What is ID?

[pitabread]

You're right of course, but I was trying to steer him away from discussing evolution.

Fair enough, I won't belabor the point.

 

[xianghua]

I appreciate that you don't accept it but there are countless examples of evidence of creatures evolving, the whale example you've been shown for example.

and i already explained why its not an evidence for evolution.

This is not really relevant though, you don't get evidence for your model by showing another model to be wrong, you need something that demonstrates that ID is correct.

[/QUOTE]

do you think that a motor (flagellum) isnt evidence for design?

I apologise for not having time to look at the Articles you linked, I'm under pressure at work today, I'll get back to it though.

its actually just a list.

 

[Jimmy D]

and i already explained why its not an evidence for evolution.

More accurately, you've attempted to explain why you don't think it's evidence, but ok. It's not an evolution thread anyway.

do you think that a motor (flagellum) isnt evidence for design?

I don't believe it's evidence for design. Is there any reason that I should?

 

[xianghua]

I don't believe it's evidence for design. Is there any reason that I should?

if so we can claim that even a car isnt evidence for de sign.

 

[Jimmy D]

if so we can claim that even a car isnt evidence for de sign.

You can claim it all you like. I have evidence that a car is designed.....

Where is your evidence that the flagellum is designed?

 

[xianghua]

You can claim it all you like. I have evidence that a car is designed

i can claim the same for this one:


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703102614.htm

so you now believe that the cilia was designed

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

im not sure but i do think that creationism can be falsified by showing an example of a creature that evolve into another creature (a cat to dog for instance).

1. google "observed speciation"

2. if a cat would turn into a dog, evolution theory would be falsified.

"If it was established that ID is infact a valid scientific field what would be it's practical applications? "-

yes:

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

That link doesn't mention any practical applications.

Not to mention how dishonest it is, to call that "peer review"...

 

[pitabread]

"If it was established that ID is infact a valid scientific field what would be it's practical applications? "-

yes:

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

Out of curiosity, have you read any of those papers in question? Do you find any of them particularly compelling that you would recommend?

 

[pitabread]

How does it explain the fossil record?

In reading and re-reading a bunch of ID publications recently, this is something where ID is frustratingly vague.

There are a lot of ID arguments that center on basic biological machinery in the cell including the very formation of DNA. This makes ID sounds like an origin-of-life argument. And life began on Earth over 4 billion years ago.

But some of their other arguments around higher order organisms calls into question when and where the 'designer' was doing its designing.

For example in this paper, Meyer argues that Cambrian-era life has hallmarks of design. That was over 500 million years ago or about 3.5 billion years after the origin of life on Earth.

In another paper, A.C. McIntosh tries to argue (poorly) that feathers and avian respiration are evidence of design. Based on fossil evidence, feathers have been around since at least 160 million years ago.

In yet a third paper, author Joseph Kuhn specifically references various systems in the human body that they describe as "infinitely complex" (as an aside, what the heck is "infinite complexity" supposed to even mean?); although many of these systems are also found in other animals.

All of this begs the question of what the designer actually did. Did they start life 4 billion years ago, sit around for 3.5 billion years twiddling their thumbs before deciding to zap in a bunch of new life? Did they decide to engineer feathered dinosaurs 160 million years ago? And then over a hundred million years later start engineering humans?

If design has been ongoing, how were they accomplishing all this? Did they spontaneously engineer brand new species out of thin air? Did they take existing species and re-engineer them, inserting bits of DNA as they went?

Is there evidence of such things happening today? Are there brand new species being created at this very moment? Can we find evidence of a designer making new things in nature?

Of course the ID literature is maddeningly silent on this. They seem content to make what amount to little more than grandiose arguments from incredulity when arguing for design. As I re-aquaint myself with ID literature, I am reminded that the entire argument boils down to "X is complex, we don't know how X evolved, therefore DesignerDidIt".

Yet there is absolutely nothing to be found on where, when and how the designer did any designing. In effect, it explains absolutely nothing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All of this begs the question of what the designer actually did. Did they start life 4 billion years ago, sit around for 3.5 billion years twiddling their thumbs before deciding to zap in a bunch of new life? Did they decide to engineer feathered dinosaurs 160 million years ago? And then over a hundred million years later start engineering humans?

If design has been ongoing, how were they accomplishing all this? Did they spontaneously engineer brand new species out of thin air? Did they take existing species and re-engineer them, inserting bits of DNA as they went?

Is there evidence of such things happening today? Are there brand new species being created at this very moment? Can we find evidence of a designer making new things in nature?

Of course the ID literature is maddeningly silent on this.

Great questions. Unfortunately, I never seem to see much in the way of answers from ID proponents. They seem content to say that a designer was at work somehow, but how? Did brand new species pop up suddenly out of thin air every hundred years or so? If so, do they predict that somebody could be sitting in the park some day when suddenly a new species of bird or tiger pops up out of nowhere right in front of their park bench?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did brand new species pop up suddenly out of thin air every hundred years or so?

No.

A brand new species can pop up within 68 days, such as when the Canis lupus familiaris was created by a Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle.

And as I understand it, a brand new species of bacteria can pop up suddenly in 9 hours.

Now ... a brand new genus (kind) ... that's a different story.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I notice that there are a few posters with ID in their usernames or signatures and a few posters who regularly try and promote or defend intelligent design.

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.

I'm curious as to what ID proponents actually believe ID is, so I've got a few questions if anyone would care to explain it to me. Can we please avoid apologetics, religious views or badmouthing other scientific fields, if ID is to stand on it's own merits as an area of scientific research we should treat it as such.

What are the proposed mechanisms of design?

How can it be falsified?

How does ID explain the diversity of life on Earth?

If it was established that ID is infact a valid scientific field what would be it's practical applications?

How does it explain the fossil record?

Are there any examples of reasearch being carried out or published papers?

For the sake of discussion can I ask that the dichotomy of TOE vs ID be avoided in as much as 'disproving' one does nothing to legitimize the other.

Thanks.

ID is based on Paley. Evolution is Darwin's argument against William Paley (July 1743 – 25 May 1805) The solution or reconciliation is TE. Darwin was just to lazy to see his theory through to it's logical conclusion. He left that for others to do.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Now ... a brand new genus (kind) ... that's a different story.

It is difficult to grow a new branch on a tree. My wife likes to over trim the trees so that she forces the tree to grow new branches. This is a long slow process.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is difficult to grow a new branch on a tree.

Not if the tree is only on paper.

This thing had its own binomial (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) and everything!

 

[xianghua]

Out of curiosity, have you read any of those papers in question? Do you find any of them particularly compelling that you would recommend?

you can start with this one:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[xianghua]

Out of curiosity, have you read any of those papers in question? Do you find any of them particularly compelling that you would recommend?

you can start with this one:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[pitabread]

you can start with this one:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

And what makes this paper particularly compelling with respect to ID?

 

[bhsmte]

I still would like someone to answer how you can identify design if literally everything is designed? How can you know what design looks like if you don't know what not designed looks like?

No one can seem to come up with a falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present. Even ID's star witness in the Dover trial, said if ID is science, than astrology would also be considered science.

That statement, tells you pretty much all you need to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

That statement, tells you pretty much all you need to know.

"Wise men" arguing against "intelligent design;" what irony.

 

[Colter]

Intelligent design is pseudoscience. True science is useless in the analysis of spiritual realities. God can neither be proven nor disproven by true science.