Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@FBM,
so you really know everything there is to know, right?

He's trying to get over loosing his religion. It's a pretty traumatic thing.

ad hominem fallacy/red herring. Got any evidence for that god of yours yet? You promised you had some.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

They've published a mountain of pretty good research recently

Im sorry but I dont include any "Self published" crap as valid.
Dr Austen tried to bamboozle the Geological Society of America by presenting an abstract of a paper that showed evidence for the " Great flood Geology" in the Grand Canyon. He was quietly dissected by a bunch of mere Grad students who tore him a new one. All they did was to show the Discovery Institute crowd that, within the layers of formations that Austen claimed were flood deposits and remnants of "A Great Flood", were several separate and distinct layers of SAND DUNES and Continental alluvial and bank deposits.

Wheres this "mountain of evidence " in any reputable scientific literature. You can try to sound erudite and claim that its out there and any one can easily find it. Thats crap. SHOW US SOME "FER EXAMPLES".

How bout some new stuff on molecular biology that claims irreducible complexity (we will quietly stipulate that IC is even a valid fact)

Anyone can adopt a web site, throw up a blog and claim that the moon is made of Camembert. It needs to be thoroughly vetted . Thorough vetting is something that the Creationists and IDers DO NOT want to happen. It becomes rather embarrasing for them.

Over this entire segment of the thread, youve been denying the threads overall position by trying to claim that science is a religion.
When someone asks you for the mountain of evidence you claim, you back off.
WHY?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

"Darwinian " as a concept, has been tested incourt, Creationism has also. Creationism has been thoroughly inspected by the US SUPREME COURT and found to be Religion, Darwinian thought, not so. Intelligent Design has also been inspected by Fed District III and found invalid as a "Scientific Discipline" by a series of "tests" utilized by the Court to reach a verdict AGainst ID being taught in biology at a Pennsylvania Public High SChool

Our US Supreme Courts and District Courts are usually packed with Theistic Judges who , while they maintain a faith of their own, arent easily convinced that "Scientific Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are anything but religious teaching and therefore arent given a pass under the "Esatablishment Clause" of the First Amendment to our Constitution.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Wheres this "mountain of evidence " in any reputable scientific literature. You can try to sound erudite and claim that its out there and any one can easily find it. Thats crap. SHOW US SOME "FER EXAMPLES".

I have mainly made my case by citing the complex DNA encoding and cellular mechanisms whose origins have never been explained and in many ways, defy scientific explaination. Evolutionists generally admit that those origins have been forever lost due to the timeframe. This is from BOTH Discovery Institute and sources that you accept. We have had about as deep a discussion about those things as anyone else reading this forum is likely able to follow. If others want to verify it they can read DI' s work. I've already mentioned "Signature In The Cell" but there are many others. They just came out with a new book answering the critics of "Darwin's Doubt", a previous book on the Cambrian Explosion.

Discovery Institute does not do any biological research of its own, that is not their mission. They merely keep up with the research and analyze how it supports the ID hypothesis. I think it does, even though the data they are working from comes largely from people who would lose their research grants if they even mentioned ID. I think it was the editor of the Smithsonian magazine who was fired for agreeing to publish a paper on ID. The only basis was the fact that it dealt with the subject. That is level of hostility there is to the very concept of ID.

DI also looks for every criticizim of their analysis and answers it, either in formal publication of books or on their website. If you want to debate specific points they raise, bring it on. The fact that some judge in Texas says it's hooey means nothing to me or anyone else serious about scientific debate.

I'm not here to defend DI. The subject came up because you demanded examples. Notice that you have refuted my arguments not by invalidating the arguments but by trash talking the source and citing others (a Texas judge) who do the same. No interest in that game. I'd prefer to debate the science person to person as long as they stick to the point rather than make ad hominem attacks.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Right. So DI takes genuine science and filters it through the ID lens. Ignoring what they don't like and distorting the rest to fit their preconceived, preferred, feel-good conclusion. What else is new? It's just fiddling with rhetoric. Word-wrangling. Come up with some genuine, credible evidence for your god hypothesis. Where is this god of yours? Show us something.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
"Darwinian " as a concept, has been tested incourt, Creationism has also. Creationism has been thoroughly inspected by the US SUPREME COURT and found to be Religion, Darwinian thought, not so. Intelligent Design has also been inspected by Fed District III and found invalid as a "Scientific Discipline" by a series of "tests" utilized by the Court to reach a verdict AGainst ID being taught in biology at a Pennsylvania Public High SChool

Our US Supreme Courts and District Courts are usually packed with Theistic Judges who , while they maintain a faith of their own, arent easily convinced that "Scientific Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are anything but religious teaching and therefore arent given a pass under the "Esatablishment Clause" of the First Amendment to our Constitution.

It occurred to me that one problem the ID argument has is that it requires a deep understanding of both cellular biology and computer science. As an EE who designed computers and peripherals I get the CS part and learned the biology on my own. Lawyers are pretty ill equipped to understand the argument.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Right. So DI takes genuine science and filters it through the ID lens. Ignoring what they don't like and distorting the rest to fit their preconceived, preferred, feel-good conclusion. What else is new? It's just fiddling with rhetoric. Word-wrangling. Come up with some genuine, credible evidence for your god hypothesis. Where is this god of yours? Show us something.

More ad hominem. Boring.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I have mainly made my case by citing the complex DNA encoding and cellular mechanisms whose origins have never been explained and in many ways, defy scientific explaination. Evolutionists generally admit that those origins have been forever lost due to the timeframe. This is from BOTH Discovery Institute and sources that you accept.

This is a bit of assertion , not evidence. You know darn well that genes on Chromosomes are mostly retained in the genome and not lost. Horners proposal to "create a dinosaur" by merely turning genes "off or on" in a chicken embryo is something that, in small experiments is already being done. Retention of "fossil genes" is the subject of Sean Carroll's bookMAKING of the FITTEST.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Right. So DI takes genuine science and filters it through the ID lens. Ignoring what they don't like and distorting the rest to fit their preconceived, preferred, feel-good conclusion. What else is new? It's just fiddling with rhetoric. Word-wrangling. Come up with some genuine, credible evidence for your god hypothesis. Where is this god of yours? Show us something.

More ad hominem. Boring.

You really need to bone up on basic logic. That's not an ad hom. I didn't attack you instead of your argument. I analyzed DI's and ID's approach to reasoning. Dude. Do you even logic? But enough of the red herring. Where's your evidence for your god? Got anything? Anything at all? After all the big talk about having some? Still got nothing to show? Wonder why that is? Maybe it's because that imaginary friend of yours is...well, an imaginary friend...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:

"I have mainly made my case by citing the complex DNA encoding and cellular mechanisms whose origins have never been explained and in many ways, defy scientific explaination. Evolutionists generally admit that those origins have been forever lost due to the timeframe. This is from BOTH Discovery Institute and sources that you accept."

_________

This is a bit of assertion , not evidence. You know darn well that genes on Chromosomes are mostly retained in the genome and not lost. Horners proposal to "create a dinosaur" by merely turning genes "off or on" in a chicken embryo is something that, in small experiments is already being done. Retention of "fossil genes" is the subject of Sean Carroll's bookMAKING of the FITTEST.

I said ORIGINS of DNA's information content. Please stay on point. This is the ID thread, not Evolution or Is There a God. For the purposes of this discussion we can say that evolution of the species is fact. Now please continue.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

It occurred to me that one problem the ID argument has is that it requires a deep understanding of both cellular biology and computer science. As an EE who designed computers and peripherals I get the CS part and learned the biology on my own. Lawyers are pretty ill equipped to understand the argument.

The BIGGEST problem with ID is that , while science searches for facts and continually adjusts its concluions, ID and CREATIONISM starts with their conclusions and then searches for something they can use as facts

Your above two posts have really done nothing to provide anything approaching an ID "mounain '
Ill accept just one example , and maybe we can begin there.

While Discovery Institute (you say) doesnt do research, they sereve as the board by which money os distributed to those posing as researchers seeking to find evidence that backs up theior"universal Intelligence" conclusion.

Using AND DEMANDING that evolution is "guided by your cosmic computer" is a part that I cannot even give the time of day. If there is some cosmic computer, is it anticipating all these mini environmental changes all over the world (Hell, the GALAXY).
You forget paleo, because the demonstrations os species changes in short distances and brief time periods can be proven to be totally fortuitous occurences due to tectonics, climate shifts, or some other change in the environment (most of it within the geology realm)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

It occurred to me that one problem the ID argument has is that it requires a deep understanding of both cellular biology and computer science. As an EE who designed computers and peripherals I get the CS part and learned the biology on my own. Lawyers are pretty ill equipped to understand the argument.

The BIGGEST problem with ID is that , while science searches for facts and continually adjusts its concluions, ID and CREATIONISM starts with their conclusions and then searches for something they can use as facts

Your above two posts have really done nothing to provide anything approaching an ID "mounain '
Ill accept just one example , and maybe we can begin there.

While Discovery Institute (you say) doesnt do research, they sereve as the board by which money os distributed to those posing as researchers seeking to find evidence that backs up theior"universal Intelligence" conclusion.

Using AND DEMANDING that evolution is "guided by your cosmic computer" is a part that I cannot even give the time of day. If there is some cosmic computer, is it anticipating all these mini environmental changes all over the world (Hell, the GALAXY).
You forget paleo, because the demonstrations os species changes in short distances and brief time periods can be proven to be totally fortuitous occurences due to tectonics, climate shifts, or some other change in the environment (most of it within the geology realm)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Backing off eh? Im sure if you had arguments youd use em. Science will say "We dont know" . ID merely ignores the points or declares them OFF TOPIC.

I think weve established that ID is a religious belief many many pages ago. Im not here to rehash my cabbage with you, you seem to be unarmed .
If you cant comment of retention of genes in the genome and then assert what we do or dont know is just another way of saying
HEY I DONT KNOW ...OH LOOK ,A SQUIRREL"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

While Discovery Institute (you say) doesnt do research, they sereve as the board by which money os distributed to those posing as researchers seeking to find evidence that backs up theior"universal Intelligence" conclusion.

Using AND DEMANDING that evolution is "guided by your cosmic computer" is a part that I cannot even give the time of day. If there is some cosmic computer, is it anticipating all these mini environmental changes all over the world (Hell, the GALAXY).

I see you may be either lacking in the computer science end of things or that you are making no attempt at following my train of thought. I was not alluding to any "cosmic computer" and have never 'DEMANDED' anything of evolution. Assertions indeed. In point of fact, In my last post I gave you carte blanc on the question of evolution. Again, stick to the point.

The computer I was referring to is IN THE CELL. I know you have a passing understanding of cellular mechanics with regard to protein manufacture. If you had any computer science chops you would immediately recognize the identical structure to a computer and not assume I'm looking in the sky for it.

You or one of your entourage previously disparaged the computer complexity by some example of rocks rolling down hill and then some cave man counting them - voila!, a computer from nature you said. The computer in that illustration is in the head of the man, not the frigg'n rocks.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You seem to be stuck in one track Re: the definition of life. My familiarity is with biochemistry and covalent and surface reactions first and geochem later. I dont try to claim that "all life is a big computer" because its probably not true. The hardest thing in the rise of life was probably attaining a cell wall, and carrying out respiration (both of which are understood biochemically and dont really need a complex genome (some say it doesnt need a genome at ALL).

The "meat computer" devised the PC, just as the first mathematician assembled some rocks an made an abacus > In most sciences we make ANALOGIES and not try to get caught up on a one track road of logic.

As far as disparaged, IT IS YOU who started with the Willaim Paley rgument and was trying to foist that logic upon me. The argument that you made is over 200 years old and when Reverend Paley first made it, he spoke of a "timepiece" lying in a heath . All you did was update it and then you expected cheers. IT WAS A LAME ARGUMENT THEN and times have not improved it.

Duane Gishupdated the same argument about the impossibility of sending a tornado through a junkyard creating a 707 jetliner.

It is me telling you that you should now go out and read some biochemistry and molecular biology texts where Im sure you will learn how much we really understand regarding chemical bonding , reactions, and potentials.

It involves a little higher math but its quite approachableDaniel Fairbanks RELICS OF EDEN or Neil SHubin's YOUR INNER FISH

You seem to be saying that you wish to continue discussing ID and NOT evolution eh? The only thing worth discussing is how ID misses the mark in science and has no real evidence to support its "beliefs"

Lately, the IDers have begun accepting evolution as a directed force, delivered by this intelligence . However at no time has this intelligence been quantified with any reasonable methods or its own visible evidence

1 Reply

@farmerman,

We have both made our points on the topic, nothing to ge gained by repetition. Plenty here for others to follow up on if they wish.

Let me see, Farmerman will now reply with:
"What Points! You have made no points at all! Backing off now, are you? Blah, blah, blah...."

1 Reply

BOTTOM LINE:

If there is the possibility of a god...

...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

If there is a GOD...the GOD could have designed things so that it all ends up right where we are...via the means science is discovering we got here.

How we got to where we are...assuming what we call the reality is the REALITY...IS being discovered by science. But there is absolutely no way science, logic, nor reason can come to "there are no gods."

Which means as much as it hurts some of the people here...it is possible that intelligent design is a part of REALITY.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You made points. They were logically flawed and devoid of substance and they were easily shot down, but they were points.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

"I have mainly made my case by citing the complex DNA encoding and cellular mechanisms whose origins have never been explained and in many ways, defy scientific explaination.

DNA coding seems to support an evolutionary path of life. For example, genes associated with certain body features on an organism dont "disappear" in subsequent derived species. The genes are retained on the chromosomes but are non functioning. They become "fossil genes".
How about the gene compliment of humans v chimpanzees(and all great apes). The genomes are practically the same except that there is one big visible difference.A human genome has one less chromosome than that of the great apes. Chimps and gorillas have 24 chromosomes and humans have 23.In 1982 Yunis and Prakash published THE LANDMARK paper on the evolution of humans from apes from a genetic viewpoint. They looked at this chromosomal difference and found that every human chromosome has a matching chromosome on chimps and apes , except for one, human chromosome 2 , which"sorta" matches 2 different chromosomes in the great apes.(At that time, they couldnt analyze the makeup of telomeres or centromeres with any equipment then available.)
The two ape chromosomes that match human chromosome 2 , are chimp chromosome 2A and 2B. Their structures and all their DNA align them perfectly with human chromosome 2.
The analyses of these facts are that, if humans and chimps shared a "common ancestor" human chromosome 2 probably was formed by the fusion of 2A and 2B after human lines split from the one that would arrive as a modern chimp. Or , fission of chimp chromosome 2a and 2B may have resulted from fission of an ancestral chromosome after the chimp and human lines split, OR, as some Creationists had tried to assert, These two lines may have originated independently with no evolutionary relationship, just a mere illusion of it.

9 years after Prakash and Yuris paper , another team cleared up the evidence. The showed that the TELOMERES of the apes chromosomes 2A and 2B are found in the deqd center of human chromosome 2All the DNA of the 158 repeat alleles that define the TELOMERES of the apes are found and aligned perfectly in a humans chromosome 2. The entire structure of a chimps chromosmes 2A ansd 2B are hung together just like and extension ladder where the rungs of the ladder re made up prfectly of the two "horter ladders " of an apes chromosomes 2A and 2B. The telomeres of the two ape chromosomes are fused "head to head" to form a human chomosome 2 . The team (from Yale -boola boola) produced a "MAP" of the fusion point and the entire sequences of DNA of both the ape and the human. The centromeres of the ape and hiuman chromosomes align also align except for one centromere which ,Avarello called an alphoid sequence,it is sorta retained in the human genome as a "fossil remnant site" where a torn up centromere of Chimp chromosome 2B remains.
Howd this happen you ask?? I think a reasonable conclusion is evolution clear and unmistakable. The chromosomal fusion in human no. 2 happened AFTER the lineage leading to humans diverged for the lineage that arrived at the great apes. This stuff is 35 and 25 years old but seems to be totally ignored by all Creationist/ID readers

1.JJ Yunis and O Prakash-The Origin of Man: a Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy ,(1982)SCIENCE 215]

2. J W Ijdo et al. Origin of Human Chromosome 2: An Ancestral Telomere-Telomere Fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 88 (1991)

3. R Averello et al. Evidence for an Ancestral Alphoid Domain on the Long ARm of Human Chromosome 2.Human Genetics 89 (1992)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Software subroutine re-use is very common in program design. No need to reinvent the wheel ya know. I used routines first written for a washing machine controller in an automotive engine controller. In some far flung future When humans have passed on, some extraterrestrial archeologist will conclude that cars evolved from washing machines :-)

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know