Customer Discussions > Science forum

Questions for Intelligent Design Fans


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 20, 2007 8:26:24 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
I have questions for fans of intelligent design. But first, some background.

The theory of intelligent design has, to my knowledge, never explained anything whatsoever about any aspect of the anatomy, physiology, or behavior of any organism. In spite of this, the theory of intelligent design claims to be a scientific--specifically, a biological--theory.

Intelligent design authors claim that evolutionary biology is full of holes, and yet their many arguments--the mousetrap argument, the salmonella flagellum argument, and so on--have all been shot down (check out the "Index to Creationist Claims" at talkorigins.org for detailed refutations of many ID arguments). In spite of this, ID still claims to be preferable, scientifically speaking, to evolutionary biology.

Documents which came to light during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case show that an original ID text, Of Pandas and People, started its life as a creation science text. Only when creation science was legally judged to be a religious and not a scientific theory was this text revised, replacing talk of Creation and the Creator with Design and a Designer. Thus, ID really seems to be, in the words of the National Center for Science Eduction, "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

Now, given all these facts (assuming that my understanding of these issues is correct), here are my questions for ID fans:

1) is there a single example of a scientifically testable explanation coming out of ID theory for the anatomy, physiology, or behavior of any organism whatsoever?

2) assuming the theory of evolution were proven false tomorrow, what would ID have to offer in the way of practical scientific knowledge that would cause us to have ID replace evolution?

3) what is the difference, if any, between ID and the old, William-Paley-style teleological argument for God's existence (the argument from design)?

I look forward to your responses.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2007 9:09:02 AM PDT
Although my reply will not necessarily reflect an affiliation to either school of thought I hope it will shed some light on the topic at hand.

I believe that fans of intelligent design have misinterpreted the 'holy' writings from which they draw their conclusions. God creating the universe in '7 days and 7 nights' cannot be taken for its literal meaning by any rational individual. Some 2000 years ago when these scriptures were revealed, humanity was in no position to comprehend the concepts of evolution, Darwin's theory, etc... Explaining the concept of competing genes to a world whose intelligence and level on understanding is comparable to that of today's weakest elementary school children would have been an impossible feat. For this reason, abstract concepts had to be explained in very simple terms. This situation is analogous to trying to explain calculus to a 3rd grader who is just beginning to discover multiplication, it is beyond his reach.

As humanity and civilizations evolved and matured, our capacity to comprehend the world around us also evolved. Therein lies the disconnect between creationism and evolution. Creationist's literal interpretation of the scriptures clash with modern science. However, if you ask an individual who does not interpret that passage literally, they will surely tell you that the simplicity of creationism helped explain a difficult concept to simple people.

In summary, creationism was a metaphor suitable for the general populace at the time of its revelation and cannot possibly be taken literally in light of contemporary scientific discoveries. As humanity deepens its understanding of the world, these metaphors are no longer required to explain the world around us. Therefore religion and evolution are not necessarily at odds with each other but are rather two different sides of the same coin. One side suitable for 2000 years ago and another side suitable for today.

Your thoughts?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2007 9:37:13 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
I would have to agree that there is no necessary contradiction between creationism and the theory of evolution, and Pope John Paul II, among others, would agree.

However, what's really strange to me is that there is no necessary connection between ID and the young-earth creationism crowd. Most ID people seeem to think that the Earth really is billions of years old, and that new life forms have been appearing--suddenly, mind you, and not as the result of natural selection--throughout that time.

If ID, like its older sibling creation science, were basically identical to young-earth creationism, I could understand its appeal. At the end of the day, though, not only does ID contradict evolutionary biology, it also contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

So I guess I have a fourth question for intelligent design fans: why on earth is this theory so popular?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2007 10:15:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 20, 2007 10:17:36 AM PDT
Quantum Buff says:
Daniel,
Not many have responded to your request, and since I consider myself science minded and more an advocate of ID than Darwinian evo, I'll take a shot at it.

First off, a single bullet that missed, does not shoot down the flagellum argument. See Behe's response to it, and then decide if it's been refuted.

I have been trying to update all my references on this subject, and so have been investiging, among others: evolutionary biology and phylogenetics, Behe's 2-month old book - "The Edge of Evolution", Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium, Lee Spetner's followups to his "Not by Chance", and today a downloadable first chapter of Dembski's new book, "The Design of Life".
(http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id/design-of-life/ChapterOne.pdf)

1. Though it perhaps not as scientifically testable as you would like, I think the emergence of moral behavior of the human organism could qualify as an explanation that ID offers a better answer to than evolution. Evolution must stretch to say ethics is an adaptation that imparts some increased survival value. ID would simply say it is inherently in the nature of the designed to follow the designer. See the free chapter one of Dembski above about this.

2. If evolution were proven false, there would be no theory explaining how things "get" more complex or developed by themselves. Research consistent with ID might then focus on either 1.) how much complexity is originally built-in to the genome, concealed but later expressed.
or 2.) Was or is there some mechanism which shows some type of "direction" or guiding hand of mutations, since random does not cut it.

3. The ID approach, if used to show support of God's existence, rather than just to disprove Darwinian evolution (random mutations + survival of fittest), would essentially BE the "argument by design".

To my mind, biological understanding of the genome will continue, going far beyond noting Start, Stop, Cut and Splice codes, until it will become quite clear that the genome is an exquisitely coded program, at least as complex and impressive as computer programming languages. At that point the question of who or what did such a fine coding job will be inescapable.

By the way, Behe's latest book, full of lots of technical bio-speak, puts the limits of evolution as being unable to account for anything less probable than 1 in 10^20. I feel he is being way too generous. He,however, is the one who has backed up his numbers with evidence (malaria studies...)

Question for a non-IDer, like yourself, I presume:

Would it be OK to accept a number like 10^20 as the probability that life emerged by itself?
(That's 1 in 100 million trillion for those who prefer words).
In other words would evolutionists just say, "Yeah, I guess we're just that lucky. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here to be discussing this"

I look forward to your response (others welcome, of course)

Mitch (Q.B.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2007 11:05:49 PM PDT
C. Blanchard says:
QB:

"Evolution must stretch to say ethics is an adaptation that imparts some increased survival value."

I don't think that's true at all. The idea that evolution has developed a social instinct that helps us preserve the species as a whole makes a heck of a lot more sense to my mind than saying we're moral because "God [or "The Designer", if you will,] made us that way".

"Though it perhaps not as scientifically testable as you would like..."

To my mind, it is not REMOTELY testable. It is, as all of ID is, an elaborately constructed appeal to ignorance and personal incredulity: "We can say that we were "designed" to be moral if we don't know of any naturalist reason for morality that makes sense to us."

If I may ask a couple questions:

1)Why do you believe so strongly that biological life must necessarily be so similar to computer programs?

2)Do you (honestly) personally WANT evolution to be false, and ID true? And, if so, why?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2007 8:53:53 AM PDT
Mary Endress says:
What comes to mind immediately upon reading QB's post: "Oh, no! no!, I've been through this movie before." (Bob Dylan, Motorpsycho Nightmare).

1. "Evolution must stretch to say ethics is an adaptation that imparts some increased survival value."

You want to resuscitate social Darwinism?! Evolutionary theory applies to biology, not other fields.

2. "2. If evolution were proven false, there would be no theory explaining how things "get" more complex or developed by themselves."

Ah, we are already back to evolution = getting more complex.... Sorry, that's not what it is. Argument invalidated.

"Research consistent with ID might then focus on either 1.) how much complexity is originally built-in to the genome, concealed but later expressed.
or 2.) Was or is there some mechanism which shows some type of "direction" or guiding hand of mutations, since random does not cut it."

And here we have the Great Mutator rearing his head again. How many times do we have to point out that it is NOT totally random? Or are you saying that there IS no natural selection? You want to also resurrect The Neutral Theory?

3. "The ID approach, if used to show support of God's existence, rather than just to disprove Darwinian evolution (random mutations + survival of fittest), would essentially BE the "argument by design."

If used to show God's (ooops - the Great Mutator's) existance is still just religion.

"To my mind, biological understanding of the genome will continue, going far beyond noting Start, Stop, Cut and Splice codes, until it will become quite clear that the genome is an exquisitely coded program, at least as complex and impressive as computer programming languages. At that point the question of who or what did such a fine coding job will be inescapable."

As already stated repeatedly in other threads, evolution does NOT work like a computer. No matter how many times you repeat this here in these forums or to yourself - it is incorrect. Argument invalid.

"By the way, Behe's latest book, full of lots of technical bio-speak, puts the limits of evolution as being unable to account for anything less probable than 1 in 10^20. I feel he is being way too generous. He,however, is the one who has backed up his numbers with evidence (malaria studies...)"

More of the same tired rhetoric that's already been shot down by S. Allen, D. Wisker and others in other forums. Behe's statistics are incorrect. Have you read some of the reviews critical of his latest book here on Amazon?

Mary

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2007 5:25:15 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 21, 2008 10:41:55 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2007 6:16:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2007 6:18:40 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Quantum Buff said:
1. Though it perhaps not as scientifically testable as you would like,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it testable at all?

I think the emergence of moral behavior of the human organism could qualify as an explanation that ID offers a better answer to than evolution. Evolution must stretch to say ethics is an adaptation that imparts some increased survival value. ID would simply say it is inherently in the nature of the designed to follow the designer. See the free chapter one of Dembski above about this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The early evolution of man probably had nothing to do with ethics - witness humanity's behavior even in the early civilizations. Ethics is a relative late comer, and is a feature of culture, not hard-wired into our brains.
In addition, your "designer" murders anybody who crosses him (Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the enemies of his people, the first born of Egypt) like some mad serial killer. I fail to see the ethics of the designer.

2. If evolution were proven false, there would be no theory explaining how things "get" more complex or developed by themselves. Research consistent with ID might then focus on either 1.) how much complexity is originally built-in to the genome, concealed but later expressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a big "If". Why don't you re-address the issue when it happens.

2.) Was or is there some mechanism which shows some type of "direction" or guiding hand of mutations, since random does not cut it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called natural selection.

3. The ID approach, if used to show support of God's existence, rather than just to disprove Darwinian evolution (random mutations + survival of fittest), would essentially BE the "argument by design".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, can you please explain how this brilliant designer managed to botch some many human parts (your back, your wisdom teeth, you appendix, your immune system, etc. etc.).

To my mind, biological understanding of the genome will continue, going far beyond noting Start, Stop, Cut and Splice codes, until it will become quite clear that the genome is an exquisitely coded program, at least as complex and impressive as computer programming languages. At that point the question of who or what did such a fine coding job will be inescapable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you wait until the genome is understood completely before you start jumping to conclusions.

By the way, Behe's latest book, full of lots of technical bio-speak, puts the limits of evolution as being unable to account for anything less probable than 1 in 10^20. I feel he is being way too generous. He,however, is the one who has backed up his numbers with evidence (malaria studies...)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Another bogus calculation based on nothing. If the process is not clearly understood, then how can one assign probabilities?

Question for an-IDer, like yourself, I presume:
How do you explain the existence of god. ID presumes that things have to have a designer - where is god's?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2007 6:26:16 PM PDT
It is interesting to see these arguments repeated all over the internet with only slight differences in wording, perhaps someone should do a study of that. I also find it interesting that the argument always moves away from science and toward denigrating religion. If the religious are giving no scientific answers, why continue to ask?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2007 7:41:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2007 7:44:00 PM PDT
John Condron says:
Since Intelligent Design isn't science, by any stretch of the imagination, wouldn't this thread be more appropriate in the religion forum?

Ignorant Peasant

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 12:40:03 AM PDT
Mary Endress says:
Hi JC and AM,

It IS impossible to have a discussion - much less a debate - with people who respond illogically. And it is true that, rather than talking about evolution, we always end up trying to reason with these "belivers" as though they were rational, which is, of course, an exercise in futility. Perhaps Amazon is not the appropriate place to have a real discussion on evolution(?) For those who just like to engage in such arguments, there is also the forums specifically devoted to Behe's latest book, The Edge of Evolution. There you can endlessly repeat why the Earth isn't a closed system, that there is no difference in the processes involved in micro- and macroevolution, try repeatedly to explain why abiogenesis isn't part of evolutionary theory, etc. The same questions come again and again. I still haven't figured out if these guys are really this ignorant, or they just like futile arguments. It's been a real eye-opener, I'll say that! I'll probably stick around for a while longer, but as summer break draws to an end, I have to get back to work.

Mary

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 9:03:21 AM PDT
Deckard says:
A. Marciniszyn: I also find it interesting that the argument always moves away from science and toward denigrating religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that you have the order wrong. The discussions usually start with people denigrating science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 9:19:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2007 9:21:51 AM PDT
Kcorn says:
I wanted to thank you for raising this question and thank the others here for answering it. I learned quite a bit. Sorry to not add much to the discussion itself but I did want to express my appreciation to all and let you know I read EVERY single post. As far as which discussion starts first, (denigrating science or denigrating religion)I would suggest that one's feelings about that might be affected by one's beliefs. Just throwing that thought out there, as I find it hard to be objective when I feel sensitive about a particular issue. Please note that I am not taking a side here and the main point of this post was to express appreciation to all who posted.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 1:00:53 PM PDT
Well then, if the starting premise is that religious people are not rational, why, again, does anyone continue to ask them?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 2:23:13 PM PDT
I am not a biologist, although I know the basics of evolution and that it works as a powerful explanation of life. I have not read any book on ID, although I was raised in a Young-Earth-Creationist home and so I do intimately know the ins and outs of creationist thought, (even though I have come to reject religion and theism in my adulthood.)

I am not going to debate specifics, as I feel not qualified to do so. However, I have a strong lay interest in psychology and philosophy and so I do think I can make a productive comment coming from these perspectives.

Is not ID "theory", at its root, simply sophisticated anthropomorphic musing? It posits an "Intelligent Designer" to intervene in the biosphere at various moments in time - highly similar to any mythical anthropomorphic explanation.

Jean Piaget's findings on how children conceptualize the world can help us illuminate this - they say such things as "the sun is alive because it moves" etc. As they mature and develop intellectually, they slowly come to realize that nature is natural and not animated. Is not ID just an attempt to placate our psychological bias of anthropomorphizing nature?

Bacon was the first to formally recognize the fallacy of anthropomorphizing our environment - an observation culminating with Nietzsche's work. De-anthropomorphizing our conceptualization of our world (at least as much as possible) could be argued as having been mankind's most powerful intellectual development. It seems to me that ID is just a last ditch effort to save this immature and fallacious anthropomorphic cognitive template.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 2:54:02 PM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
Quantum Buff:

I appreciate you trying to actually respond to my questions, rather than dismissing every argument against ID as atheistic poppycock on an ad hominem basis (hi, there, ARM!).

Your point about the evolution of morality in human beings is interesting. I would suggest having a look at Richard Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene (written when he was writing books about evolutionary biology, before he decided to be a full-time evangelical atheist), Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, and Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves. Among other things, the evolutionary account of the development of human morality is experimentally testable, which ID is not. The tests to which it has been subjected it has passed admirably, as you can see from these books.

QB, you also suggest that "it will become quite clear [with future research] that the genome is an exquisitely coded program, at least as complex and impressive as computer programming languages. At that point the question of who or what did such a fine coding job will be inescapable." I have to disagree. Large amounts of our DNA are shared with great apes, slightly smaller amounts with monkeys, still smaller amounts with non-primate mammals, and so on. Further, much of our DNA appears to serve no useful purpose, and may, in fact, constitute relics of our evolutionary past. Yes, the genome is mind-bendingly complex. I have never seen any argument, however, which makes clear why the KIND of complexity which it has must necessarily be irreducible and/or caused by some giant, human-like intelligence.

Finally, your question about the vanishingly small probability of life arising out of the prebiotic soup comes from typical and fallacious arguments which Discovery Institute people tend to throw about with wild abandon (see the "Index to Creationist Claims" at talkorigins.org, especially the arguments under code CB0). Basically, these "1 in a 100 million trillion" arguments typically come from a gross misrepresentation of how scientists currently believe that abiogenesis works.

I really appreciate QB's post, and I am sad that so many people have decided to vote that it does not add to the discussion (I cast my vote the opposite way). Now, does anyone else have any examples of anything which intelligent design theory has helped us to learn about how organisms work? Anyone?

Hello?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 10:15:43 PM PDT
Since I believe in God, I must believe that God is the Intelligent Designer. So I suppose that I subscribe to the Intelligent Design theory. Having said that, I also subscribe to Evolutionary theory. To me they are clearly compatible. I do not think that ID is a scientific theory at all, while Evolutionary theory is. The former is after supernatural causes, and the latter is after natural causes. So, my answer to the question "does anyone have any examples of anything which intelligent design theory has helped us to learn about how organisms work?" is: there are none. The only thing that ID tells us about organisms is that God is responsible for their existence. When it comes to how organisms work, it tells us that God is responsible for the laws of evolution. That is all it tells us and nothing more. ID is a metaphysical explanation for how and why things exist; it is not (to me, at least) a physical explanation of anything.

Matt

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 7:41:44 AM PDT
Cuvtixo says:
Hi Mary. You're a little off target when you say evolutionary theory only applies to biology. Natural Selection might only be bio, but evolutionary theory can work to describe IDEAS within society, including scientific ones! MEMES. Is the evolution meme particularly fit? How will this idea compete against others? Religious beliefs that include prosletizing have great survival value, since they focus on replication. ID is a mutant of creationism that exploits modern scientific ideas. The debate itself is an example, an illustration, of selection and adaptation! Kinda neat, huh!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 8:54:10 AM PDT
Pavel Nadin says:
Because they are continuing to claim that they are. "Rational" means "efficient at achieving one's objective". If your objective is to find a peace of mind that gives you comfort that there is continuation of life after death, then religious people are quite rational. However, there are other problems like finding cure for cancer and preventing devastation from natural disasters. Rational people rely on the scientific method to solve them, because nothing else seems to be the tool to do it. If you consider ID to be science, please demonstrate how you can use ID to resolve ANY of the issues. And please don't forget while you do it - the scientific method always provides a means to check if you have gone wrong - the intuition has proved itself to be unreliable too many times. I'd like to see how ID provides this means and how it makes progress. Only then will you convince me in the rationality of ID and religion. Otherwise, it's up there with paranormal - just where it was 150 years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 9:53:56 AM PDT
Two assumptions to start: religious people cannot be reasoned with and Intelligent Design is metaphysics. Why ask here when the writings of Behe and Dembski are available?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 10:04:31 AM PDT
Pavel Nadin says:
1. To QB and everybody who believes in the "morality argument" - please take a long vacation and go spend it somewhere in the Eastern Europe, maybe rural Ukraine. I know it sounds presumptuous, but I gurantee you will have a very valuable and most memorable experience of your life. And by "spending" I don't mean waving at the natives from the air-conditioned bus and discussing at the hotel restraunt all those "wierd" things that you saw during the day. By "spending" I mean becoming one of natives and figuring out ways to live and moving on in that life. I predict that after a few days (weeks if you're slow) of shock, you'll realize that you've been making a lot of assumptions in your life about human behaviour and beliefs, and that they are not necessarily wrong, but predicated on the environmental conditions. If you're perceptive, I predict you'll see that when people try to survive in a specific environment, they deal with their problems in their own ways, conditioned by the inherited folk culture, upbringing and the economic conditions. Morality in their world does not get a free ticket, it's just another tool to achieve something, there is nothing transcendental about it. You'll be amazed at how skillful some locals are at justifing their actions that would obviously be wrong to most in the US for example. If you don't take the "high moral ground" position, the idea that you're in the same boat, but of a different kind that you simply got used to, will most likely cross your mind.

At this point you might object that there are deeper moral truths that transcend the cultural boundaries. Without getting too deep, please consider the findings of someone like Noam Chomsky who demonstrated reasonably well that language, while different across cultures, has the same structural patterns due to our genetic makeup. That is, there are some "transcendental" truths about the way we communicate regardless of culture. There have been good aguments made to show that morality shares this feature with language. (e.g. check out "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser).

2. Quantum Buff wrote:

Would it be OK to accept a number like 10^20 as the probability that life emerged by itself?
(That's 1 in 100 million trillion for those who prefer words).
In other words would evolutionists just say, "Yeah, I guess we're just that lucky. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here to be discussing this"

Would knowing how life appeared warrant you a Nobel prize and answer the very question it tries to ask?? How else would you calculate the probability of it appearing? Based on what? We still don't know if RNA appeared before DNA, for example. Our computers our too weak to simulate it and due to the combinatorial explosion of all possible states, I'm very pessimistic about simulations to resolve this issue ever. Until some facts are in hands, all probability talk has little sense, does it?

FInally, please don't underestimate the anthropic reasoning. Yes, we're just that lucky - if we weren't, we wouldn't be here to be discussing this. Think about this analogy (sorry for its banality, but couldn't think of a better one for the moment). A healthy male semen contains about 300 000 000 sperms in one ejaculation. Assuming my parents are very succefful breeders and that they conceived me from the first try, if I were you, I should reason that I'm "special", that I was somehow either very lucky or chosen, because I was one out of 300,000,000. That's faulty reasoning, because there obviously had to be someone due to statistical necessity and whichever happened to be one has the neurological capacity to discuss it. There is nothing special and chosen about me in the sense you suggest.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 11:51:28 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:20:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 12:03:28 PM PDT
Mary Endress says:
Hi Cuvtixo,

Interesting to a philosopher. But, as a biologist, I cannot warm up to the MEME idea. It is too soft and fluffy for the likes of me. Memetics has no oomph, as its hypotheses cannot be adequately tested within a rigorous framework. Additionally, there are difficulties on more than one level in equating a meme with a gene. I also do not accept extrapolating evolutionary theory to philosophical or metaphysical or areas. If one wants to do this, then, it is their prerogative, but then they are not studying evolutionary theory. To me, memetics is no more evolutionary theory than is social darwinism. Certainly, in the context of philosophy or religion, one could discuss how the ID, the wolf in sheeps clothing, has attempted to broadside the modern synthetic theory. Guess I'm just a wet blanket.

Mary

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 6:40:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2007 6:50:44 PM PDT
Don says:
Matthew:

Thanks for your post, I strongly agree that God created life and that Evolution is the means by which He did so. Having said that, ID, as I understand it, is not the same thing as simply asserting that God as the author of creation. ID attempts to replace or modify evolution as a scientific theory (ID is not simply a metaphysical statement).

If you would like to expand your post or you think I'm wrong please feel please feel free to post again.

One of the strongest opponents of ID is a deeply religious Biologist from Brown University.

Thanks,
Don

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2007 11:05:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 25, 2007 7:14:43 PM PDT
ASRB says:
Daniel,

First let me say that I do think you presume too much in your opinions. For instance that ID signature arguments are refuted or shot down as you say. Why are they refuted? Refuted for whom? Not for me, perhaps for you but do you even know wherein lies the alleged refuations? Is it because someone said so? Sorry that is not proof, proof is in the convincing not the asserting.

I have read some of the attempted rebuttals of the signature ID arguments and I remember thinking that all of them failed and were embarrassingly disappointing.

Moving on to your questions. I will offer some immediate answers in brief and will perhaps respond at a later time to anyfurther questions you might ask.

1. I think science itslef is the hypothesis of design argument and has proven true. Basically the idea that if things are ordered and designed as we think and predict we shoud be able to predict things and test them with reliable repeatability. I think this has proven true.

Now this is very general and universal but that is the nature of great overshadowing truth which I think ID is. When it comes to specifics, it doesn't matter how or why or by what the thing is designed but that it is in the form of a reliable and observable design.

So to ask for such specific examples where ID is a testable explantion in my opinion is thoughtless. So as I have said it is to be found in the nature of the guidance it gives to our thought patterns. Again I think that the importance of ID was already recognised in the past, for millenia in fact, all the way from Aristotelian philosophical concepts up until the development of so called modern scence and it is because of that particular philosophical idea that science arose in the first place.

So basically the idea of scientific knowing, experiment and the reliabiltiy of theorising are the products of ID thought as they were in the past, yielding paradoxically modern apostate science.

2. So I think ID has already proven itslef beyond a shoadow of a doubt and yielded its great results and benefits(as stated above) and now its great use lies mainly in remaining what it is, a simple bulwark of truth and a foundation for truth and moral thought.

You should understnad that science is not the province of atheism or evolution. In fact I would say that if it were judged by contribution science might be judged to be a mainly historical Christian intellectual endeavor.

3. In my mind there is not much difference and need not be one between modern ID movement and the thoughts of that honorable man William Paley, as though Paleys arguments are not powerful. Although I know there are differecnes in focus, those differences are unimportant to me. I find the track of his thought true and pleasing while I find evolutuon to be completely untrue nonsense and fabrication.

It is not that I resist it, I am simply not convinced by it. What I am convinced of is that anyone who truly takes the time to understnad how the things that are conjectured about some so called evolution are arrived at, would end up losing confidence in it.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 287 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Can someone please explain to me why Evolution is "proven science"? In terms a non-scientist can understand. 1275 5 minutes ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation part 2 6783 28 minutes ago
It's time to send Richard Kepler permantly to the penalty box. 28 51 minutes ago
Christmas Handgun Gift for a Lady 18 52 minutes ago
Scientifically..........When does human life begin? 214 56 minutes ago
A thought experiment: What if evolution was proved false. 316 1 hour ago
Galilean relativity 1955 2 hours ago
What if Man Made Global Warming is Not So! 71 4 hours ago
Daylight Savings Time Ends Sunday 6 4 hours ago
Knowledge 3755 5 hours ago
Ebola Quarantine.......Creastionists ask----Why Not? 9 5 hours ago
Science in Harmony with God 4694 12 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  270
Total posts:  7162
Initial post:  Jul 20, 2007
Latest post:  27 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions