Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Gene Parmesan]

None of this "requires" anything. You act as if there is a set in stone set of rules here.

He was asking questions about ID and then you demanded evidence of not ID. I'm just not following why that's a logical response. I'm not trying to be rude at all. Please forgive me if it seemed that way.

 

[Speedwell]

I really wish the OP had added a video of "comfortably numb" to the original post.

The OP was a bust. "Random mindless chance" is not an accurate description of evolution, and ID is not the only alternative anyway.

 

[pitabread]

No one even came close to changing the subject.

I'm asking about what ID has contributed to the sciences. Do you have anything to present? Yes or no?

Sorry dude, you don't get to be the decider on what works and what doesn't.

It's not about being the 'decider' of anything. It's about supporting the idea that ID has made some sort of contribution to the sciences. Thus far you are doing everything you can to avoid providing any examples.

Either you provide an example or you are implicitly conceding the fact that it hasn't.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Please, we all know that you're not interested in any evidence and will hand wave away anything that is presented. Do you think no one can remember last time, when you demanded the theory of evolution be explained so a five year old could understand and you promptly ran way?

Jimmy,. Jimmy, Jimmy....why do you lie? You forget that I have showed interest, made it a point because I've had the accusation leveled against me before. It's just not true, and those who claim it are not truthful.

Not quit the way it went, now was it, I demanded nothing, and it wasn't the theory of evolution, it was a Virus thing that was claimed to prove evolution, and I would only discuss it if the opponent explained the details. As I've said several times before, that is not my cup of tea, I don't believe it, so I don't waste my time learning it, however, I will discuss it if one wishes to explain the ins and outs of any challenge in a condensed form. The opponent chose not to explain after several opportunities so I stopped wasting my time there. Now, isn't that more like the way it went, Jimmy?

But if lying or twisting something to seem like something other than what it really was in order to discredit an opponent is how you must defend the nonsense, I understand. People sometimes get frustrated when they have no defense, and anything can happen.

After what you just did, I' didn't bother with the rest of your post...just look at it as me "running away".

 

[Kenny'sID]

The OP was a bust. "Random mindless chance" is not an accurate description of evolution

Then please, explain it to us, from beginning to date.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm asking about what ID has contributed to the sciences. Do you have anything to present? Yes or no?

And I posed a question in return, and for good reason, do you have anything to present? Yes or no?

Either you provide an example or you are implicitly conceding the fact that it hasn't.

As do you.

ID made science possible, the OP says a lot to prove that, but once again, if you refuse to see the obvious, so be it. If that doesn't do it for you, nothing will.

 

[Speedwell]

Then please, explain it to us, from beginning to date.

1. It hasn't been determined that evolution is "mindless." While evolution proceeds by the action of natural causes, many theists believe that the process itself was created and set in action by God.

2. Evolution consists of random variation and natural selection. That is, with each generation of a species, a range of individual slight variants is produced, upon which natural selection acts. These variants are randomly distributed in the population (think "bell curve") which is why it is called random variation. So yes, variation is random to fitness but it is not random in the sense that any outcome at all is equally likely. And, of course, that is only part of the process; natural selection isn't at all random.

"Random mindless chance" is a phrase used by creationists to give the impression that evolution is chaotic, rather than being an orderly biological process.

 

[Jimmy D]

Jimmy,. Jimmy, Jimmy....why do you lie? You forget that I have showed interest, made it a point because I've had the accusation leveled against me before. It's just not true, and those who claim it are not truthful.

Not quit the way it went, now was it, I demanded nothing, and it wasn't the theory of evolution, it was a Virus thing that was claimed to prove evolution, and I would only discuss it if the opponent explained the details. As I've said several times before, that is not my cup of tea, I don't believe it, so I don't waste my time learning it, however, I will discuss it if one wishes to explain the ins and outs of any challenge in a condensed form. The opponent chose not to explain after several opportunities so I stopped wasting my time there. Now, isn't that more like the way it went, Jimmy?

But if lying or twisting something to seem like something other than what it really was in order to discredit an opponent is how you must defend the nonsense, I understand. People sometimes get frustrated when they have no defense, and anything can happen.

After what you just did, I' didn't bother with the rest of your post...just look at it as me "running away".

Well, it's there for all to see....

How did lungs, blood vessels, blood, liver, kidneys and heart evolve at the same time? Which was fi

 

[pitabread]

And I posed a question in return, and for good reason, do you have anything to present? Yes or no?

Oh, I'd be more than happy to get into the contribution evolutionary biology has made to the sciences and applications thereof. To start with you can take a look at this other thread I posted: How do creationists explain applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics?

ID made science possible

What? When you say "ID", what are you exactly referring to? I have a feeling we may have our wires crossed.

When I refer to ID, I am referring to "Intelligent Design", which is what Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc, have attempted to put forth as a supposed scientific way of determining artificial design as it pertains to biological organisms. It is this which I am contending little better than pseudo-science and has not made any applicable contribution to the biological sciences.

When you say "ID", what are you talking about?

the OP says a lot to prove that

All the OP does is suggest that a) Earthworms are complex (so what?), and b) asks rather silly leading (and loaded) question about space shuttles, super computers and robotic systems.

It's honestly quite bad as far as any sort of argument for Intelligent Design.

 

[dmmesdale]

You might want to refresh your memory: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

This was your claim.

Remember back in the 2000's, there was a push to get ID in the classroom.

Dover involved a book in the library and a reference. That is about it. There was no push to get ID into the classroom. Your claim is false. Dover was really a joke. Judge a buffoon.
Cribbing in the Courts:The Toleration of Legal Plagiarism - Evangelical Outpost
Legal Plagiarism

Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institutes’s Center for Science and Culture.
[…]
The study notes that, while judges routinely make use of proposed findings of fact, “the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones’ part...When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions. We, therefore, cannot condone the practice used by the District Court in this case. Still, the fact that such dishonesty is tolerated at all impugns the entire legal process. No matter what the lawyers may claim or how they parse the terms, it’s plagiarism. Are law students allowed to cut-and-paste “findings of fact” into their papers without attribution? If not, then why does the standard change when they put on judicial robes?

Sure you do, if you're trying to insert religion in the science classroom.

I am in public education. They have plenty of religion there. They have Muslims etc. Yours dominates. I must admit.

That's a violation of something-or-other, constitutional law I believe?

Lying to children about their origins is not so smart also filling their heads with myths of cultists that they came from slime must be a good thing in your book? If your case was so strong then you would welcome the competition. Instead you censor it.
---------------------

''I always believed in the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from slime...if a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?'' Jeffery Dahmer.

'Creation myths lie at the heart of all human cultures, and science is no exception; until we know where we came from, we do not know who we are. The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight... …Biology textbooks often include a chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with the impression that the answer is almost within their grasp. My own reading is considerably more reserved. I suspect that the upbeat tone owes less with the advance of science then the resurgence of primitive religiosity around the globe, particularly in the west.'' Dr Franklin Harold.
----------------------

The court decided otherwise.

Dover did not affect anything except that county. The courts are the weakest branch of government there is. Their rulings can and have been ignored. By Obama and even Jackson. They can write any law they want. It means zero unless they are enforced. Law enforcement do not have to enforce laws. So you are in la la land.

“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Andrew Jackson.

Sorry (not sorry) but this is where you're 100% wrong. Not even wrong as in opinion, but factually, empirically incorrect. Evolutionary biology has a variety of real-world application. My favorite is in comparative genomics methodologies which use phylogenetics (i.e. evolutionary relationships) as part of their analytical approach. In turn, comparative genomics itself is seeing application in everything from agriculture, medical research, conservation biology, forestry, etc.

They can do all that without knowing anything relating to Darwin. All the modern discoveries in biology had nothing to do with Darwin. Penicillian, the double helix etc. You are overstating. I would also add an overblown assertion is not the same as empirical evidence. Fact being it is your opinion.

This has nothing to do with attending church. My point is that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone concluding ID without first ascribing to some sort of religious/theistic belief.

Religion is about attending church. You associate religion with state of mind. If they ask what is your religion, it normally means what church you were brought up in. Not state of mind. What you guys do is relegate certain things to the realm of religion as it relates to subjects like origin of life so you can ignore. If you are into origin of life you are into God. Not matter or goo or chemicals absent a living source. That is naturalism 101 which attempts to explain origins with inferior explanations without one shred of evidence or precedent anywhere. Total blind faith.

Like i said before. If subs have sonar for the hunting of other subs and is intelligently designed then the same bio-technology which enables sperm whales with sonar for the hunting of squid is not natural but intelliegently installed. If it is natural then you need to demonstrate with evidence nature can do such things. Otherwise nature should be able to install a GPS system in your car with the laws of physics and chemistry and all that energy coming in from the sun. It will not. If nature cannot do the latter then it did not do the former.

Modern evolutionary biology is an applied science, kiddo.

Garbage. It has no practical application.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is more complex: the worlds fastest supercomputer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an earthworm?

The earth...

Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.

Yup.

1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

A lot.

2. What would I think of someone if they firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

That he's a scientist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except another earthworm.

And you don't see them aborting their fetuses, do you?

That's because they have better standards of life than scientists.

Are Space Shuttles, super computers and advanced robotic systems capable of self-reproduction and evolutionary change from generation to generation?

No, but some einstein is working on it somewhere, isn't he?

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, my life has been in pursuit of truth at the expense of everything else.

That's good!

Because when someone does that, and they find Him, it was worth all the expenditures (and more).

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

That's why some people won't subordinate their science to the Bible: they've invested so much of their treasures into it, it would take a heart transplant to start over.

Oh, wait!

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

 

[Kenny'sID]

1. It hasn't been determined that evolution is "mindless." While evolution proceeds by the action of natural causes, many theists believe that the process itself was created and set in action by God.

2. Evolution consists of random variation and natural selection. That is, with each generation of a species, a range of individual slight variants is produced, upon which natural selection acts. These variants are randomly distributed in the population (think "bell curve") which is why it is called random variation. So yes, variation is random to fitness but it is not random in the sense that any outcome at all is equally likely. And, of course, that is only part of the process; natural selection isn't at all random.

"Random mindless chance" is a phrase used by creationists to give the impression that evolution is chaotic, rather than being an orderly biological process.

No, I think it's more a phrase that denotes there is no ID involved. You just have a different spin on evolution where it may not apply.

The fact that you would forget there are at least these two schools of thought on it, and forget about the one that makes the mindless comment viable as an untruthful means to discredit Creationists, concerns me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That he's a scientist?

lol!

 

[Kenny'sID]

How do creationists explain applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics?

Some of them don't waste their time with it because they know better. Kind of like learning all there is to know about the flat earth theory...it doesn't interest me. However, if you would like to write a paper explaining all the details for those who don't have enough interests to wast their time studying to understand such things, I'd be happy to take a look at your findings.

What? When you say "ID", what are you exactly referring to? I have a feeling we may have our wires crossed.

Same as everyone else. If you are trying to make a point why not just make it and save the time.

All the OP does is suggest that a) Earthworms are complex (so what?), and b) asks rather silly leading (and loaded) question about space shuttles, super computers and robotic systems.

You simply refuse to catch on. The OP says it all, about the best way it can be said. I can't help you if you refuse to see what's right in front of you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, it's there for all to see....

How did lungs, blood vessels, blood, liver, kidneys and heart evolve at the same time? Which was fi

Are you just hoping to do as I've seen here a few times, throw something out there and hope those on your end of this see it your way?

Be precise if you have an accusation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

He was asking questions about ID and then you demanded evidence of not ID. I'm just not following why that's a logical response. I'm not trying to be rude at all. Please forgive me if it seemed that way.

I know. Not certain why you think I thought you were being rude. I gave what I thought was a relevant answer.

 

[Speedwell]

No, I think it's more a phrase that denotes there is no ID involved. You just have a different spin on evolution where it may not apply.

The fact that you would forget there are at least these two schools of thought on it, and forget about the one that makes the mindless comment viable as an untruthful means to discredit Creationists, concerns me.

I challenge you to point out what was untruthful about my statement. There are indeed a number of schools of thought about how divine providence might be manifest in evolution. ID is only one of them, and the rest are not "mindless."

 

[Kenny'sID]

I challenge you to point out what was untruthful about my statement.

I did.