Is it designed?

[OldWiseGuy]

The same question applies: if you're an OEC, why do you support ID? OECism is a perfectly respectable theological position; what to you need with a politically motivated fraud?

I support the simple meaning of it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lacking an agreed upon definition 'design' is in the eye of the beholder. I behold design.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you even realize that God is a form of ID? Clearly you do not. This is why I never tout myself an expert because as sure as we do, it backfires. Here ya' go:

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Can't wait to hear sciences alternate definition you evidently have for us but seem to be afraid to back up your comment and tell us what it is....let's have it.

When your posts are no more than an underlying attempt to demean your adversary, I can only take it you have no intelligent reply.

Originally, when the Discovery Institute first floated it, ID meant something more specific. Many IDists still conform to the original doctrine, so when someone claims to be an IDist the default response is generally to that particular doctrine.

However, many biblical creationists liked the anti-evolution propaganda created by the Discovery Institute and started talking about ID as if it was a synonym for divine authorship of the universe--hence the definition you posted.

Sooner or later biblical creationists will have to face the theological difficulties that association with the Discovery Institute's version of ID poses for them, and will reject it the term in favor of more traditional terms for God's creative action. I'm sure they will still use ID's anti-evolutionary propaganda.

 

[pitabread]

we cant calculate the exact chance to get that mountain by a natural process but we know for sure that this chance is extremely low.

The reason nobody calculates the probability of the formation of mount Rushmore is because:

a) There is not enough information to calculate such a probability;
b) such a calculation would largely be meaningless; and,
c) you're already using pattern recognition and not probability to determine design.

 

[NBB]

Easy there is odds happenings in nature, but they are not precise creations, you are not going to find a david statue like precision in nature. Except for an animal or a human... if you know what i mean.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did you read the links?

Please, Jimmy pay attention, that whole last post of yours is wasting your time and mine. Didn't I tell you to post your definition here? You know I don't do links, I want it here so everyone can see what I'm scrutinizing, and anyone who wants can join in. You can even copy from where ever so, I know I'm not asking too much

“They were all formed out of something that was ID'd.”

Wind was “ID’d”, water was “ID’d”, sediment layed down and lithified was “ID’d”? Lol.

Your doing it again...not paying attention, I already told you what I said and even quoted myself so you could see for yourself with little effort on your part. My original comment meant everything that happens is a result of ID, not ID itself. No, I didn't put it in those exact words (very close though) but I figured most anyone would know what I was saying as i still do, but evidently I was wrong and am now making it easier for you to understand. Do you understand now?

None of that is intended as condescending, but I really did think you were more on the ball than I'm seeing here, unless you're simply misunderstanding things by choice?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Originally, when the Discovery Institute first floated it, ID meant something more specific. Many IDists still conform to the original doctrine, so when someone claims to be an IDist the default response is generally to that particular doctrine.

However, many biblical creationists liked the anti-evolution propaganda created by the Discovery Institute and started talking about ID as if it was a synonym for divine authorship of the universe--hence the definition you posted.

Sooner or later biblical creationists will have to face the theological difficulties that association with the Discovery Institute's version of ID poses for them, and will reject it the term in favor of more traditional terms for God's creative action. I'm sure they will still use ID's anti-evolutionary propaganda.

Did any of that contain the definition I've now asked for 3 times?

 

[Speedwell]

Did any of that contain the definition I've now asked for 3 times?

The Definition of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

 

[Kenny'sID]

The Definition of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

Thanks, then unless Jimmy can explain how my definition didn't fit somewhere within the boundaries of the "official" definition of ID, all I can figure is he had nothing to disagree with so he purposely misunderstood a few posts and hoped he could get it by us that we were wrong when we were not.

I realize that these responses aren't exactly by what you'd call competent exponents of ID, let alone science in general, but they signify that either:

Why?

A) Most laymen supporting ID don't actually know what it is.

I know/knew what it was from the start, how do you get that comment from my post?

B) ID is a sciency sounding way of "goddidit".

I know.

C) ID is a simply a synonym for for natural forces.

I know.

It appears that ID is completely useless at explaining anything.

That comment is pretty useless. lol...what the heck is that?

How disappointing.

Everything is as expected, and after enough times, disappointment is no longer relevant.

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks, then unless Jimmy can explain how my definition didn't fit somewhere within the boundaries of the "official" definition of ID,

In fact, it is the other way around. Your definition of ID is much broader, and the "official" definition fits within it. But your definition also encompasses other views which were not traditionally called "ID."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every 'turtle' (on the way down) has to be questioned.

Any time you actually wish to answer or demonstrate how ID thery works in practical application.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you even realize that God is a form of ID? Clearly you do not. This is why I never tout myself an expert because as sure as we do, it backfires. Here ya' go:

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Can't wait to hear sciences alternate definition you evidently have for us but seem to be afraid to back up your comment and tell us what it is....let's have it.

When your posts are no more than an underlying attempt to demean your adversary, I can only take it you have no intelligent reply.

Cool.

Now use that theory and demonstrate its practical usefullness by applying it to the objects depicted in the OP.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you entirely missed the point of the OP

Just for the record: I'm not buying that.

As I say in the OP, this is not my first thread like this, so I've come to expect a certain pattern.
He gets the point. They all get the point.

It's just that they are doing their very best to redirect everyone's attention to something else, by derailment, dodging, etc.

Anything goes, as long as they don't have to actually live upto the challenge, because that would actually expose ID for the nonsense that is.


cdesign proponentsists reading this: you can easily prove me wrong, by actually rising upto the challenge of the OP and actually demonstrate the practical application of this so-called theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All processes are designed, and operate according to physical laws, including sedimentation. God designed gravity to keep the stuff he designed from flying all over the place (and to do other neat things as well).

This thread is not asking for religious declarations.
This is asking for a demonstration of practical application of the so-called scientific theory of ID.

If you are not a proponent of this "theory", promoted by the likes of Dembski and Behe, then this thread is not meant for you.


cdesign propenentsists, consider this post me begging you on my naked knees to PLEASE demonstrate a practical application of this so-called scientific theory.

 

[Jimmy D]

All processes are designed, and operate according to physical laws, including sedimentation. God designed gravity to keep the stuff he designed from flying all over the place (and to do other neat things as well).

No problem, I wouldn't argue if you said that. Obviously I don't agree, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable position for a Christian to take.

I wouldn't really call it ID though, which is supposedly the scientific study of the minute tinkering of an "intelligent designer".

 

[Jimmy D]

Please, Jimmy pay attention, that whole last post of yours is wasting your time and mine. Didn't I tell you to post your definition here? You know I don't do links, I want it here so everyone can see what I'm scrutinizing, and anyone who wants can join in. You can even copy from where ever so, I know I'm not asking too much

Meh, if you can't be bothered so be it, I tried to help.

Anyway, Speedy's posted one of them for you now, so you've got no excuses.

Your doing it again...not paying attention, I already told you what I said and even quoted myself so you could see for yourself with little effort on your part. My original comment meant everything that happens is a result of ID, not ID itself. No, I didn't put it in those exact words (very close though) but I figured most anyone would know what I was saying as i still do, but evidently I was wrong and am now making it easier for you to understand. Do you understand now?

I understand what you said alright.

None of that is intended as condescending, but I really did think you were more on the ball than I'm seeing here, unless you're simply misunderstanding things by choice?

OK, if I'm not misunderstanding now, to paraphrase, you are saying that everything is a result of the laws God designed/created. Is that correct?

As I said to Oldwiseguy, that's fine, but it's not really relevant to the thread, which is about ID, a specific, well defined "discipline" that claims to investigate...

"Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. "

"Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please, Jimmy pay attention, that whole last post of yours is wasting your time and mine. Didn't I tell you to post your definition here? You know I don't do links, I want it here so everyone can see what I'm scrutinizing, and anyone who wants can join in. You can even copy from where ever so, I know I'm not asking too much



Your doing it again...not paying attention, I already told you what I said and even quoted myself so you could see for yourself with little effort on your part. My original comment meant everything that happens is a result of ID, not ID itself. No, I didn't put it in those exact words (very close though) but I figured most anyone would know what I was saying as i still do, but evidently I was wrong and am now making it easier for you to understand. Do you understand now?

None of that is intended as condescending, but I really did think you were more on the ball than I'm seeing here, unless you're simply misunderstanding things by choice?

You know what you are doing again?

Posting off topic.
The OP is clear: demonstrate how ID theory can be practically applied.

It seems that your only goal here, is to steer the thread away from exactly that conversation.
Please, stop it.

Either demonstrate the practical usefullness of the so-called scientific theory of ID, or move on.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks, then unless Jimmy can explain how my definition didn't fit somewhere within the boundaries of the "official" definition of ID, all I can figure is he had nothing to disagree with so he purposely misunderstood a few posts and hoped he could get it by us that we were wrong when we were not.

Again Speedy has explained my objection, your definition is too vague and merely represents a general view of the entirety of Christianity, Islam etc. It is therefore not useful, as the ID movement is something specific and has taken the trouble to distance itself from other forms of creationism, as you would know if you could be bothered to read the links I posted....


Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text

I know/knew what it was from the start, how do you get that comment from my post?

From your responses it certainly doesn't seem like it.

Hopefully you have a better understanding now, maybe you would like to address the OP.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This thread is not asking for religious declarations.
This is asking for a demonstration of practical application of the so-called scientific theory of ID.

If you are not a proponent of this "theory", promoted by the likes of Dembski and Behe, then this thread is not meant for you.


cdesign propenentsists, consider this post me begging you on my naked knees to PLEASE demonstrate a practical application of this so-called scientific theory.

I think you have devised an 'unanswerable' question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you have devised an 'unanswerable' question.

It is unanswerable, only if the ID proponents are liars.
They say it is a scientific theory that can be used to detect design.

In this thread, I'm asking them to put their money where their mouth is, by asking them to do exactly that: use the theory to "detect design". Demonstrate its usefullness. Demonstrate the methodology. Demonstrate its practical appication.

Meanwhile, almost at page 5 and NOT A SINGLE ONE that even began a decent attempt.

ALL "creationist" replies have been nothing but derailments, dodges, one liners or jumping straight to the conclusion without demonstrating the steps they took to get to the conclusion - even though I literally say in the OP that the conclusion actually is of no interest to me at this point. What interests me in this thread, is a demonstration of the practical application of this so-called scientific theory.


The logical conclusion seems to be what we rational folks have known all along:
It is NOT a scientific theory.
It is NOT a model that can be applied in practice.
It is NOT usefull.
It can NOT detect anything.
It is.... nothing but religion (creationism) disguised in a lab coat.


To all ID proponents: PROVE ME WRONG.