Do IDists have anything beyond Dembski's CSI and Behe's IC?

I keep hearing about how ID and creationism are gaining adherents in the relevant scientific fields. I guess none of these new scientists are in the type of research positions that would actually have them do reasearch, publish results that show ID, or actually come up with any new theoretical positions. What are the ID scientists up to anyways? (maybe they need to get out of the school board meetings and back into the lab).

Pete Harcoff said:

So I'm perusing various ID literature in an effort to find out if the ID camp has made any progress. And yet, all I keep running into are references to "irreducibly complex this" and "complex specified information that". And these ideas are always spoken of like they've become established scientific fact.

Have IDists come up with anything else, other than a couple fancy sounding phrases? Have they actually verified that IC and CSI are legit concepts that point to design? Have they got beyond mere hypothesizing to the point where they can back this up with raw data (and preferably data that can be independently verified)?

Click to expand...

In a word, "no."

Don't worry though, their breakthrough science is just around the corner. And until then, "teach the controversy!" That idea is made all the more hilarious when you realize that they're the ones trying to create the controversy.

Don't forget that Behe is an evolutionist. This is always fun to bring up when creationists try to use ID for some kind of proof of special creation.

Ray K said:

Don't forget that Behe is an evolutionist. This is always fun to bring up when creationists try to use ID for some kind of proof of special creation.

Click to expand...

How is he an evolutionist? That term usually applies to those who accept conventional evolutionary mechanisms, and I'm not even sure he accepts the fact of evolution/common descent.

mikeynov said:

How is he an evolutionist? That term usually applies to those who accept conventional evolutionary mechanisms, and I'm not even sure he accepts the fact of evolution/common descent.

Click to expand...

He accepts common descent, me thinks, but not that natural (evolutionary) mechanisms are capable of creating the diversity we see. Therefore, god gave a necessary kick in the ass when appropriate.

He accepts common descent, me thinks, but not that natural (evolutionary) mechanisms are capable of creating the diversity we see. Therefore, god gave a necessary kick in the ass when appropriate.

Click to expand...

Actually, he has only stated as far as I can tell that ID is necessary for certain molecular machines. He has stated that Darwinian mechanisms could account for much of the diversity we see, but there are certain molecular machines that require a designer. Fun to show the creationists that their hero Behe believes that man shares a common ancestor with chimps.

Physics_guy said:

Actually, he has only stated as far as I can tell that ID is necessary for certain molecular machines. He has stated that Darwinian mechanisms could account for much of the diversity we see, but there are certain molecular machines that require a designer.

Click to expand...

That was the premise of Darwin's Black Box anyway. Since that work's publication, I understand Behe has been busy publicly aligning himself with the Discovery Institute. Sad, really. Behe was one of the few ID advocates seemingly willing to take an honest, empirical angle.

That was the premise of Darwin's Black Box anyway. Since that work's publication, I understand Behe has been busy publicly aligning himself with the Discovery Institute. Sad, really. Behe was one of the few ID advocates seemingly willing to take an honest, empirical angle.

Click to expand...

I have heard that what he will put in writing is substantially different from what he will say at the paid lectures he gives at churches across the country, but since I have never attended one I can't say for sure.

Pete Harcoff said:

So I'm perusing various ID literature in an effort to find out if the ID camp has made any progress.

Click to expand...

ID progresses right along with Science. Go to Hugh Ross "Reasons to believe" web site. You will find fresh new arguments against evolutionary theory on his site every day. Right now all the DNA research is falsifying a lot of Evolutionary theory. For example recent research shows that we did not evolve from Neanderthal and other forms of humanoids as Evolutions has supposed that we did. Also Evolutionists believed that we were amphibians at one time in the evolutionary tree. Even though they did not bother to look at the fact that amphibians and lizards can not tolerate salt water. DNA evidence confirms that we were in no way ever related to amphibians and lizards. That takes a big chunk out of the evolutionary tree that they have not found a way fo fill in.

In Darwin's day, they were looking for a missing link. They not only never found that link, with all the new DNA evidence it is turning out that there are missing links. So the evidence continues to be against evolution.

Pete Harcoff said:

I think Behe does accept common descent.

Click to expand...

He accepts the evidence for macro evolution but he basicly does not accept micro evolution. He feels that there is no evidence that any evolution has ever taken place on a molecular level. In a way he is saying you can put a new face on the watch, but the basic watch has remained unchanged in its mechanism.

JohnR7 said:

ID progresses right along with Science. Go to Hugh Ross "Reasons to believe" web site. You will find fresh new arguments against evolutionary theory on his site every day.

Click to expand...

Link?

Right now all the DNA research is falsifying a lot of Evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know where you heard this from. DNA research has actually STRENGTHENED the theory by showing similarities within the structure of related animals!

For example recent research shows that we did not evolve from Neanderthal and other forms of humanoids as Evolutions has supposed that we did.

Click to expand...

No one says we evolved from Neanderthals but instead we shared a common ancestor, same with all other discovered humanoids.

Also Evolutionists believed that we were amphibians at one time in the evolutionary tree. Even though they did not bother to look at the fact that amphibians and lizards can not tolerate salt water. DNA evidence confirms that we were in no way ever related to amphibians and lizards. That takes a big chunk out of the evolutionary tree that they have not found a way fo fill in.

Click to expand...

Being tolerant to salt water has NOTHING to do with our evolutionary history! Where do you dig up this carp? I'd also like to see this evidence claiming DNA confirms we're not related.

In Darwin's day, they were looking for a missing link. They not only never found that link, with all the new DNA evidence it is turning out that there are missing links. So the evidence continues to be against evolution.

Click to expand...

The missing link argument is a claim not made by scientists. In almost no way will we ever find the EXACT species we evolved from, the chances are astronomical. We can however deduce by the patterns of other species found in the geological strata that we indeed had a common ancestor.

the other end john.

JohnR7 said:

ID progresses right along with Science. Go to Hugh Ross "Reasons to believe" web site. You will find fresh new arguments against evolutionary theory on his site every day.

Click to expand...

Guess what? Even if evolution were to be absolutely and completely falsified then that would still mean nothing with respect to providing evidence for ID.

llDayo said:

Link?

Click to expand...

There home page does not seem to be working so I will give you the link to their about page and then you can get around the web site from there.

http://www.reasons.org/about/index.shtml

Pete Harcoff said:

Don't care. I want evidence for ID. Not evidence against evolution. If criticizing evolution is the best IDists and creationists can do, then they are doomed.

Click to expand...

Your right, his objective is not to prove evolution wrong. While he does not support or believe the theory of evolution, his objective is to present evidence for creationism and what we believe. Thus the name of his site: "Reasons to Believe". Evolutionary theory can sink or swim based on the evidence or lack of evidence to support the theory.

So you either accept his reasons to believe or you reject them if you do not feel they have merit. Of course the difference is that evolution is required to be taught in the school systems where it is optional if they want to teach creationism. This tends to stack the deck giving evolutionists a unfair advantage over creationists. When they both should receive equal representation.

cerad said:

Guess what? Even if evolution were to be absolutely and completely falsified then that would still mean nothing with respect to providing evidence for ID.

Click to expand...

You seem to think that there is no evidence for ID. That is just one creationist theory put forth by Behe and William Dembski. ID was pretty much developed to seperate creationism from evangelism.

Intelligent design is clearly an ally of creationists and many of its’​

leaders are devout Christians. However it is important to recognize

the differences between the two movements. The primary goal of

creationism is evangelism, using the facts of nature to point people

to the truth of the Bible and the Gospel. The focus of ID is on

changing the nature of science–changing the way science is

conducted and challenging the dominance of the naturalistic,

Darwinistic worldview. Both movements serve a useful purpose. ID is

experiencing success in changing the way science is taught in public

schools, for exmaple, where creationism has had limited success.

However, for those who want to use design to point unbelievers to the

Creator of the Bible, the RTB model is much more potent approach.

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsletters/200410/200410.pdf

Click to expand...

JohnR7 said:

You seem to think that there is no evidence for ID. That is just one creationist theory put forth by Behe and William Dembski. ID was pretty much developed to seperate creationism from evangelism.

Click to expand...

Which, oddly enough, brings us back to the original topic: What has ID actually done? No predictions. No observations. No experiments. Just the phrase: "SomethingIntelligentDidIt".