Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Gene Parmesan]

And again, He is not going to explain in detail; not with a Devil that is out to destroy His creation.

Let's take a hypothetical example:

Suppose God was to tell you to simply raise E to MC cubed (instead of squared) and you can call matter into existence from nothing.

Now of course, we can't do that, but what about the Devil seeing that?

This is definitely the first time I've seen the reason God doesn't want us to know how He created the universe is because the Devil also has universe-creating abilities but simply lacks the blueprints.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is definitely the first time I've seen the reason God doesn't want us to know how He created the universe is because the Devil also has universe-creating abilities but simply lacks the blueprints.

I'm wasting my time in this thread, aren't I?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm wasting my time in this thread, aren't I?

Just this thread, ey?

I'ld submit that your counting threads would be the biggest time waister.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'ld submit that your counting threads would be the biggest time waister.

What should I be doing while I'm waiting for a response to something I said?

Reading The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ... or it's sequel, My Struggle?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What should I be doing while I'm waiting for a response to something I said?

Reading The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ... or it's sequel, My Struggle?

Ow no, I'ld advice against that. You might learn something!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ow no, I'ld advice against that. You might learn something!

Like how to proofread for spelling errors?

 

[dmmesdale]

Ow no, I'ld advice against that. You might learn something!

That's a cheap shot.

 

[dmmesdale]

There is nothing about ID in the Bible.

There is nothing about life from non-life absent a living source anywhere. It has no precedent or evidence and is taken on blind faith alone.

The Bible tells us that God created the universe and everything in it, but not how He did it.

That would be ID. An extrinsic intelligent source for bio life here. Satisfies biogenesis.

In fact, ID doesn't really tell us how, either--that was my point.

Its not much of a point, more another of an inconsistent endless amount of excuses to reject a living source for all bio-life here in favor of faith-based and inferior naturedidit explanations. It is more of a theological rather than science standard and unbelievers reject theological unless they use them and there is that glaring double standard, again. Would an extrinsic Being who is the source of all life here owe you an explanation? Would He owe you anything? Besides, you don't go to identity until cause is established. That involves theology not science. Sufficient to say an intelligent source is the most reasonable cause of pre-loaded complex digitally encoded information for the construction of body plans found in bacteria and DNA. It is superior to ''mutation acted on by selection over time.'' Fruit rotting is change over time.

It only tells us that all other explanations of how God created must be wrong.

Now you are into theology, not science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But if you're just referring to ID as a creator, then the question about ID's contributions to science is inherently nonsensical.

And you haven't picked up on the fact as of yet, any answer I give you is going to be nonsensical in your eyes? You see the OP's point as nonsensical so, and I'm not sure it was you I said this to before, but due to what appears to be a complete lack of logic, it doesn't matter to me what you think.

I want an actual scientific theory and how it is applied.

See the problem with your question, is just as science...ID does nothing on it's own, people do, so your question still makes no sense at all, but still, I'll try.

So you want me to explain, for example, the science behind how the concept of ID, (which will always be God in my view) created, let just say a blade of grass?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't have an opinion--I'm not a biologist--but I have seen nothing of practical application coming from ID folks.

Seriously?

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is nothing about ID in the Bible. The Bible tells us that God created the universe and everything in it, but not how He did it. In fact, ID doesn't really tell us how, either--that was my point. It only tells us that all other explanations of how God created must be wrong.

Exactly. And your point?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Still no specific examples of how ID has contributed to the advanced of science.

You're a little premature with the goading there. I'm doing my best to understand exactly what appears to be a nonsensical question, means.

Keep your shirt on.

 

[pitabread]

So you want me to explain, for example, the science behind how the concept of ID, (which will always be God in my view) created, let just say a blade of grass?

Sort of.

It's a case of if life on Earth was originally created by an external entity, is there a scientific framework around that (i.e. hypotheses or theories) and can we learn or apply anything using that scientific framework?

Again, consider the application of concepts from physics (mass, acceleration, friction, etc) with respect to engineering a vehicle or craft. It's the case of taking a science and applying it to solve things in the real world.

 

[Kenny'sID]

lol!

For example...
Germ theory of desease, which is the explanatory model of our understanding on how micro-organisms are the cause of many deseases.
This theory details how germs can make you sick.

Through this understanding, we were able to develop much more efficient medicins.

So Germ theory of desease contributed much to the medical sciences and has its practical applications in of health care.

What new understanding did ID give us? What do we understand about the world that we didn't understand before ID? How does it contribute to our knowledge? What are its practical applications? How is it usefull? What is the extent of its explanatory power?

OK, I might get it now, and it was somewhat what I expected all along, I just couldn't believe anyone was hiding such a basic/common question among all that wordyness. And as I see it now, what a waste of time.

If all the scientists that presently explain how we appeared from nothing, or whatever nonsense you/them claim the universe came from, were to keep all their scientific information to themselves, except to say it started on it's own, and evolved, then I asked you the details of the coming about of the universe, how would you answer, when you were never given the information?

 

[Kenny'sID]

More or less, yes.

Got it...see my last post.

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously?

Seriously. But if you've got something, by all means let us know about it. You'll be the first.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, I might get it now, and it was somewhat what I expected all along, I just couldn't believe anyone was hiding such a basic/common question among all that wordyness. And as I see it now, what a waste of time.

If all the scientists that presently explain how we appeared from nothing, or whatever nonsense you/them claim the universe came from, were to keep all their scientific information to themselves, except to say it started on it's own, and evolved, then I asked you the details of the coming about of the universe, how would you answer, when you were never given the information?

ID is a theory of biology. ID claims that while evolution, i.e. variation and natural selection, is responsible for most of the diversity of life, there are certain biological structures which variation and natural selection cannot produce, although none have been unequivocally identified. These structures are deemed to be irreducibly complex, and so some other process must be responsible for their presence. This process is not defined or explained, but ID asserts that it can only be the work of an intelligent designer.

So what are the practical benefits of this theory?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Seriously. But if you've got something, by all means let us know about it. You'll be the first.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Got it...see my last post.

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.

Science is used to describe things we see in the universe. Basically, we're trying to figure out how the universe and everything within it works. Even if you believe everything was made by a supernatural being, you can still work within the results of that.

For example, if you believe that all physical laws were created by an external being, that really has no bearing on understanding of those physical laws and how they operate within the universe. Hence, we have the science of physics.

Same thing with life. If you believe it was all created by a supernatural being, we can still observe it, study it and try to understand it. Hence, the science of biology. Where there is contention is that biologists have long concluded that life appears to have evolved over billions of years (however it originated) and that all modern species ultimately share common ancestry with one another.

If IDists are coming along and suggesting something else, then what is it and can they build a scientific framework around that? Can they formulate any testable hypotheses/predictions and perform research to determine if those hypotheses are correct? Can they build a workable scientific model around the idea that life did not evolve over billions of years, but in fact was somehow created by an external being? And ultimately, can this understanding and framework be applied to anything in the field of biology, particularly with respect to things like agriculture, medical research, conservation, etc. Basically, the things where evolutionary biology already has application.

 

[pitabread]

ID is a theory of biology

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.