Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Your head is up your ass fella. Ive asked you to read certain concepts and youve answered that "Im not interested in history" THAT is the truth and anyone here can comment on your "I cant hear you--I cant hear you " replies. (Youd actually answered with an intelligent yada yada,And I know you knew nothing about the subject because of the subsequent comments)
Maybe its when the martinis kick in that you suffer these lapses in memory.

What about the discovery of specific nucleotides in stellar spectra and bolides. You refused to read and so discuss.

YA LSoS.

Heres another attempt at sending you some much needed historical information regarding how Creationism and Creationism/ID is vieed by several of the US courts (District and SUpreme).

We had a few other folks who denied the court systems right to uphold constitutional interpretations in this issue but want the US SUpreme court to continue to uphold challenges to the 2nd amendments unlimited scope.

At least I recognize that court challenges need to set aside previous decisions (in the case of USSC reviewing itself, and overturning loqer court rulings)
SO FAR, the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE has been upheld by both political camps on the USSC

http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

2 Replies

@farmerman,

By the way leadfoot, you DO realize that me and Lamont are arguing about whether evolution is a purely random occurence that affects nucleotides only at the molecular level but that natural selection is the preferred means of removing or developing morphological change at the phenotype level. (Kimura, and most of paleontology),OR, genetic drift affects and dominates all genotypic and phenotypic change(Nei, most of Moran's Sandwalk readers).
You are much farther off the mark than you think, because , if we apply ID thinking, you must develop yet a THIRD means for affecting phenotypic change. (Because you did, qhether you meant to or not--- acknowledge that evolution is FACT). Lamont says hes not trying to undercut the validity of evolution(Ill give him a dubious pass on that but Im still concerned as to why he mostly clips from ID sources without reading spcifically what Kimura wrote )

Also, wrt you and I

I said before (way back 20 pages or more), that life had tried to get kick started on this planet at least 3 times that we know of. e know that because of looking for specific chemicals that
1. chemically "fossilize" and these same chemicals have occured and have been identified in 3 different isotopically dated stratigraphically separate sediments from the late Hadean and into the Eoarchean .

2 these chemical fossils have been originally type sectioned from Archaea from the Cenozoic . Using Uniformitarinism weve been able to "back date" their occurence in several earlier sediments all the way back to pre CAmbrian (early pC) times
Set tried to correct your "bacteria came first crap" and then I tried to explain why that was something that paleogeochemists had "decoded" . Then , while you sorta acknowledged that your one phrase was incorrect, you did NOT acknowledge that your entire POINT of discussion was inaccurate.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You keep trying to define ID as synonymous with the religious creationist movement but that is a dodge on your part. Get over it. I'm not here to defend the religious creationists or the Discovery Institute.

The question as I or anyone genuinely interested understands it is whether or not natural causes are sufficient to explain the emergence of life or if intelligence being involved is a more plausible explanation. If you want to argue court cases instead, I'll assume that's because you are unable to argue the real issue here. The OP is not 'Dover vs K'.

Quote:

What about the discovery of specific nucleotides in stellar spectra and bolides. You refused to read and so discuss.

I answered that already. That is yet another dodge. I have already stipulated that the basic organic ingredients necessary for life could have conceivably occurred by natural processes and that there are conditions where they would form nucleotides and matrices where they could link up into chains ALBEIT IN RANDOM ORDER. What you have not been able to show is that a sufficiently ordered self replicating molecule capable of evolution could occur by chance or by natural processes. Your cries of 'irreducible complexity has been debunked!' do not address this question (or anything else for that matter).

That is the core of the ID argument. Either you have a plausible argument for how it happened from natural causes or you don't.

So put up or shut up.

2 Replies

That's not "intelligent design," which was promulgated and defined by the Discovery Institute. You're trying to make up your own definition, and hook it on to some bizarre statement about "abiogensis--which means you have struck out on your own.

But, of course, Leadhead is never wrong . . .

Ramen

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes I realize the evolutionary arguments you and layman are discussing. That's a related thing but not what I was addressing.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

That's not "intelligent design," which was promulgated and defined by the Discovery Institute

Until you have read "Signature In The Cell" from the Discovery Institute you are not qualified to have a valid opinion on that.

What I outlined in my post to farmer is a fundamental part of ID, even as defined by DI.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

I am not a bible literalist, i am a bible moralist of only the words and morality of Lord Jesus, hence I am a Christian a follower of Christ, not of the Old Testament or the apostles, or any other teacher in the bible, only a follower of Lord Jesus. Thats why I don't understand why a lot of Christians take the Genesis so literally, Lord Jesus doesn't say I have to believe everything in the bible, but only his words. I have no hang-ups about evolution or science because I don't believe everything in the bible, only the words of Lord Jesus which he says"No one comes to God the Father except through me" (absolutely not through anyone else in the bible whatsoever) As far as I know, God created all life and evolution.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The question as I or anyone genuinely interested understands it is whether or not natural causes are sufficient to explain the emergence of life or if intelligence being involved is a more plausible explanation. If you want to argue court cases instead, I'll assume that's because you are unable to argue the real issue here. The OP is not 'Dover vs K'.

In most ALL of the cases liated, the defenses ere alloqed to present PROOF why their beliefs were science. They didnt seem to win any converts. (Courts can be bitchy arbiters cant they-especially when they dont go the way you want)

The only case of which Im aware that science lost was the Dayton Tennessee Case under the auspices of the Tennessee "Butler ACt" . But in that case the biologists lawyers were not allowed to present any scientific data. (Youd have probably agreed with that courts methodology)

Quote:

What you have not been able to show is that a sufficiently ordered self replicating molecule capable of evolution could occur by chance or by natural processes. Your cries of 'irreducible complexity has been debunked!' do not address this question (or anything else for that matter).

Sounds like you want to invoke a kind of " God of the GAPS We get you so damn close to the actual chemicals in RNA found in stellar spectra (they also found uracil) AS wellas the isoprenes found in a non phospholipid polymer cell wall that specific extremophyllic archea sport-- and the fact that those chemicals(isoprenes) have been found as chemical fossils in at least 3 separate "life kick start events" on the planet. YET you need some more evidence to "believe the facts of science have anything to do with life". YOU are being quite disiengenuous in that you require huuuuge masses of perfect evidence for science but you hqve NONE to present other than a hunch and a prayer. GOT IT!

Quote:

Your cries of 'irreducible complexity has been debunked!' do not address this question (or anything else for that matter).

Qell yes they do actually. It means that ALL of your supposed evidence is NONEXISTENT . Your side tries and tries to present some data and evidence (Irreducible complexity was a sort of silly -assed argument made to make it sound like all life "Suddenly appeared at one point along the way(NCSE calls it "Slow Creation")). This argument tried to show that at some point, the function that a biochemical ceased to pform its assigned function is where the "Unnamed designer popped in". BUT, as I see now, you only demand a spotless chain -of- evidence assiduously presented inan equally spotless chain-of-custody, but as for you, you can present a moon made of green cheese as scientific "theory"
GOT IT!

Science doesnt work like that , it finds stuff out and tests it. So far ID, Nei's neutralism and ID need to sit down and make a list of what evience they have

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Odd . . . i've just searched for "intelligent design and abiogenesis" at DI and gotten no results. I then searched simply for "abiogenesis" and got no results. If you search for "origins of life," you get lots of articles attacking the mainstream scientific community's publications, but making no specific argument for the origin of life from design. This is typical of the ID movement--they're long on criticism and short on any arguments for their point of view from naturalistic scientific investigation.

I don't need to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to know that it's antisemitic bullsh*t. Everyone who has ever urged me to read it has been a loud-mouthed antisemite. The DI's articles (i.e. at their web site) go on and on about inferences of intelligence. So, for example, Casey Luskin (an attorney) says:

Quote:

Intelligent design is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence.

Leaving aside that ID does not meet the definition of a scientific theory, and leaving aside that Behe, in court on the Kitzmiller v. Dover case admitted that there are no scientifec bases for his claim, all you find in ID is a droning "no it's not" refrain with regard to the plausibility contemporary origins of life research by actual scientists. A few pages ago, i pointed out that ID supporters will atttack the plausibility of scientific statements, and you were doing just that within a few pages.

No one here has to disprove the ID bullsh*t, those who claim it has a scientific basis have that burden.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Signature in the cell was, no doubt, begun as a response TO the Dover case (where ID, in its first form) was made to look like witchcraft in court. meyers previous book about Darwin and Education was published in 2003 while the various non Fundamentally organized states were developing thir science ed programs. I did some work on our own states ed committee for science in 2000 -01. Shortly after all the koopka hit the fan in several states and Pa wound up being a water carrier for the first test case.
Along about that time Discovery Institute had all its logos changed, its policy statements purged of all religious sounding paragraphs, and "cleaned up its WEDGE STRATEGY so it wouldnt sound Fundamentalist.On toppa that , around late 1990's the first of the "evolved" textbooks, "OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE" was cleannsed of all Creationist mentions
If you believe that an honest and pure interest in science had anything to do with the rise of these guys and this movement in the US you are really naive .

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

I would argue that your values come from somewhere else, but you recognise them in certain parts of the bible. If you were to take all the bible literally I don't think you'd be a good person. Besides, as soon as you say 'value' what part does science have to play?

I agree with your point about the bible. However, I think there have been some good arguments made for science being able to speak to values. I can get behind this argument https://youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

BUT, as I see now, you only demand a spotless chain -of- evidence assiduously presented inan equally spotless chain-of-custody

Nope, just a plausible explanation for the emergence of a self replicating molecule. You say you 'GOT IT' but obviously you don't.

1 Reply

And once again, even were someone to provide a plausible explanation (i did so quite recently), you'll just deny that it's plausible.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I've not ignored any of your posts recently but don't recall such an explanation. Favor me with a link?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

just a plausible explanation for the emergence of a self replicating molecule.

All I could do is present some fairly good evidence of where it may have happened and at these similar, but time separated events, display chemical "fossils" of microorganisms that are living today, were first discovered as fosils in the Miocene, and then "tracked back" by locating similar deposits that go all the way back to at least 3 formations as early as 3.8, 3.78, and 3.6 Billion years (with a 4th from a kinda iffy place from 4.1 Billion years). The chemical fossil , is unique in that it is (today) used primarily as the permeable cell wall of ARCHEA (todays "exrremophiles).

In my mind, Thats a pretty good forensic load for the paleo-history of lifes.
kampfs
Apparently you care more for "comfort-food" tales of an "intelligent force" that begins and (presumably) guides lifes journey. And all that accomplished with no evidence at all.

OK, I get it. Just PLEEEZE dont put on an air of a dispassionate "truth seeking amateur scientist". SCience has ways of changing directions and causing us to reconsider everything we know once its been proven and experimented with.
The existence of evolution, despite , on going discussions and disputes among workers , is a fact. The evidence for it cannot be reasonably denied. The issue of abiogenesis (which is unrelated to organic evolution)seems to be the last "holdout" for the Creationist mind so I can understand that the gathering evidence would be a threat to that worldview. However, its a stretch to go from a "lifes too complex to have arisen spontaneously from a batch of prebiotic chemicals"---to proving, or at least providing some forensic evidence that supports Creationism or ID (slow creation).

1 Reply

@Setanta,

And he has still never addressed the question of how the 'designer' came into existence.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

That was a pretty interesting TED talk - but I actually found it unconvincing. "Where there are vast differences" we can use experts to determine the 'right answer' - and how do we decide what is a 'vast difference'.

It did feel, and he did acknowledge, that what is 'right' aligns curiously closely with what he feels is right. Which resonated a lot, for me, with the Dawkins quote about 'how convenient it is that we are always born into the right religion'.

He also presented a couple of false dichotomies, and got called on one at the end by the MC - his answer wasn't great. That said, a TED talk isn't exactly conducive to indepth analysis or explanation.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

And he has still never addressed the question of how the 'designer' came into existence.

I have addressed that in two different ways. First, it is not necessary to identify the designer or his/her origins in order to recognize that something was designed. Something as simple as a circle of stones with ashes in the middle is readily accepted as evidence of an ancient civilization using fire by archeologists.

Second, I hypothetically posited a possible origin for God using the same logic as science has for abiogenesis of a self replicating molecule. No one was able to fault that as an hypothesis. Of course both have the same level of direct evidence - zero.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You keep trying to define ID as synonymous with the religious creationist movement but that is a dodge on your part.

If ID isn't creationist then who designed the designers?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

In my mind, Thats a pretty good forensic load for the paleo-history of lifes. kampfs

The question is not whether or not they existed. No one here disputes that archaea existed, the question is: Is it plausible that they were the result of purely 'natural' processes.

Quote:

Apparently you care more for "comfort-food" tales of an "intelligent force" that begins and (presumably) guides lifes journey. And all that accomplished with no evidence at all.

I assume here you are trying to score points by saying that no one can be taken seriously who is a theist. To those who buy that argument, OK, farmerman wins!

Quote:

OK, I get it. Just PLEEEZE dont put on an air of a dispassionate "truth seeking amateur scientist"

I guess by saying that you prove I am not?

My request of you is to stop using the mere fact that a life form exists is proof that intelligence was not involved.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know