Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Kenny'sID]

This process is not defined or explained,

how do you know about any of it if it's no defined or explained.

I don't think I'd push this and embarass myself any further, gentlemen.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah, I got something....see my last post, and of course I'd be the first. You people really belive a non answer to something that no one knows the answer too is a viable stumper/a winner for non creationists?

You all sure put me in my place..lol.

No one knows the answer? The theory of evolution provides a well defined and well evidenced mechanism for the process by which living creatures adapt to their surroundings. Understanding of that mechanism has numerous practical applications. What does ID theory do for us?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I read your other post and I think there's still a bit of a disconnect on what science is and how it's used.

Please, just don't.

I think we agreed we understood each other perfectly, and you aren't getting way with back peddling this into another direction

 

[Kenny'sID]

No one knows the answer? The theory of evolution provides a well defined and well evidenced mechanism for the process by which living creatures adapt to their surroundings. Understanding of that mechanism has numerous practical applications. What does ID theory do for us?

You aren't keeping up with the thread. You'll need to go back, reread and pay close attention to where we are.

 

[Speedwell]

how do you know about any of it if it's no defined or explained.

I don't think I'd push this and embarass myself any further, gentlemen.

No, it's up to ID theorists to define and explain it. They claim that certain biological structures can only be produced by "intelligent design," but the process by which the design is imparted to the structures is not defined or explained.
You make think the theory of evolution is wrong, but at least its proponents have attempted to explain how biological structures are formed.

 

[dmmesdale]

Do you know what science is? Not trying to make fun, I'm genuinely curious what you think science actually is and how it works. Especially if you genuinely believe that ID is legitimate science.

If it is a question of origin of life then yes ID is legit. You need to explain why it is not. Do you know what ID is?

It's just a point of fact.

You did not read the book you are assessing. Now you are making excuses for your failure to do your homework.

Although calling it a pop-sci book might be being too generous, since it's apparently published under HarperCollins' HarperOne imprint, which specializes in books to do with religion and spirituality. So maybe it's more a pop-religion book.

Meyer has no control over how publishers, non scientists classify a book. This is simply nitpickinig straining out gnats to swallow camels.

Regardless, getting a book published by HarperCollins does not entitle one to classroom time in a public school. That was my original point.

Are you a professional educator? Have you published a best seller? Are you fit to carry Meyers briefcase? If not then what entitles you to say what can and what cannot be in the classroom? You wish to teach kids they come from slime without the competing hypo because it is according to you unscientific? And that has value? Value relative to what? If we are from slime as you suppose then what value do we objectively have over say an earthworm a cockroach or a rat? Or are you creating subjective fictions in your head which have no basis in objective reality life really has no objective purpose. So why bother over what is and what is not taught?

As for the book itself, no I have not read it.

That much is obvious. So your assessment is next to worthless.

Not seeing the argument for ID being a legitimate science worthy of even a classroom mention.

And all bio-life from slime is? Based on blind faith with no precedent or evidence anywhere and all explanations are evidence-free guesses.

The goalposts never shifted. When I talk about 'publishing' science, I'm talking about real academic journals, not selling a book at Barnes & Noble.

You mean like a Universe from Nothing by Krauss. Yo do know his book was peer reviewed also? Do you know what peer review means? It means reviewed by peers. The means by which the material is put out is really incidental. Then again i suppose we can reject Origin of Species as unscientific because it was not published in science journals.

Scientists do research into various fields, publish academic work in peer-reviewed journals, other scientists look at their work and scrutinize it or do their own research, research programs get started at universities, maybe makes its way into industry applications, gets taught the grad level, starts trickling down to undergrad, then after being vetted and generally agreed upon as valid science making its way through public school boards, eventually it makes its way down to the public school. That's how it's supposed to work anyway.

It don't work that way in the real world. There are all kinds of problems. Besides under your unscientific standards, (there is nothing scientific about a specific type of peer review since the system itself is plagued with corruption from within.Certainly not exact or the science of a miss is as good as a mile) any new theory could be rejected as unscientific because it has not been published.

Consensus says the Earth is flat. A new paper suggests the Earth is really a sphere. Rejected as unscientific because there are no published papers supporting the new theory. See how that works?

ID hasn't done this yet.

Right and you did not read Signature In The Cell yet.

They're still stuck trying to come up with valid research as a starting point and getting other scientists to accept it.

How do you know that since you have not referenced source material?


''In short, critics argue that intelligent design is not scientific because peer review articles supporting the theory have not been published'' and that ''peer review articles supporting intelligent design should not be published because the theory is not scientific,'' apparently never recognizing the patent circularity of this self-serving, exclusionary logic.'' Stephen Meyer.

Part of the problem is admittedly the way theism has gotten all tangled up with ID.

Problem with who and why?

It doesn't help that the major proponents are theists

Does that presuppose one has to be an atheist to be a scientist? What is your problem with Theistic scientists? More importantly, what does your personal prejudices have anything to do with science?

who have adopted belief that the designer they seek is in fact a supernatural being (which by the limitations of science cannot be addressed).

ID says nothing about the identity of the intelligent agent. The limitations of science does not bother you when assuming all life here is from nonlife causes only. Does not bother you when they have no clue or evidence about the identity of ancestors to bacteria. Does not bother you when they say they have no idea how evolution or origin of life happened naturally. Again it is do as you say and not as you do. Double standards. Something jump started life here and if we are seeking the initial source then we are seeking a extrinsic living source, not chemicals or goo absent a living source. The two are not even in the same ballpark. How can you guys get away with all these appeals to science when it all comes down to blind faith, ignoring, censorship, obfuscation and on and on. An endless amount of screw ups justified by science is self-correcting? It is not like any of us can go to our employers with an endless amount of screw up and say its a self-correcting process.

It also doesn't help that creationists latched onto ID and started promoting alongside their own creationist beliefs, which further entangled ID in with theism and religious fundamentalism.

Have some cheese with your whine.

 

[pitabread]

Please, just don't.

I think we agreed we understood each other perfectly, and you aren't getting way with back peddling this into another direction

I don't think we did understand each other at first; at least I didn't. That's why I was trying to clarify.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd be careful with terminology. ID is not a true scientific theory. It has a long way to go to ever achieve that designation.

At this point I'd settle for just a testable hypothesis coming out of the ID camp and some workable research to go with it.

I'd settle for any answers at all.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't think we did understand each other at first; at least I didn't. That's why I was trying to clarify.

No, not at first. As I explained a few post up, I suspected what you were asking, I just had a tough time believing it (I was looking for more to it), until we got it clarified by TGM and then yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

No, not at first. As I explained a few post up, I suspected what you were asking, I just had a tough time believing it (I was looking for more to it), until we got it clarified by TGM and then yourself.

So you can't come up with any practical applications for ID, you have no proposed mechanism for how the design gets into the biological structure. You are entirely satisfied with a theory which says nothing but "evolution by variation and selection couldn't have done it" and offers no alternative explanation whatever. OK.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you can't come up with any practical applications for ID,

Maybe it's a mental block you're dealing with?

 

[Jimmy D]

If it is a question of origin of life then yes ID is legit. You need to explain why it is not. Do you know what ID is?

No, please tell me.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe it's a mental block you're dealing with?

No, it's that you haven't been able to come up with any practical applications of ID. Flawed as you think ii is, evolution has practical applications. Why doesn't ID theory?

But never mind, if you're happy with the theory which says nothing but "evolution is wrong" and does not offer an alternative explanation, I suppose you'd better stick with it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But never mind,

Since you were unable, or unwilling to offer an answer when the same question was posed to you, coupled with the fact you still aren't paying attention, sure...I can do that.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, it's that you haven't been able to come up with any practical applications of ID.

Well for one it has truth value. The applicable value would fall under the category of the identity of the Designer. If we go thru life believing we have no accountability for life lived to our Creator then we are absolute fools. No matter what is accomplish. He lets us have our day and He will have His with us.

Flawed as you think ii is, evolution has practical applications.

Hitler certainly thought so. Inferior Jews and advanced Aryans. Kill them off with Zyklon B (Thank you science for Zyklon B) so they will not corrupt the gene pool.

Why doesn't ID theory?

It does. Truth always has value over myth.

But never mind, if you're happy with the theory which says nothing but "evolution is wrong" and does not offer an alternative explanation, I suppose you'd better stick with it.

It is wrong and therefore has no value. It is modern myth.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Hitler certainly thought so.

 

[dmmesdale]

Well for one it has truth value. The applicable value would fall under the category of the identity of the Designer. If we go thru life believing we have no accountability for life lived to our Creator then they are absolute fools. No matter what they accomplish. Hitler certainly thought so. Inferior Jews and advanced Aryans. Kill them off with Zyklon B (Thank you science for Zyklon B) so they will not corrupt the gene pool. It does. Truth always has value over myth.

It is wrong and therefore has no value. It is modern myth.

 

[Speedwell]

Well for one it has truth value. The applicable value would fall under the category of the identity of the Designer. If we go thru life believing we have no accountability for life lived to our Creator then we are absolute fools. No matter what is accomplish. He lets us have our day and He will have His with us. Hitler certainly thought so. Inferior Jews and advanced Aryans. Kill them off with Zyklon B (Thank you science for Zyklon B) so they will not corrupt the gene pool. It does. Truth always has value over myth.

It is wrong and therefore has no value. It is modern myth.

The existence of God has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is evident that ID "theory" means nothing to you but as a rhetorical Trojan Horse, not just for the existence of God, or even for the existence of the Christian God--which the theory of evolution does not deny--but for your particular theology.

 

[dmmesdale]

The existence of God has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is evident that ID "theory" means nothing to you but as a rhetorical Trojan Horse, not just for the existence of God, or even for the existence of the Christian God--which the theory of evolution does not deny--but for your particular theology.

You asked what value it had and i answered. Now you are whining.

 

[Speedwell]

You asked what value it had and i answered. Now you are whining.

No, I m just describing the "value" it has for you in objective terms.