science of evolution and begin to add their own notions of poofs. Man poofed from an ape-like critter, The ape-like critter poofed from something else all the way back to an amoeba-like organism which no one can say how arrived on planet Earth in the first place.

Science recognizes certain limits. Darwinism claims there is no such thing.

ITEM: Man has been getting taller since at least the 1800s. I wonder how tall he will be in 10 million years?

Darwinist: I can extrapolate this. He will be 86.5 feet tall!

Evolutionist: Organisms have certain limitations programmed in their genes. I may not can tell you when this will level off, but level off it will.

ITEM: My wife has been working out in the gym and lost 10 pounds in a month. I wonder what she will weigh if she does this the rest of her life?

Darwinist: She will weigh exactly zero!

Evolutionist: This will level off when her metabolism catches up to the amount of calories she is working off.

I can't find my favorite Darwin quote and I forget what organism he began with because it's been years ago that I read it, but say it was a squirrel, and paraphrasing him: I can easily imagine a squirrel going through successive changes that it could turn into something so monstrous as a whale.

To that I say BAHAHahahahahah.......You call this science?


I don't call this science, Jerry. I call this the most blatantly outrageous strawman argument against evolution and natural selection that has ever graced the the pages of this forum. You are the winner! No one, and I mean no one here who has ever argued against evolution has ever created such a transparently obvious load of crap description of evolution as you just have.

Now, what has come up before is that your grasp of evolution is tenuous at best. But up until now I have not accused you of lying. But what you wrote above is a bald faced lie. It's a strawman of epic proportion. Hell. I'm thinking of using it as an example of what a strawman argument looks like in the extreme, because it's so breathtakingly stupid.

How can you argue against Darwin, or natural selection and so on if you have absolutely no grasp of the most basic concepts of what you are arguing against?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  12:40:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
JerryB:
To that I say BAHAHahahahahah.......You call this science?

You know what is a joke? You are arguing for an intelligence because some things are irreducibly complex, and could not have evolved. I really don't see the point in that unless you produce something that really couldn't have evolved by way of natural selection. So far neither you nor Michael Behe (who coined the term and described the problem) have named anything that fits that description. What good is your "science" if it solves a problem that doesn't exist?


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 12 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.14 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000