1. Given that I work in the sciences for a living and you apparently don't (why else would you only allude vaguely to a nonspecific PhD when I asked for your credentials?), I'd say that I'm a bit more qualified to judge this than you. I apologize if I've assumed incorrectly here, but your statements and views on science point to you being a scientific layman.
2. No, it is you confusing the issue by changing your terminology. "Intelligent causation" is simply another way of saying "design." Furthermore, you're running away from the issue. I asked for a test for design. You replied with your "eviscerated body in a tornado" example. Now you're saying it isn't a test for design?
3. Did I ask you to define the being? All I said is that you're assuming that this being has human intelligence. If it doesn't, then none of your tests work. To broaden this, what is the basis for your assumption - WHY does your being have to have human intelligence? If you can't answer that, then your assumption is unsupported, and none of your data can be taken seriously. You accuse scientists of making assumptions about decay rates and the like, but as I've pointed out, those assumptions are well-supported.
Or, perhaps, the methods and data needed to test those ideas didn't exist yet? 99.9% of the time, that's the reason.
4. Take plate tectonics. It was first proposed in the early 1900s, but was laughed out the door because the evidence for it was very weak (basically: The continents look like they fit together like puzzle pieces!). However, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Navy started doing large-scale ocean mapping with SONAR (which wasn't available until World War II) and discovered that the features predicted by the plate tectonic theory did exist. Later magnetic surveys supported this - symmetrical, alternating bands on either sides of the ocean ridges. With the new data, plate tectonics rapidly moved into the mainstream. Now we have GPS data that shows unequivocally that the plates are moving.
5. I looked at the Sternberg website, and it appears that the bullying, etc. was the work of a few individuals and one organization. The scientists that he talked to all agreed that he should accept the article for publication. The scientific community isn't perfect - there are fanatics out there who will viciously attack anyone who opposes their views. Much like the similar people to be found in the Christian community. It's a fact of human nature.
6. To a point, it doesn't matter. However, when ID gets into the idea of irreducible complexity, it starts to contradict observations (namely, that these supposedly "irreducibly complex" features, aren't). And until a workable test for design is created (not merely conceived, or "thought to exist"), no one should be arguing that anything is designed.
7. I'm an extremely limited theistic evolutionist: I believe that God provided the "spark" for life to begin, and then let nature take its course to the present day..
8. Completely beside the point. You claimed that science says that dogs can evolve into cats. It doesn't. End of story.
9. Um, both? And yes, I have read the paper on the Vatican site, though it's been a while. I'd forgotten that he didn't say that evolution was the only answer (so not all Catholics are obligated to believe it).
10. What he said is (basically) that there's nothing wrong with accepting evolution over literal creation. Evolution makes more sense to me, ergo, I accept it.
11. Nothing in my beliefs requires that I take Genesis literally. It doesn't matter that it was dictated by God - He was dictating to a bunch of illiterate, ignorant goat herders (to be fair to the Isrealites, that description fits 90% of society at the time) and so couldn't explain everything. God has been known to use metaphor (see the Psalms and Jesus' parables), so it's not a stretch to believe that He was using one in Genesis.
12. And yes, I am "in judgement of the bible." I have no problems with that - everyone who reads it has their own personal interpretation. My problem comes when people act as though their own interpretation is the only correct one and try to twist science to fit it and/or force it on others.
1. That is ok, many highly educated people have been assessed as not understanding how evolution works.
2. The example as to illustrate that we do make determinations in science for intelligent involvement over natural causation. ID is a new science and it may take some time to develop a rigorous testing suite that is acceptable to mainstream science.
One test is specified complexity.
"
you do
n't get
it"
"nte gti 'duyo ot"
Both these strings have complexity and information. One is a random string the other is specified. Both convey information but only one conveys functional information. Both of these strings are equally improbable but only one has a recognizable pattern that conveys functional information. As I understand it, designed patterns can be distinguished from random patterns. ie; Mt. Rushmore faces and the surrounding cliff faces. The areas of random pattern development are recognizable from the specified complex information patterns that have recognizable function.
Highly improbable, specified complexity points to intelligence. A snow flake is a complex pattern explained by physical laws and attraction. It is automatic, no intelligence is needed. DNA on the other hand has no such chemical bonding or physical laws that can explain how the bases are ordered on the sugar phosphate backbone. The bases themselves are chemically attracted to the backbone but their order has no such relationship.
Honeycombs are not a natural occurrence but the result of bee DNA. They are produced from information outside of their molecular makeup and natural random forces. Chemistry doesn't determine the arrangement or pattern of honey combs or DNA bases arrangements.
I understand there is opposition to this. That is fine. It makes no sense to some, makes sense to me.
3. Why are you assuming human intelligence is difference from other intelligence? That makes no sense at all. Is there some sort of law of intelligence that states not all intelligence is the same or recognizable?
ID cannot prove what kind of intelligence an unknown intelligence may have. but as stated, that intelligent fingerprint can be detected.
On another note, being a believer, I know God has told us he is knowable, and his signature is in everything that is made. I also know, that God himself became human, created human and therefore, is understandable by humans. Of course this is not a scientific position, but neither is front loading information.
4. I don't know what your suggesting here. Are you arguing for the finding of design will later prove correct?
5. ID discrimination is wide spread. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been payed out in law suites by the oppressors. Examples of the wide spread censorship can
be found here
6. IC is a perfectly good example. The only opposition to it is maybe's and could be's. "co-option"? Could be an answer but there is no test for, has not been proven, observed or anything else. It is merely "conceived". If there has been experiments confirming co-option please cite. Something that shows pathways to recombination and co-option of parts by selection and mutation.
7. Front loading has considerable opposition too.
8. Precisely the point, and semantics doesn't help you. The reason I didn't give an example of what dogs and cats diverged from! is because evolution doesn't supply any of the them. The branching organisms are as mysterious as dark matter, but they have to exist for the model to work. Evolution is continually shifting dates and divergence times to accommodate the evidence and the model. I never said dogs change into cats.
"End of Story"? what is that?
9. Please tell me how you reconcile the incompatibility of time lines. Bible says earth then moon/sun/stars, also aquatic and birds at the same time?
10. OK
11. Wow, your an angry man. So the bible was just for them? God did not consider future generations who would be reading his word? The bible says it is not discerned with human reason but is spiritually discerned. Sheep herders or scientists, makes no difference. Truth is the same to both.
Refer to #9. as metaphor does not reconcile the time line problem.
12. God has not left the interpretation to each person. Though I get this is a back hand for me personally. The bible interprets itself as it is read in context as a whole, as enlightened by the Holy spirit. If you are just taking lines here and there I can see how you are getting confused. Any line of scripture can be used to justify just about anything, and has been abused this way over the millenia.
So much for 4 or 5 main points to answer. Please do not reply with more than a couple of points at a time, and I will try to keep my replies in kind. I realize my posts are lengthy as well.
