What's the current state of Intelligent Design?

[BobRyan]

Other than Stephen Meyer's Dissent From Darwinism and Behe's Darwin Devolves* being published in the past few years, I haven't heard much from the ID camp these days.

What exactly are they up to these days? Any ID breakthroughs to talk about? Any new or exciting things coming out of the ID camp?

Have they figured out how to detect design in biological organisms yet?

(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)

I for one am happy to see agnostics tossing Darwin under the bus.

Do you think the OP was "tossing Darwin under the bus"? If so, you should re-read the post.

I think that post quoted at the top here --- does it, as if Darwin was not to be noticed when it comes to blind faith evolutionism

So then ...

(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)

for those not opening the quoted posts.

 

[cutterfl]

No, when you have to add new types of existence, new types of interaction, new types of evidence... then no, it is not a simpler solution.

Easier to say, is not necessarily a simpler or more likely solution.

For example: "The ancient Egyptians used complicated pulleys, clever geometry and a whole lot of trained and untrained labour to build the pyramids" is complicated to explain.

However "I personally will travel back and build the pyramids with magic." Is easy... but raises far more questions then it answers.

who created molecular machines in cells? kinesins, ribosomes, self replicating highways, etc.

 

[BobRyan]

Mutation creates variation

within what limit?

My finger nail grows a bit each day , children are born with red hair, albinos exist - my finger nail will not not turn into a horse given enough time and chance, nor will albinos nor will children with red hair.

details matter in actual science.

 

[cutterfl]

except mutations are decrease in information.

 

[BobRyan]

Mutation creates variation... differential survival rates creates selection.

Trivial to explain.

"Stories about how one thing came from another... are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" from one of your own evolutionists. Might want to reflect on the sort of "science" it would take for its own world class scholars to then claim "I was DUPED for over 20 years ". Still as an atheist he had "no where else to go".

How sad.

 

[Shemjaza]

who created molecular machines in cells? kinesins, ribosomes, self replicating highways, etc.

Mutations.

except mutations are decrease in information.

Not with any definable version of information I've seen presented.

If you have a variant version, can you explain how it can be objectively measured and in what units?

 

[Shemjaza]

within what limit?

My finger nail grows a bit each day , children are born with red hair, albinos exist - my finger nail will not not turn into a horse given enough time and chance, nor will albinos nor will children with red hair.

details matter in actual science.

Why should I believe there's a limit?

If there's a limit on the variation possible via small steps I'd like to here how you define it and how you detect it.

 

[BobRyan]

Other than Stephen Meyer's Dissent From Darwinism and Behe's Darwin Devolves* being published in the past few years, I haven't heard much from the ID camp these days.

What exactly are they up to these days? Any ID breakthroughs to talk about? Any new or exciting things coming out of the ID camp?

Have they figured out how to detect design in biological organisms yet?

(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)

Maybe you were wishing to attend biologos conferences?

BioLogos Conferences

 

[Shemjaza]

I think that post quoted at the top here --- does it, as if Darwin was not to be noticed when it comes to blind faith evolutionism

Stop saying this.

It's false and insulting to the religious and irreligious alike.

 

[BobRyan]

Why should I believe there's a limit?

as an atheist believer in evolutionism you should continue praying that there is "no limit" regardless of the observations in nature of 50,000 generations disproving the very denial of limit - that evolutionism hopes and prays for

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I think that post quoted at the top here --- does it, as if Darwin was not to be noticed when it comes to blind faith evolutionism

Stop saying this.
It's false and insulting to the religious and irreligious alike.

Is it your claim that when your own professors of evolutionism admit to it - that it is "ok" but Christians are not "allowed" to notice??

Seriously?? that's an argument?

for the objective unbiased reader it is "a wake up call"

 

[Shemjaza]

as an atheist believer in evolutionism you should continue praying that there is "no limit" regardless of the observations in nature of 50,000 generations disproving the very denial of limit - that evolutionism hopes and prays for

So I ask again, what limit?

There's nothing for people who accept evolution to "hope and pray" for. There isn't a theoretical or demonstrable limit... and if you claim there is, you need to demonstrate it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Is it your claim that when your own professors of evolutionism admit to it - that it is "ok" but Christians are not "allowed" to notice??

Seriously?? that's an argument?

for the objective unbiased reader it is "a wake up call"

It. Is. A. Lie.

Stop it.

Point to my faith? Seriously, I don't like having beliefs I can't justify. Be actually specific of a point that actually requires faith.

 

[BobRyan]

as an atheist believer in evolutionism you should continue praying that there is "no limit" regardless of the observations in nature of 50,000 generations disproving the very denial of limit - that evolutionism hopes and prays for

So I ask again, what limit?

pretending not to notice the problem does not "help" to make a convincing solution.

In 50,000 generations the "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (according to your own evolutionist expert) - the human race supposedly came into being. But in the "Test" case of a species 1000's of times more adaptive to its environment - no such "evolution" was "observed in nature".

Ignoring science fact does not make it "go away". It merely shows what your own expert on evolution claims to be "evolution as a matter of faith".

Responding with "harrumph" is a religious devotion position not a science argument.

 

[Shemjaza]

pretending not to notice the problem does not "help" to make a convincing solution.

In 50,000 generations the "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (according to your own evolutionist expert) - the human race supposedly came into being. But in the "Test" case of a species 1000's of times more adaptive to its environment - no such "evolution" was "observed in nature".

Ignoring science fact does not make it "go away". It merely shows what your own expert on evolution claims to be "evolution as a matter of faith"

You love your little quote... but it isn't evidence.

Please be specific, what is it?
What barrier?
How does it work?

 

[BobRyan]

You love your little quote... but it isn't evidence.

Please be specific, what is it?
What barrier?
How does it work?

How does 50,000 generations of observation work? or how does the fact that evolutionism's hopeful monster never showed up... "work"?

When I remind you that bacteria will never "turn into a horse" no matter how much "time and chance" you give - your response is "how does that work"??

seriously?

When I remind you that it is your own evolutionist expert that declares that evolution is being accepted as a "matter of faith" your response is "how does that work?".

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?

 

[Shemjaza]

How does 50,000 generations of observation work? or how does the fact that evolutionism's hopeful monster never showed up... "work"?

Which 50,000 generations... and why in particular are we expecting a particular change?

I'm sure you're referencing or quoting something... but just yelling "blind faith" and "50,000" isn't evidence.

Species successfully adapted into environments have no reason change much more then general drift.

So 50,000 generations of what life form... under what pressures... in what environment...

You need to explain why this is supposedly a problem for evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

LMAO...you cant post any evidence of multiorgan evolution by genetics, and just say, environment did it, srrsly?> DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT?

Why should I go out of my way to explain basic evolutionary theory to a person with an attitude who doesn't want to accept it anyway? I don't care if you agree with the theory of evolution or not. If you want to ask serious questions we will be glad to answer them. You asked a question and gave you the short answer with the idea that it would provoke more interesting discussion. I instead what I got is a snotty rejoinder. What do you expect will come of that?

 

[Speedwell]

Which 50,000 generations... and why in particular are we expecting a particular change?

I'm sure you're referencing or quoting something... but just yelling "blind faith" and "50,000" isn't evidence.

Species successfully adapted into environments have no reason change much more then general drift.

So 50,000 generations of what life form... under what pressures... in what environment...

You need to explain why this is supposedly a problem for evolution.

I think he is talking about fruit fly experiments. Creationists like to believe the lie that the fruit fly experiments were designed to prove speciation but failed.

 

[pitabread]

I think he is talking about fruit fly experiments.

Probably the long-running E.Coli experiment. That's the only experiment I can think of with that many observed generations.

Within the scope of said experiment, significant evolutionary changes have been observed, but creationists just hand-wave them away.