ID is officially dead.

[Landon Caeli]

You think trolling is good?

Being obtuse is not trolling. It's normal human behavior, for better or worse... Calling it "trolling" is demonizing that which frustrates us... My thoughts are that it's better do reject the frustration in ourselves, rather than the other, so that others can experience the liberty of developing their own thinking patterns, by their own choice, for the sake of our appreciation of differences.

 

[Frank Robert]

God created science itself.

And then he left to natural processes he created to do the grunt work of things like evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Even the Discovery Institute has thrown in the towel and have closed their ID research arm the "Biologic Institute" has been shut down:

Biologic Institute Closes

It's important to consider the Discovery Institute's own stated goals and strategy in the Wedge Document.

Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

"Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

20+ years after the Wedge Document, they have little to show for their efforts, and have stopped even trying. Phase I was a flop, so no point in going on to Phases II & III, although that hasn't stopped them from their attempts to indoctrinate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If it ain't dead, it's limping along on life support.

Another indicator of the lack of research or attention to ID is the paucity of papers published in BIO-Complexity, an ID journal.

The Journal of Evolutionary Applications gets more research papers published in a single month than BIO-Complexity does in an entire year.

Lol the Bible has already prophesied that in the end times there will be a great falling away. So this doesn’t disprove ID any more than the closing of K-Mart disproves the existence of department stores.

 

[BNR32FAN]

My point is simply that given the nature of the universe and under the right conditions, life might simply be inevitable.

Whether that's by intention or not isn't something we can answer (yet).

True, but could it be as organized as it is by mere chance? I mean all the components coming together that are necessary for life to form are one thing but for them to take on a form as complex and efficient in design as we see on Earth is something to consider. For example we don’t see life forms that are discombobulated and unorganized except in rare cases of birth defects which is to be expected in some degree. We don’t see formless blobs of flesh randomly appearing all over the world. What we do see is lifeforms that appear to be designed in such a manner as to perpetuate itself and effectively survive on Earth. Things like muscle and bone structures specifically designed to accomplish a task like walking running or even in some cases crafting and using tools. That to me is the biggest indication of ID. We don’t see people and animals hobbling around with a leg coming out of its neck and arms coming out of it’s back.

 

[renniks]

If life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of having evolved.

Just the opposite.

 

[renniks]

Because it isn't being funded like evolution research obviously. Most people have to have jobs to make a living. Certain "science" seems to thrive off federal funds.

The Biologic Institute was the research arm of ID. Since the Director Douglas Axe now has a full time job with Biola University and the remaining funding for the Biologic Institute is around $9,000 it's obvious that the Institute now exists in name only.

With no appearance of a research focus, ID's claim to be a scientifically based concept has quietly sunk beneath the waves.

OB

 

[renniks]

The fact that the Biologic Institute’s last published article was put on their web page in Jan. 2018 is also telling.

Telling what?

 

[pitabread]

Just the opposite.

Oh, modern life definitely has the appearance of having evolved (e.g. sharing common ancestry). This much is clear.

 

[pitabread]

Because it isn't being funded like evolution research obviously. Most people have to have jobs to make a living. Certain "science" seems to thrive off federal funds.

ID is funded, it's just primarily through private donation (all this stuff can be looked up with non-profits).

The real money is in commercialization. If ID could come up with a single viable commercial application (besides merchandising), they could probably self-fund for decades.

And there is real-world commercial application for ID in biology for things like GMO detection. The irony is that the methods used to detect GMOs have nothing to do with the methods that ID proponents have put forward.

 

[pitabread]

True, but could it be as organized as it is by mere chance?

It wouldn't be mere "chance" (as in purely random), since chemistry itself is not mere chance. There are fundamental behaviors in the nature of the universe that lend itself to predictable outcomes. Otherwise, sciences of physics, chemistry, etc, just wouldn't work.

Now whether the nature of the universe and how it functions is the result of design is a question no one can definitively answer. But the universe does support and seems well capable of generating life. Therefore it could be that life, far from being improbable, could simply be inevitable.

What we do see is lifeforms that appear to be designed in such a manner as to perpetuate itself and effectively survive on Earth.

Well sure, because that is precisely how evolution (via natural selection) works.

Finding organisms that are *not* adapted for their environments would be the opposite of evolution. This is kinda what happens with artificial breeding where organisms are shaped by factors other than strict survival. See dog breeding and some of the physical issues certain breeds have.

 

[pitabread]

So this doesn’t disprove ID any more than the closing of K-Mart disproves the existence of department stores.

The onus isn't on us to disprove ID. The onus is on ID proponents to come up with a viable, testable hypothesis to support ID. This is something that they've failed to do thus far and the lack of ID research doesn't bode well in that regard.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It wouldn't be mere "chance" (as in purely random), since chemistry itself is not mere chance. There are fundamental behaviors in the nature of the universe that lend itself to predictable outcomes. Otherwise, sciences of physics, chemistry, etc, just wouldn't work.

I was referring more towards DNA coding and i wouldn’t say that the fundamental behaviors of nature are predictable. They may appear predictable to those who have been educated about them.

 

[pitabread]

I was referring more towards DNA coding and I don’t think

Even how DNA functions and is formed boils down to biochemistry. Scientists have even been figuring out how DNA nucleotides can formed via chemical reaction.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Now whether the nature of the universe and how it functions is the result of design is a question no one can definitively answer. But the universe does support and seems well capable of generating life. Therefore it could be that life, far from being improbable, could simply be inevitable.

We’ll mathematically speaking since we know that life is possible and if space is infinite as I believe it is, then I would have to agree that life is inevitable.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It wouldn't be mere "chance" (as in purely random), since chemistry itself is not mere chance. There are fundamental behaviors in the nature of the universe that lend itself to predictable outcomes. Otherwise, sciences of physics, chemistry, etc, just wouldn't work.

Now whether the nature of the universe and how it functions is the result of design is a question no one can definitively answer. But the universe does support and seems well capable of generating life. Therefore it could be that life, far from being improbable, could simply be inevitable.



Well sure, because that is precisely how evolution (via natural selection) works.

Finding organisms that are *not* adapted for their environments would be the opposite of evolution. This is kinda what happens with artificial breeding where organisms are shaped by factors other than strict survival. See dog breeding and some of the physical issues certain breeds have.

But we still have no missing links or new life forms that are still failing. So a big question is why did evolution stop?

 

[VirOptimus]

But we still have no missing links or new life forms that are still failing. So a big question is why did evolution stop?

Evolution hasnt stopped.

 

[Job 33:6]

Evolution hasnt stopped.

Wait, you mean speciation events are commonly observed in nature to this very day?!?

Whaaaa?!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Even how DNA functions and is formed boils down to biochemistry. Scientists have even been figuring out how DNA nucleotides can formed via chemical reaction.

Are you suggesting that these reactions can design a life form for functionality? Look at the construction of a blue jay for example. Everything about its construction is designed for flight. It’s construction is optimized for flight. Even mankind as technologically advanced as we are today could not possibly design something as advanced as a blue jay and yet many believe that it is the result of random biochemistry. So we have to calculate the odds of how many different random biochemistry reactions would have to take place and fail before the blue jay became a product of all these random events. Then pit that against how old scientists believe the world is and still keep in mind that if this process is still ongoing we haven’t seen any evidence of evolution during man’s existence. So if the process is so ridiculously slow that we cannot see it happening then how many times does this actually occur in the 4.5 billion years that the Earth is believed to be in existence? How many of these reactions would it take to make just one blue jay and how often are these reactions taking place and on top of that it has to happen twice within the lifespan of a blue jay in order to get both male and female blue jays within the allotted time for them to mate and have offspring. So when you take all these into consideration you would think that these reactions would have to be extremely common in nature yet we’ve never witnessed a new life form being brought into existence either one that would survive or one that wouldn’t survive. So the numbers really aren’t adding up when you think about the odds of how many failures there must be before a blue jay just randomly gets designed by natural occurring biological reactions. We can’t even make it happen and yet it happened twice within the life span of a blue jay?

 

[pitabread]

But we still have no missing links or new life forms that are still failing. So a big question is why did evolution stop?

Evolution involves populations of organisms changing over time. It hasn't stopped.