Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

AW midog. In Maine yet!!

Id suggest then that you bone up on the actual history of the "modern ID movement" in the US.
1.In 1987-89, when the US SUpreme Court took on the case against the state of Louisiana's requirement to "TEACH SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM" in public school science the modern ID movement was conceived./

2. The publication of Phillip Johnsons book "Darwin on Trial" became the basis for the movement

3A rather wealthy conservative GOP fqmily began funding the Discovery "Institute for the "REBIRTH OF CULTURE AND SCIENCE"

4. They mostly kept the "scientific bases" of "Scientific Creationism" and merely removed any reference to a GOD as the "Intelligence surrounding Creation"

5. SAME **** DIFFERENT NAME, or CREATIONISM IN A LABCOAT.

6. A key text in regular use by schools wanting to (THEN) teach ID, was "OF PANDA's AND PEOPLE". This book was also in use by the "Scientific Creationism crowd. The only change in the text was that the word "Creationism" or "Scientific Creationism" was removed and the word "Intelligent Design" inserted.

I hope you understand the cynicism with which I receive your offerings about aspects of science or mathematics.
Theres a whole lot more just on the news between , say 1989 and 2007.
As I sid before, its been rather quiet in the culture wars. Wandel just posted a piece about the new ED Secretary for the state of Maine. Appears this guy is a Creationist. I wonder whats on his mind.

NCSE is a great clearing hlouse for everything about the Creation/ID gang. (National Center for Science Education)
They have a pretty good web site.

Oh, Timur. If you weren't here, I'd try to invent you.

You do thrash about...and that is about the only thing you do with facility.

But I hope you keep starting these silly fights with me as often as you can. I ought to be ashamed of enjoying kicking the crap out of you every time you do...

...but I am not.

Not a bit.

You deserve everything I send you way.

Love ya, Timur.

Try to smile once in a while!



TIMUR'S REAL AVATAR!

You are a desperate case of obtuseness..

You are a guy who starts thing he cannot finish...and then cries like a baby because he cannot.

Hey...you are a friend. Don't worry. I'll finish it for you...just like I have every time you've been a silly boy and started one of these things.

You are right. It does seem that interest has waned some.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22intelligent%20design%22&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Your characterization of ID as a unified group is as inaccurate as doing the same with Conservatives or Liberals. There are all types of fringes in all groups. You don't even have to look outside of this thread to see that.

I've done the best I can to present the views of the segment of the ID community that I agree with. I think you are also purposly ignoring the obvious divide between what is popularly known today as 'Creationism' and ID. For example, no one at the Discovery Institute would be caught supporting the "Creation Museum" with it's ludicrous displays of humans cavorting with dinosaurs.

I'm sure there are examples of 'creationists' that contribute to ID groups on the theory that it 'combats atheism'. That proves nothing about the legitimacy of what I mean by ID.

doesnt really matter about the creation museum. The fact is that there are really only two ID genesis groups
1 Those who name the IDer

2 Those who dont

Outside of an "alien" argument via Panspermia as was the "belief" of Francis Crick, all the rest really come back to a meddling , not-so-intelligent deity.

Even if the aliens did it, they hadda start sometime and someplace , so we just keep kickin the can down the road with that story.

If you really say that you are both an evolutionist nd an IDer (perhaps a theistic evolutionist?)
Id suggest readingKen Millers book Finding Darwin's God. I dont buy it pwrsonally , I feel that there is enough evidence now to weigh in on a biotic world that began in mean abiogenic and continued in means very very opportunistic subject to the physical changes of the geology of our home planet.

The origins and development of life on earth clearly follow patterns of the environment (weve discussed them over and over in these fora and I just think that they are purposely ignored by those holding a worldview that requires intervention by some super intelligence)

The funniest argument , to me, is when some of the IDers will claim that "Evolution is how the Designer was trying to make it look-like". Why's that? . So heres a super intelligence who is fuckin with these molecules and its "designing" a world several billion years down the road BUT the intelligence is so smart as to know every nook and turn so that the entire teleological "fabric" is woven back in the Hadean Times and this designer is planning its moves to realize that this hairless inquisitive beast with 10 fingers and a bigass brain would be questioning the designers every move and thius the designer would have to plant little diversion "clues " with perfect rdioactive decay constants and half lives of over 60 different chunks of matter with which the hairless 10 fingered beast could feel good about himself for measuring almost any pile of old rock that contained its dead relatives and all the past species.
Im sorry, I dont buy that part at all, Theres too much you have to keep separate from real data and you have to ignore so many plain features of the planets history .

Ken Miller's god is totally trnscendant and had NOTHING to do with anything. "He" is just a super being who invented love, and mothers.


NOW, I must say that it would be hard for me to buy into all of that EVEN IF THE IDers SCIENCE WERE RIGHT (WHICH IT AINT BY A LONG SHOT). Thhe biggest fact that looms out there is that almost ALL of the science (so far) that the IDers have cooked up (like Dr Behes Irreducible complexity tests) have ALL been debunked--mostly by Canadian an New ENgland grad students with too much free time in between doing their own research and the rest of their dreary lives.

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

If there is the possibility of very advanced alien life...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

But the anti-intelligent designers simply cannot acknowledge something as obvious as that.

Kinda funny to watch...because they are doing exactly what they so abhor in the IDer's.

Go play with yourself Frank. I dont feel like dropping to your IQ level just to underpin your sagging self esteem.

Tomorrow is meat loaf day at the mission, go find a nice heater grate, cover up for the night and dream about meat loaf. (Its about as much biology as youre capable of taking in)

Wondering what you make of this, like how strong a case they make: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/14/1517557112

we have pretty good info about biogenic carbon in fine grained sediments in Greenland. Its got a high C12/C13 ratio. This one, , comes from Australia and is probably a graphic granite.
Concordia curves need a bunch of random data so, theyve probably been on this for a while

C12 has always been the primary chem signature of life.
If this is real, it indictes that life isnt rare, its almost a "sure thing" and it shows up quite soon fter things get into some thermal "Goldilox" zone

Or Gawd was in a hurry. Maybe other things on his t0-do list for the eon?

well, he did wanna make it look like everything just chemically reacted and then evolved all over the place. (Made a mess of his tablecloth actually)

Yeah...I knew you were incapable of even acknowledging something as obvious as I wrote.

You ARE exactly what you find so wrong with your opponents.

Live with it.

It's interesting that the starting point of life keeps getting pushed further & further back in time which makes Farmerman et al 'life is inevitable' thing the only alternative to 'Gawd'.

It does give Darwinian evolution a bit of a problem. The great man himself said if it doesn't happen very gradually, it's all BS. You guys are litterally running out of time going backwards :-)

But this is great fun. Keep the good science coming!

That's some pretty bizarre spin there. The gaps that your god might be wedged into are getting smaller and fewer by day. Glad you're enjoying the ride.

And just what makes it 'bizarre'? It seemed pretty logical to me.

Where is your logic in how this 'narrows the gaps'?

Another take on it would be that it calls into question the reliability of methodology used to determine signs of life, dating life, etc if it turns out to be caused by something other than 'life'.

Always open to alternative takes if it makes sense.

I think you should read further as to what he really said re: the origins of .life (which is where FBM's link was about. Anyway, nowhere can you find a reference by Darwin where anything but his "small steps, " scenario is "BULLSHIT"
Did you know that he produced 6 editions of The" Origins...", and each edition he has revised some important concepts that he offered in "Edition 1". I suggest that you acquire and thumb through Morse Peckham's "Variorum" volume (First written in 1959). Peckham compares EVERY LINE of each of the 6 volumes and lets us draw conclusions as to what Darwin meant. (Also, you can then (if you wish to become a Darwin SCholar)) visit the entire communications of Darwin collection (its on the web) to see what it was that made Darwin even make the textual changes.