Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, January 12, 2006

ID PRATT List

ID PRATT list: (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)

Who was/ is the designer?

If we knew the designer we wouldn’t have a design inference- ID would be a given. The only way to determine anything about the designer(s), in the absence of direct observation or designer input, would be to study the design.

Knowing who designed something adds nothing to the understanding of the design unless the designer conveyed all that information to you.
We can use known examples of designed objects to show that we don’t need to know the designer in order to understand the design.
Obviously knowing who designed something the detection process can be skipped.

In any investigation of a dead body, first you would attempt to determine the cause of death and attempt to identify the body. If homicide is inferred then you use the evidence to run an investigation to determine the killer(s). If they knew the killer before the investigation, what an easy job they would have.

Who designed the designer?

Who designed the designers of Stonehenge? We can only study what we can observe.


How was it designed?/ How was the design implemented?

Without direct observation or input from the designer, although interesting questions answering them is not necessary to achieve the objectives of ID- that is the detection and understanding of the design.

In the end we may be able to put together a reasonable way to implement the design, i.e. formulate a process that would yield the same result. And we may be able to verify that the method we constructed yields that result with regularity. However we will always have to use caution if we try to say our method was the method originally used.

Usually the reason for constructing an implementation process is to confirm your inference. For example the Easter Island figures were once thought to be deposited by ETs because no one thought humans of that era could produce them. Engineers & scientists demonstrated that with the technology of the era those figures could be accounted for by human craftsmanship. Does that mean that ETs didn’t put them there? No. It just means that other, more plausible explanations exist.

However interesting these questions are they serve to show that ID does not purport to have all the answers or attempt to answer any ultimate questions. Also if we knew the answers to those questions then ID would be a law, it would no longer be an inference. And if the only evidence that you will accept is to meet the designer(s), have that designer(s) show you the design and implementation process, and then tell you why, you are sadly looking in the wrong place. You are also applying a standard that no historical science can meet.

IDists know that only by studying the design is there any hope of coming to a scientific inference about the designer or the implementation process.

Also ID was no more formulated to answer those questions as was the theory of evolution formulated to answer abiogenesis. Pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms. What is fitness to non-living matter?

It is also not necessary to know how airplanes are designed, manufactured or who first designed them in order to understand how they fly, operate, maintain, or repair one.

ID is another way of saying “I give up looking.”

Nothing could be further from reality. In reality whenever design is detected the work is just getting started, just ask any archaeologist or SETI researcher. To say my car was designed affords absolutely no knowledge about the car. To gain that knowledge research must be conducted.

Once we determined Stonehenge was designed did all work on it stop?

The design is a poor design. Why would a good designer allow so many extinctions and so many obviously cobbled-together systems?

I would love to see the critics who use this line of attack do a better job. However I digress. No one says that the design had to be perfect or that even if it started out “perfect” that it had to remain that way. Some critics will point out what they perceive as faulty body parts, that a real intelligent designer would have designed something better. But in the real world we see design compromises all the time and we also see design mess ups. History is littered with intelligently designed things that didn’t work and/ or were dubbed “engineering blunders”. So what? That is why we use the term intelligent design- to rid the unnecessary baggage of someone’s idea of perfection and/ or optimality.

This list is sure to grow...

Added via edit:

Who designed the designer and why it is irrelevant to ID.

37 Comments:

  • At 3:41 PM, Blogger Red Reader said…

    Good points:
    - if we knew designer, it wouldn't be an inference.
    - we can learn about the designer in study of the design.
    -- I add, we can learn much about the universe in study of the design: the design tells us what works in the environment in which the design is implemented. -input/output study -reverse engineering -why does the design work? could the design be improved? if not, why not? -what would have been the specifications list for this design? (Science pursued in this direction looks promising.)

    - how was design implemented? When an artist finishes a painting or when a contractor finishes a building, the tools and methods used by the artist/contractor are no longer part of the finished product and are not available for examination. Investigators may surmise, but short of having been there to see construction or meeting and asking the artist/contractor for an explanation, methods and tools cannot be known positively.

    Thanks for posting. I don't know if you have access to my email address by way of my log in; if you do, please feel free to write me.

    Thanks again,
    Glenn J. Houston, TX

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger inunison said…

    Also, when Darwinist asks for mechanism of ID (as it often happens) it actualy shows poor understanding of ID claims. ID is the mechanism! When will they understand that ID is about detecting design and NOT about describing the process (mechanism) of design. Would you agree?

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    One question: how would you know the difference between "intelligently designed" life, and "naturally selected" life?

    Answer is, you can't know that without making unproven assumptions.

     
  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    Do you really think ID is science? Are you aware that the ARN and most backers of ID are fundamentalist Christians or funded by Christian fundies? Doesn't that smell funny to you?

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Daniel said:One question: how would you know the difference between "intelligently designed" life, and "naturally selected" life?

    Answer is, you can't know that without making unproven assumptions.


    "Pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms." T. Dobzhansky.

    IDists have put down strict criteria that must be met before inferring design.

    What is the criteria used to determine the design is illusory?

    But anyway, this has nothing to do with the ID PRATT List blog.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Daniel:

    Please stay on topic.

    "Christian evolutionist" smells funny to me...

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have added the following link to the opening blog:

    Who designed the designer and why it is irrelevant to ID.

     
  • At 1:43 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    To Joe G - how did I get off topic? We're still talking about ID here, aren't we? And when did I use the words "Christian evolutionist?"

    Also, you claim that the identity of the designer is unimportant. Too bad that's just plain stupid a thing to say. I can think of two reasons why such a question as the "Designer's" identity should be examined if ID is to be taken seriously: first, the "Design Inference" is just that, an assumption, in the absence of evidence of a Designer's hand playing a role in any of this. And a circumstantial piece of evidence, at that - based upon an incomplete history of transitional forms in biology, not something out-of-place in the chronology of life.

    Second, true science is circular in the sense that each new discovery raises new questions. In this case, assuming that the Design Inference is indeed a product of actual Design, the question moves from whether the Design occurred to how the Design occurred.

    You IDists really have to recognize that for ID to be considered science, you should actually DO science - experimental observation - but you're not, all you're doing is offering rationalizations, pointing out gaps in the evolutionary record, and making false assumptions about why scientists don't know EVERYTHING.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Daniel, you got off topic by not responding to the blog- which is the ID PRATT List.

    I NEVER said you used "Christian evolutionist". I was just posting what I think smells fishy.

    As for identifying the designer- that is just plain stupid. Ya see the ONLY way to even attempt such a thing in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design. Therefore it is obvious that design detection and understanding (what ID is about) has nothing to do with identifying the designer.

    IOW the designer's identity is less important to ID than the origin of life is to any theory of evolution. Yet evolutionists always insist the two remain separate.

    Identifying how the design occured, although an interesting question, has nothing to do with detecting and understanding the design.

    Here is another essay exposing the stupidity of those who want to identify the designer:

    The Designer's Identity?

    "Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?"

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    As for identifying the designer- that is just plain stupid. Ya see the ONLY way to even attempt such a thing in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design.

    Precisely.

    Therefore it is obvious that design detection and understanding (what ID is about) has nothing to do with identifying the designer.

    *shakes head* No no no... the point is that the Design Inference is a baseless assumption which can never be proven (or disproven, for that matter), and is hence, UNscientific.

    IOW the designer's identity is less important to ID than the origin of life is to any theory of evolution. Yet evolutionists always insist the two remain separate.

    No, you're just trying to avoid the question of who the Designer would be, because you recognize it's unanswerable.

    Identifying how the design occured, although an interesting question, has nothing to do with detecting and understanding the design.

    Assuming there is anything to your Design Inference, why would identifying the mechanism of Design not (a) support the original inference, and (b) be the next logical step in the progress of science?

    And with regards to your essay defending your "Ignore the question on the Designer's identity" argument, you really should try stop and rethink who the "stupid" person is (your word, not mine).

    Actually, I'd just settle having you actually read a biology textbook, instead of listening to those frauds Behe and Dembski.

     
  • At 6:32 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    Joe G., I think you might be confused as to who posted what. I asked about Christian backers of ID. Fundamentalist, right wing Christians provide the vast majority of support for ID. William Dembski works at the Southern Baptist Seminary... c'mon.

    You might say I'm going off topic, but I think this is a core issue. A Christian can study evolution or any other science. A scientist cannot study ID. ID assumes that there must be a supernatural designer - that is, a designer that we cannot explain through observable, natural phenomena.

    Evolution allows you to examine the origins of life as well as the mechanism of evolution.

    If it is true, as you say here, that "ID is about detecting design and not about describing the process," then all you are trying to do is prove that there is a supernatural creator of some sort. That's theology - the teleological argument for the existence of god. Not science.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Daniel,

    Science is not about proof. Anyone who knows anything about science understands that fact.

    And once again- ID is about the design, NOT the designer. People who want to make it about the designer are just clue-less individuals with an axe to grind.

    Also Daniel, I will take my knowledge of biology over yours any and every day.

    As for "stupid" YOU were the first to use that word...

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To future geek,

    Scientists can and do conduct science under a design inference.

    Can you provide ANY data that demonstrates life arose from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes? Yet life exists and we can study it- scientifically.

    ID does NOT assume a supernatural designer. However even if it did so what? Nature could NOT have originated via natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature. IOW it ALL boils down to something non or super natural. There isn't any avoiding it.

    As for Christians and ID- that has as much bearing on anything as does atheists and the theory of evolution. Or are you going to admit the ToE is an atheistic theory?

    Alsoi evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Who taught you about evolution?

    However people like you and Daniel demonstrate the need to teach ID.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Daniel said…

    Science is not about proof. Anyone who knows anything about science understands that fact.

    Then you go around making statements of the world around us based upon what exactly?

    And once again- ID is about the design, NOT the designer. People who want to make it about the designer are just clue-less individuals with an axe to grind.

    The two are linked. You're claiming something along the lines of "Life couldn't have gotten this way on its own, it must've had a designer," not "Life couldn't have gotten this way on its own, *insert blank statement here*." Now if you want to admit that the whold Designer part of Intelligent Design is an empty and baseless claim, THEN yes, the identity of the Designer doesn't matter.

    Also Daniel, I will take my knowledge of biology over yours any and every day.

    Right.... the same old argument that Biologists know the least about biology, eh? And I suppose that you, being an engineer, have been building things all wrong all these years, hmm?

    As for "stupid" YOU were the first to use that word...

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    However people like you and Daniel demonstrate the need to teach ID.

    WHAT need to teach ID? Oh, that's right, so you can do away with eeeevil scientific naturalism, and make way for a more Biblical reality, even at the cost of scientific progress in medicine and ecology.

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    Oh, and yes, you were right about one thing, I did say "Also, you claim that the identity of the designer is unimportant. Too bad that's just plain stupid a thing to say." Sorry about that, but let's look at that:

    I wasn't saying that YOU were stupid, I was saying that YOU SAID something rather stupid (or ignorant if you prefer that word).

    And yes, as I've been telling you, it is stupid to continue avoiding the next logical question, if ID has any scientific merit. But clearly, there is no scientific merit to either CSI/IC (as I've said, there's never been any research to observe and test CSI/IC that has succeed in demonstrating either concept), and the overall conclusion (ID) is a baseless tautology.

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    Another comment you made:
    ID does NOT assume a supernatural designer. However even if it did so what? Nature could NOT have originated via natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature. IOW it ALL boils down to something non or super natural. There isn't any avoiding it.

    LOL - are you trying to argue that science should stop limiting itself to things that are natural and can be observed (thereby changing the definition of science), or that ID isn't science?

    Why don't you just admit that you don't care for science, and that you'd prefer your children to avoid learning actual science altogether? (as I suspect you managed to do)

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    Joe,

    I suggest you examine Daniel's credentials before you criticize his knowledge of biology.

    You say: "As for Christians and ID- that has as much bearing on anything as does atheists and the theory of evolution."

    Wrong. ID is promoted almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christian organizations. Evolution, on the other hand, is not promoted exclusively by atheists. Some atheists promote evolution. So has the Catholic church. Lots of evolutionary scientists are christians. They simply know how to separate faith from science.

    ARN, the Discovery Institute, Illustra Media, the IDEA center, the CSC, all are fundy Christian organizations.

     
  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger Joshua said…

    ID never says the designer must be supernatural, as was pointed out. That's a bogus claim that is parroted far too often.

    Since ID doesn't deal with the designer one way or another, there's no need to even consider whether the designer is natural or supernatural.

    Defining natural and supernatural is a problem to begin with. What is nature? Did it start with the big bang? If so, then by definition, everything that came before the big bang, we have no idea what it was, must have been supernatural...thus, the universe itself is the result of supernatural events. It's either that, or you're forced to posit that the laws of nature existed BEFORE the big bang...singularity says that the laws of nature must have ceased to function at the moment of the 'bang.'

    So, natural and supernatural become hard to define.

    Furthermore- no one need know a thing about the designer. Not a thing. If SETI gets a signal from space, they won't demand to know about the designer...we have NO experience with non-earth intelligence, yet if SETI gets a transmission that is labelled intelligent, from a creative source, etc. then they will label it a success...they won't demand that they meet and study the intelligence itself. So, no- we needn't know anything about an intelligence to know intelligent activites, intelligent results, etc. We can know design and never know the designer, even a designer we've never had any experience with.

    Design inference is no more merely an assumption than 'natural selection selected for it- there was no plan or guidance.' Design, from experience, we know comes from a designer. Design can be inferred from the various methods, IC, SC, etc. We know that things that are designed meet certain criteria. If something meets the criteria of design as we know design in the world, that's hardly just an assumption not based on facts and evidence.

    Daniel says there's no way to know if something (life) is the result of design of NS...well then, we cannot say with any certainty then that NS is the cause of anything, right? The sword cuts both ways...you can't claim that we cannot possibly tell the difference between the two then proclaim that ID isn't science but NDE IS! If you can't tell the diff between the two- then NS is off the table, because it's merely, as you say, an "unproven assumption."

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Daniel,

    "There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
    If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”

    But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom “concludes” and never “proves.”"

    The above is from a NCSE linked website:

    Science

    That should take care of that.

    How is the identity of the designer linked to the design when there isn't any way to determine the designer's identity, except for possibly by studying the design?

    IOW what can we tell about the Wright brothers just by examining the airplanes of today? Nothing.

    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into a population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

    Also the evidence shows YOU used the word "stupid" first. Can you even follow along?

    It is obvious that life's origins means more to any subsequent evolutionary theory than the designer's identity means to ID. How so? If life did not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those same type of processes.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Future Geek,

    "Christian evolutionist" is a contradiction in terms:

    Atheist Frank Zindler said,

    ‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’

    Sure people can call themselves "christian" and be an evolutionist, but that is living a contradiction that cannot be reconciled.

     
  • At 9:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The "need" to teach ID is due to the apparent ID ignorance you and future geek portray. However I also understand why neither of you can allow that to happen. That is because once ID reality is out then your ID strawman pap will not fly...

    Daniel, I care very much about science. From your postings it appears I understand science much better than you do.

    What definition of science do you use? I provided a definition in one of my essays (Why ID is scientific) and ID is OK with that definition.

    Also I noticed you avoided the main point- that being that it all boils down to something non or super natural. It can't be avoided.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Future Geek,

    Instead of worrying about who is promoting ID or funding ID institutes you would be better served by paying attention to the data.

    Right now you don't have an explanation for the data presented in the book The Privileged Planet except to say we won the cosmic lottery. Is that what you want taught in science classrooms?

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Daniel said…

    Joshua said
    ID never says the designer must be supernatural, as was pointed out. That's a bogus claim that is parroted far too often.

    No, Future Geek is on the money there. No one has ever given a serious example of who else your Designer could be other than God. Go read the Dover opinion, where Judge Jones describes the case and the evidence presented before him (specifically pages 22-36). With regard to your argument about the Big Bang, there's a big difference between saying "we don't know" and "A higher being did it."

    Also:Daniel says there's no way to know if something (life) is the result of design of NS...well then, we cannot say with any certainty then that NS is the cause of anything, right? The sword cuts both ways...you can't claim that we cannot possibly tell the difference between the two then proclaim that ID isn't science but NDE IS! If you can't tell the diff between the two- then NS is off the table, because it's merely, as you say, an "unproven assumption."

    Ah, but we've seen Natural Selection in action, and have observed in the fossil record, genetics, and ecology. Have you seen Intelligent Design? No.

    Joe said:
    "There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
    If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”


    Yes, there is such a thing as "THE Scientific Method.

    True, however, the "Scientific Method" is a rough outline of how real science is done. And real science continues by empirical evidence, adding to or refuting modern theories. So your comment about not proving things is beside the point - the point is there is no evidence that has any scientific merit which refutes modern evolutionary theory.

    How is the identity of the designer linked to the design when there isn't any way to determine the designer's identity, except for possibly by studying the design?

    Again, there's nothing to suggest that the design is "intelligent", or anything other than supernatural - which is untestable, unfalsifiable, and NOT science.

    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into a population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

    You should read Behe's failed attempt at proving "irreducible complexity", or some of this guy's work on the molecular evolution of bacteria.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    Joe,

    You say you are not a Christian - then how can you declare that someone cannot believe in evolution and be a christian? You must know a lot about Christianity for someone who doesn't practice or study it.

    You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. You cannot be a fundamentalist Christian, or a biblical literalist, and believe in evolution. Really, you can't be a biblical literalist and be a rational person, actually.

    My background is ancient history, religion, and language. I can tell you that the "myths" of the old testament are refuted by a lot more than evolutionary theory. Linguistic evidence shows us that the bible was not written by one person. Archeology shows us a whole lot about the Hebrews and their world. Other ancient texts teach us still more about the ancient world.

    What I am trying to say is, you can't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible unless you shut yourself off from the past 150 years of learning in all fields. But you can still have faith in the christian god and accept that there are mysteries of faith. You can also study creation and nature scientifically, without presuming that your human, fallible science will tell you all about God. In other words, you can separate faith from science.

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    Also I noticed you avoided the main point- that being that it all boils down to something non or super natural. It can't be avoided.

    To bring up this point again, no, I haven't avoided this fact. Indeed, this fact is one of the main reasons why ID is religious, not scientific.

     
  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    Joshua said:

    "ID never says the designer must be supernatural, as was pointed
    out. That's a bogus claim that is parroted far too often.

    Since ID doesn't deal with the designer one way or another,
    there's no need to even consider whether the designer is natural
    or supernatural."


    The whole idea that ID is not about the designer is just absurd.

    What the hell is it about then? How can it be about just the
    design and not the designer? How the hell can you even
    understand the design without trying to understand the designer?


    You say that it is ridiculous to imagine that the world as we
    know it could have just happened by chance - but you believe
    that there is a designer out there somewhere, who has intelligence as we understand it, who had some sort of motivation to create us, yet was not created himself?

    Oh, I get it, that's not what you are saying at all. It doesn't matter who the intelligent, purposeful designer is. Right.

    Let's take the murder analogy. You find someone dead with a knife in them. You could say, gee, they just fell on the knife.


    Or you could say, someone murdered them.

    Now, are you just going to limit yourself to figuring out how
    the murderer inserted the knife into the victims body? Or are
    you going to figure out who might have done it, and what their motivations are?

    Let's say you find a piece of alien technology. Are you just
    going to study the design? How can you hope to understand it, or even know its purpose, without knowing something about the
    aliens who designed it?

    If you use the words "Intelligent design," you are making your
    theory about the designer. The word "design" implies a motive or a purpose. "Intelligent" implies reason and thought processes like our own.

    ID has a whole range of assumptions, within it and behind it.

    To make all of these assumptions and then just flippantly say
    they don't matter is absolutely foolish.

    Indeed, if ID is only about the design, then what exactly are
    you studying once you have determined that life was designed?

    Scientist 1:"Gosh, that sure is complex."
    Scientist 2:"Yep, pretty complex."
    Scientist 1:"Yep. Really complex. Irreducibly complex."
    Scientist 2:"Yep."

    Are you saying that the designer just shouldn't be studied? Why not? why study the origins of the universe at all? What the hell is the point of studying anything if it doesn't matter where it came from?

    If you are searching for "truth" you would be best served by doing all you can to limit the effects of your own biases and assumptions on what you are studying. Intelligent design throws a whole bunch of assumptions into the mix.

    Isn't it just simpler to look at things as they are and search for their origins without muddling things up by imagining motives and intelligence?

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also I noticed you avoided the main point- that being that it all boils down to something non or super natural. It can't be avoided.

    Daniel sez:
    To bring up this point again, no, I haven't avoided this fact. Indeed, this fact is one of the main reasons why ID is religious, not scientific.

    You missed the point completely! And you have the nerve (in another postiung) to call me ignorant? LoL!

    It ALL boils down to something non or super natural. Even YOUR scenario can't get around that fact. So by YOUR logic it is all religious and nothing can be scientific!

    However we, educated people anyway, all know that science is about reality and following the evidence/ data.

    We exist Daniel. Either you can provide the data that shows our existence is due to some unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process or you just take that on faith- which means it is religious.

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Future Geek,

    I was a christian. I was brought up catholic and went to catholic schools. I most definitely know what it takes to be a christian.

    I posted why evolution and christianity are incompatible. If you have something to say about it then say it. If you can't rebut what is already posted I will assume it stands. I can't even find a christian evolutionist that can rebut it so don't worry. They just rant and flail like you did.

    ID does not rely on the Bible. ID is not based on any religious text. However Christianity is. It should be noted that there isn't any difference between a God who "created" via some blind watchmaker-type process and no God at all.

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FG sez:
    The whole idea that ID is not about the designer is just absurd.

    Actually it has been logically demonstrated why it is irrelevant. Why do you keep parroting that which has been refuted?

    Do we need to understand the Wright brothers BEFORE we can understand airplanes? Would understanding the Wright brothers help us understand airplanes? No.

    ID is about the detection AND understanding of the design. In the absence of direct observation or designer input how would you suggest we learn about the designer?

    YOUR PoV has many assumptions also. It assumes that humans evolved from a population of non-humans and THEN sets out to find confirming evidence. However it should be noted that we don't even know if such a transformation is even possible.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Judge Jones did not write his decision based on the data before him. That much is obvious.

    Daniel sez:
    Ah, but we've seen Natural Selection in action, and have observed in the fossil record, genetics, and ecology. Have you seen Intelligent Design?

    Natural selection can NOT be seen in the fossil record. That is just a crock. There isn't one person educated in biology or any science that would make that claim. Genetics shows that natural selection is a conserving force and that genetic homeostasis is real.

    How is the identity of the designer linked to the design when there isn't any way to determine the designer's identity, except for possibly by studying the design?

    Daniel sez:
    Again, there's nothing to suggest that the design is "intelligent",

    There is nothing to suggest the design is illusory either so we must not exist.

    Daniel continues:
    or anything other than supernatural - which is untestable, unfalsifiable, and NOT science.

    We are NOT trying to study the intelligence! The design is here and it can be studied.

    Then he avoids this (typical):

    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into a population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just to clear this up:

    Joe said:
    I merely linked to the NCSE- National Center for Science Education- endorsed website that stated the following:

    "There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
    If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”


    And I linked to it because of the part about "proof". You kept telling me that science was about proof. Now we both know it isn't.

    Daniel:
    Yes, there is such a thing as "THE Scientific Method.

    You keep missing the point of what is being said. Why is that? Oh well.

    Daniel:
    True, however, the "Scientific Method" is a rough outline of how real science is done. And real science continues by empirical evidence, adding to or refuting modern theories. So your comment about not proving things is beside the point - the point is there is no evidence that has any scientific merit which refutes modern evolutionary theory.

    What is the empirical evidence that supports it?

    And now do YOU understand that science is not about proving things? How can you "prove" that humans evolved from a non-human population?

    Further how could one falsify the claim that any particular organism or biological/ biochemical system was produced via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    As for processes, the explanatory filter as explained in another blog, is the best process we have for determining design without being biased towards that end. It's only "flaw" is that it relies heavily on the operator's knowledge and the operator's ability to stay current/ up-to-date with relevant data.

    The bottom-line is IDists are IDists because the data affords that inference.

    On another note- the Designer does not have to be "God". Eternal Salvation could be total crap and the design inference would still be valid. Jesus could just be another guy with good public relations, and the design inference would still be valid. The Greeks were discussing the design inference before Jesus. They did NOT have the God of Abraham in mind.

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I just noticed one of my "gaffs". Ooops...

    The following is incorrect:
    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into a population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

    It should have read:

    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

    My apologies for thinking faster than I type...

     
  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

    Ah, that's a fair point. And it's true, we just don't know how eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes. But still Joe, not knowing the answer does not mean "God must've done it" is a scientific statement.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And if you are a biologist perhaps you can provide the data that demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but population of single-celled organisms. Not one biologist has been able to do so yet. Needless to say they have yet to come up with anything except for variations of an already existing design...

    Daniel:
    Ah, that's a fair point.

    And I apologize for totally screwing it up. But hey it was a good design and therefore "evolved" into the proper setting.

    Daniel:
    And it's true, we just don't know how eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes.

    Oops, that was not the point I was making, although that is also an interesting "evolutionary" step. I'm very familiar with endo-symbiosis, membrane in-folding and even the premise that proks "devolved" from euks.

    My point is after that. Even though we have observed colonies, colonies are just aggregates and as far as we know that organisms that colonize always could. IOW we haven't taken a population of non-colonizing single-celled organisms and had a population of colonizing organisms "evolve" from it.

    Daniel:
    But still Joe, not knowing the answer does not mean "God must've done it" is a scientific statement.

    You have this fixation on God. It's like if you keep saying "God this..." or "God that..." that ID will align itself with God and therefore, in your mind, be religious.

    MY POINT is that "if we don't know" we shouldn't be teaching it, as science, that it happened. IOW if you apply the SAME standards to the theory of evolution as you do to ID you would see it doesn't pass the test.

    BTW, saying something was designed (the correct term for your "Goddidit") is just the beginning. SETI researchers will not stop once they determined a received signal was due to some ET. Archaeologists don't stop once they have determined an object was an artifact.

    Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus ALL conducted real science under the understanding they were uncovering God's handy-work. However using your "logic" they weren't conducting science at all.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    "ID is the mechanism! "

    de·sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
    v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
    v. tr.

    1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
    2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
    3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
    4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
    5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
    6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.




    So, a plan is the mechanism for building a house?

     
  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doppleganger asks:
    So, a plan is the mechanism for building a house?

    It is a mechanism. Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".

    Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".

    Which was different than
    Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.

    Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home