Which Came First?

You're kidding me right?? All this criticism you have levied against Meyer and ID and you don't understand what it is. That is very unscientific behavior. What would you say to a YEC if they told you they never took the time to understand what common descent was. Please take the time to read and understand what it is. I will then be glad to debate, discuss and answer questions, but any responses run the risk of more cross talk. You still may not agree but at least you can genuinely discuss the pros and cons.

There is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred via natural processes not on earth or in space. The evidence is building that we are, in fact, plain and simply a one shot deal in the universe.

We have building evidence that abiogenesis is not a product of necessity or chance.

What do you believe was uncaused?

You have been listening to one side exclusively, I presume. Explanations for historical natural events are often not falsifiable. Plausible explanations are given and weighed. The best explanation is usually accepted. For example, no experiment can be done based on the current theories of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. Good ideas and theories are provided. Some geological evidence is verifiable and corroborates some of the assumptions in the theories. In the end we have no idea and can not prove why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. We will never really know. It is still science to seek and understand the Cambrian Explosion. ID does make predictions in the same manner an argument for a theory of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred.

This demonstrates that RNA enzymes in vitro can be selected against/for. It shows that given the right chemical and thermodynamic conditions along with artificially maintained homeostasis some RNA enzymes react more favorably. This says nothing about abiogenesis. There is a huge leap from this to life in the wild. It was really doing nothing more then taking a reaction that we already know exists in cells and then creating a completely artificial environment and letting it play out in a way we knew full well would happen.

In fact, artificially engineered conditions are a long way from a wild occurrence. This is basic science. We can fabricate all kinds of polymers in the lab, but nobody claims this is proof they occur in the wild.

ID does not require an appeal to the Bible ( which I hardly consider "some holy book") or magic (which is not what miracles are - btw). You fabricate a false choice. You can do good science and pursue vigorously all lines of exploration, and still admit the study of the design inference as a valid form of scientific endeavor.

You misunderstand the formation of evidence in the case of historical rare events. See my comparison to the theories offered to understand the Cambrian Explosion (there are other examples). I don't think you understand what ID is to be honest. Can you describe it?

While science iterates over solutions it also accepts the current best explanation. There is no reason whatsoever a design argument can not be held until a better one is constructed and evidence is built for it.

Before we get too much further there's a question I need to get answered. Why does ID have to challenge evolution and abiogenesis? Couldn't evolution and abiogenesis be the mechanisms that the intelligent designer used? If evolution is so unlikely at times, couldn't the presence of an intelligent designer overcome this?

Maybe you could refer me to some specific articles. I clicked a few and they didn't seem to be related to our discussion.

To say that we are the only life in the universe is pure speculation.

What do you mean?

The release of energy by radioactive isotopes is not only random, but appears to be uncaused. There is no cause for the energy to release when it does, as opposed to any time before or after.

You do make some interesting points, OC, I'm glad to see a thinking IDer around here. Makes life interesting.

But I think you need to think a bit more carefully about just what you think science is and why. Take for example:

On the one hand, in blue, you talk about how historical explanations and theories are not falsifiable. Mind you, I think that by itself that might be a reasonable position. But then you go on to say that ID makes predictions (presumably about why the Cambrian Explosion occurred - I couldn't quite parse your sentence).

A theory that makes predictions is a falsifiable theory. Whether or not falsifiability itself is a useful criterion (which some debate), we can say that falsifiability and predictive power do come hand in hand. If ID predicts, for (a very silly) example, that all life forms should be purple, then ID is falsifiable upon the discovery of a non-purple life-form.

So, what predictions does ID theory make? Don't ask me to buy books please - I'm a poor student who doesn't even know what he will eat next week; I don't have money to buy books I am pretty sure I will disagree with. Give me some idea of what the world would look like if ID was true, as opposed to if it wasn't.

Because the thing about your evolution-dodging up to now, rational-sounding as much of it has been, ...

... is that you've done a lot of parrying, but no thrusting up to now. Take for example:

That's a very ideologically colored conclusion for you to draw from RNA experiments. After all, you don't approach other scientific research this way. I'm demonstrating in my uni's chem laboratories for first year students; one of the experiments starts with a demonstration (by the students) that water really does turn to ice at 0 degrees Celsius.

It would be utterly strange if a student came up to me after that and said: This says nothing about the freezing point of water. There is a huge leap from this to ice in my refrigerator.

You see, the whole point of science is to replicate, in closed situations, the kind of causal factors which might affect occurrences in open systems. For you to say that an experiment says nothing about "life in the wild" is basically to say that science doesn't work (or at least works in a very radically different way from what most people understand).

Why doesn't self-replicating RNA in test tubes say anything about self-replicating RNA in a prebiotic world? Are there any substantive reasons for you to say so, or is this your ideological bias talking instead of you?

Design inference is a perfectly valid form of scientific endeavor. But the way by which ID is inferred -- via arguments from ignorance -- is not a valid form of argument. ID's appeal to magic is also not a valid form of scientific argument (if you disagree with this statement, perhaps you could identify the mechanism ID posits).

ID is an argument from ignorance. It says that if some structure is difficult to account for by evolutionary mechanisms, then it must have been miraculously created in an instant. It relies entirely on negative evidence.
How did I do?

If an ID inference was falsified (as they traditionally have been), ...

... what does this suggest to you as a Christian? That some structure x was not designed? What are the theological implications of falsifying an ID hypothesis?

I believe that believing that the OOL and evolution was/is completely materialistic is acceptable for a Christian. I think that is wrong. My concern is that such worldviews lead to a needless doubting of faith based on the endless drum beat of irrationality and delusion as heard from atheism.

Short and quick video.
Discovery Institute

Good much longer video. Skip to about minute 9 to get into the discussion. Watch this one in its entirety. Notice that Ward never answers the questions, but instead just throws political jabs and re asks red herring questions. Watch this one. Meyer answers many of the questions asked in this thread.

Reading ...
Intelligent Design - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Resources for Learning More about Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design Coming CleanWilliam A
Design Inference Website: The Writings of William A. Dembski

I did not present a theory of "no life in the universe except us". I'm not stating an hypothesis of "we are alone". I said that the evidence is building for this position.

Necessity refers to physical laws. A stone falls to earth because of the law of gravity. Ammonia is produced by this reaction because of the necessity of the laws of chemistry: 2 NH4Cl + 2 CaO -> CaCl2 + Ca(OH)2 + 2 NH3

Chance produces results if something is probabilistically possible, and there are the right probabilistic resources to make it "likely" to occur. For exampe, drawing a white marble from a jar of marbles with 9999 black marbles and 1 white marble is likely because it is possible(white marble exists) and we may allow ten million draws(ample probabilistic resources). If we only allowed one draw it would be far from likely.

These are quantum events. Science considers these caused even if they are not deterministic. The laws of quantum mechanics are still causal in the sense that there exists physical laws that govern them. We capture these laws through mathematics.

ID is an argument from ignorance. It says that if some structure is difficult to account for by evolutionary mechanisms, then it must have been miraculously created in an instant. It relies entirely on negative evidence.
How did I do?

I've read many times evolutionist used the argument that "God wouldn't do it that way" as an evidence for TOE so I guess they use argument of ignorance as well.

It's the fact scientist has put all their effort in trying to prove abiogenesis is the best evidence against it.