Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

PS, Sean Carrolls discussions of "fossil genes" is a great distinguisher of junk (fossil or unknown function) from coding. Im amazed at how you insist that, with the growing understandings we have of "fossil genes" and inheritability of epigenes how you seem to want to deny natural selection is a mystery , unless of course you just wish to feed your worldview despite the evidence.

We agree at last. When I can't fly myself, I would rather make the 30 hour drive here to my off grid shack than get on one of those flying cattle cars.

Hold on there, I think it's this thread where I said for the purposes of ID discussion I would give you carte blanc on evolution/natural selection. It's the Intelligent Design of a life form that is so adaptable that is in dispute. If that was another thread, sorry. My low bandwidth out here makes searching agony.

The only reason youve presented is the verisimilitude of ID that genomes [provide you. I am unaware of how that provides you with any evidence.

Wifi in the Rockies, thatd make a neat name for a rock band

Intelligent Design need not conflict with evolution. In quantum physics, there is a concept called "complementarity", the most frequently-cited example being the electron as both particle and wave depending upon one's experiment. This is sometimes illustrated using Gestalt images, such as the one which may either be seen as a rabbit or as a duck. To say that this image is of a duck is correct and to say that it is a rabbit is also correct, although neither gives the whole truth. Certain philosophical questions (eg. brain states and mental states) may be amenable to much the same approach and, I suggest, so may the ID/evolution-by-natural-selection issue.
David Seargent

ID is in conflict with evidence-based reasoning. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution via natural selection, none that I've found for an intelligent designer. Subjective psychological preferences don't amount to much outside one's own mind.

again. please show us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

don't you see what is wrong with that reasoning?

There is overwhelming evidence that people like you refuse to accept that an "intelligent designer" might design "evolution via natural selection" as its preferred path to where we are.

Why are so many of your type as close-minded as the "the Earth is 6000 years old" people? And considering that you are, why are you so scornful of those others?

I try very hard to understand where you are coming from at times but I will say that you are a gentleman and you deserve a lot of credit for that.

The way I see it is, if there is a God is there any other way for him to come into existence other than by natural selection? Or was he intelligently designed?

I do not know how much longer I can wait to hear your side of the story about being a priest in the other thread. You do know I am old and dieing?

We can posit and speculate about intelligent designers of intelligent designers of intelligent designers and what they chose to design a long ways and never reach the end of that infinite regress.

Better, as far as I can tell, to just stick with asking/looking for credible, unambiguous evidence that the one up to bat at the moment even exists. I haven't seen any, nor has anyone else been able to provide any to date. My eyes and ears are open, though.

Wherever evidence exists, its easy to reject the old stories with which we all grew up and once accepted.

Its like being shown that the moon IS NOT made of green cheese.

IMHO-Theistic evolution is a final holdout position of someone who was shown the pile of evidence that science has in its cabinet, but still desires a nice story with which to identify.

That the pile of evidence clearly shows that various environmental changes account for natural selection and that drift also accounts for evolution without nat selection and that even a bit of Lamarkian thinking is creeping back into science (what with the possibility that a parents "bad habits" are heritable to its offspring), Most reasonable thinking people with a little savvy in this field really dont spend any time trying to "do a best fit" with our old stories of a Supreme Being in charge.

Even most biological scientists who DO profess being "believers" have gone over to a transcendent supreme being.
When its possible to see things evolving due to man made barriers to a species "free ranging" , or seeing evolution responding to continental drift or global warming, its hard to keep coming up with special cases where a supreme being would have any input to these natural situations (Unless of course you feel that everything that happens is under somethings control).
That position, IMHO is just a waste of anyones time .

Your "possibility" of ID keeps shrinking away in relevence as science identifies the specifics of "how" evolution workks.

Still, if all you wish to do is stand around yelling at people without any details besides some blank assertion , you are, I suppose you know, starting to sound like Quahog .
I think your "possibilities" of ID need as much convincing evidence to support as does "interference free" natural election . Standing around name calling without anything deeper is really an easy position. All youve been doing for about 10 years is to take this "copout position" without defending it. No wonder many people think that your just all vines and no grapes.

I think frank is getting very old like many of us and may be struggling with thoughts of death. I myself may start believing in a heaven when the time gets very close. "especially if I get the kind of drugs I would want" [who knows a person may not need drugs when they get that close, The brain may have a natural way of deluding you more and more as the time gets closer.
If I do start experiencing this I hope I will not be here for all of you to tell me otherwise.

Isn't that the assumption of virtually all believers? If there is a God who created life and the universe, how could he be anything other than transcendent beyond the laws of physics, biology, science, et al.

Lately, even atheist scientists believe that the laws of physics are not sacrosanct.

Beliefs are incredible when it comes to intuitions.

I believe therefore I must act with violence to save the world.

This is why some people should not have a gun. Can you see where this could go?

Minus the "lately." Since its beginning, physicists have been challenging prevailing theories and models. When sufficient evidence is accumulated, published, reviewed, tested by others and challenged in every reasonable way, if it still holds up, the old models/theories go out with the trash. Evidence. Powerful stuff. Much more powerful than myths, traditions and feel-good fantasies that lack supporting empirical data. Again, evidence is key. You got it, you got something to work with. You don't got it, and your story is no better than the next guy's.

True. But of course you knew I'd give it a theological spin :-)

Your example is why the vetting process here on earth is so through.

Can you imagine where it could go in an environment where every thought is immediately executed in action?

Me and you may be through with it but now we have these crazy people "vetting and voting in our place. Maybe we should join them so that they do not out rule us?

I said 'lately' because I think the application of 'methodological approach' has reached new heights. In times past, scientists just assumed we didn't know enough about the laws and needed to know them more completely. The leaps being made nowadays are in a whole new realm. 'Universes from nothing', 'brane' universes - that kind of totally unfounded crap.