With respect, simply saying that you think something "looks intelligently designed", as you did here...
... isn't substantiation of anything. It's a hunch.
No it's not, it's a conclusion that all theists make based on the actual evidence.
The Meyer article you cited doesn't substantiate anything, either. It effectively says, "We cannot understand how system x might have come about via natural means, therefore it was a miracle." That's both an argument from ignorance and god-of-the-gaps theology.
Processes that have no basis in anything directly observed or demonstrated. Processes that, in effect, don't exist. Yet, you would have us assume them without any substantive or empirical proof. Let me tell you something about the theology you are trampling under your feet, it has nothing to do with an argument from ignorance or some nebulous God of the gaps nonsense, it's about revelation that you have abandoned in favor of worldly wisdom. There is a price to be paid for that.
I'm not only one arguing that intelligent design is little more than a hunch, though. ID's own founding fathers have said the same thing. Take Philip Johnson for example:
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
You forget people like Newton and Aristotle not to mention Peter, Paul and the other Apostles like John that concluded an Intelligent Designer. I am amazed that you have the audacity to make the impossible statement that intelligent design began with Johnson, that is absurd.
Or Paul Nelson:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
I'll assume out of courtesy that you will get to an actual point soon since you didn't bother to cite the source leaving the context completely unknown.
Of course I provided a definition of science. You asked me point blank to define science and I answered you point blank in my last post: hypothesis testing. You even replied to that definition below, so I know you saw it. Please don't witness falsely.
That is sad really, both the fact that you have abandoned Christian theism and that you would accept a two word definition for science, I actually feel sorry for you.
ALL of science assumes naturalistic causes, mark. You know that. We've been over this many times. So why do you continue to pick on evolution when your problem is with science as a whole? When is the last time you saw mention of God's miraculous handiwork while reading an astronomy textbook or a chemistry textbook? If it's methodological naturalism you don't like, then your beef is with science, not evolution.
My problem with you and most of the TEs on here is that you argue relentlessly against the clear testimony of Scripture and would seem to be good for nothing else. A profession of faith is nearly unheard of and you continue to ostracize a faith you have no interest in defending. I have no problem with science or evolution as properly defined, my problem is with the ad hominem attacks of secular scientists that have nothing but animosity for a faith they know nothing about.
I have no problem with science, I have no issues with evolution, not as properly defined in the epistemology and methodology of modern theory and practice. What I have a problem with, as I have told you repeatedly, is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by means of exclusively naturalistic processes.
Any Bible believing Christian would understand that.
I've provided you citations to numerous papers that discuss the molecular basis for human brain evolution in the past. You've never addressed any of them.
And yes, the genes that influence human brain evolution and development CAN be observed: they're in our bodies as we speak. We can even play with them to determine what effects they have on brain development. The same can't be said for intelligent design.
Nonsense, if you had a molecular mechanism you would have flown it like a flag in this discussion. You would have at least spoke of it in passing, you would have at least mentioned it in the most general terms. You did none of that and you continue to dodge the real issues while making this an all out ad hominem attack.
Here are some more references for you on human brain evolution:
This is an abstract that promises insights that it does not provide. By the way, never seen it before or I would have read the paper by now.
A link to a Science Direct news article that would not load and I have never seen before or I would have tracked down the actual source material.
Well aware of the article and the work of the authors but still unsure of how you are trying to make a point of links to abstracts that do not identify molecular mechanisms that explain the three fold expansion from that of apes.
But why? Under your own definition of science, all of those subjects are scientific in nature. So why include some and not others if, according to you, they're all science? Where do you draw the line? Moreover, all those subjects that you do advocate teaching make purely naturalistic assumptions (like Mendelian inheritance) -- aren't you against that?
Come on now, do you really think that I'm against assumptions? I know they have to happen, I draw the line at making fallacious naturalistic assumptions simply because God is the cause. Mendel neither rejected nor invoked God, he simply observed and produced a model. I draw the line at intellectual and philosophical irrelevancies and fallacies, I am against nothing naturalistic except the assumption that God has not been involved in the history of life and humanity.
Hypothesis testing is done in astronomy all the time. It isn't exclusively observation. Not sure where you're getting that from. Astronomy is no different from any other science in this respect.
You don't empirically predict the course of a comet, you measure it. The only way that happens is you have to have something like calculus to do that. You assertion like the rest of your argument is superficial at best.
Again, so does all science. Not just evolution. If your beef is with methodological naturalism, then your beef is with science.
My beef is with those who would prefer the atheistic philosophy of Darwinism over the clear testimony of Scripture. While you already know that you continue to drag this discussion down to the ad hominem depths of fallacious argumentation that marks the most telling flaw of Darwinism.
That's simply not Christian. You have been deceived.
Right. So if, as Christians, we believe everything was created by God, how can we possibly derive a null of hypothesis that describes something not created by God? The Bible tells us that the entire universe owes its continued existence to God. There is nothing that exists apart from Him. So being able to say some object was or was not created by God is impossible. It's untestable.
There are ways but you have to stop talking in generalities and start talking about the particulars like the evolution of the human brain or how bacteria become plant and animal cells.
So you're saying that if it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that the human brain was indeed evolved, you would stop believing in God? Your entire faith in Him hinges on that? In that case, I'm not so sure it's worth discussing the subject with you any further. I'd rather you be uninformed and saved that informed and unsaved.
It would effect none of the essential truths of the New Testament for me, I assure you that. Thats not what this is all about, Darwinism does not make it's case. I have a truck load of reasons why I believe that the collective arguments from homology and imperfection are flawed, what I want and need are the molecular mechanisms involved. What I don't need is the continued insistence that I am ignorant of a subject that I have searched out for over six year now. Your arguments neither impress nor persuade me and I reserve the right to remain unconvinced.
That would depend on how you define the term and you have never bothered to make a serious effort.
Have a nice day
Mark