Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I'd heard of the Mono Lake find of arsenic substituting organisms but they kind of backed off the claim when others couldn't reproduce the results of the lead scientist's experiment. Last I heard they were more like 'arsenic tolerant' rather than arsenic based. Organisms all died when all phosphorous was removed from environment. I haven't followed any follow up on it though.

Not saying it couldn't happen, no reason why not. The 'magic' is in the order, not the ingredients.

You got me curious.

Saw this when I went looking.
https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-untrue.html

I got that in my journal service but didnt have a chance to reqd the article yet. Oh well, science never says that its free of errors, but is reasonably quick on fixes.

Are you saying you don't believe the Higgs field exists? And are you saying you don't believe in a multi-verse? If it's not science-based why did they build a large hadron collider to prove the existence of the higgs boson? You think they did it to Create imaginary stories like mine?

Ive ben reading some more about the Mono lake work and have e-mailed a colleague whose more familiar. The same reson that these are not repeatable experiments is that there is merely a rtio hange mong any three of the 4amphoterics, As/P/Fe +++ andS. The increase in the As in that quartet ratio is all that has been noted and the concluions regrding, new life form v adaptation is still out there. Remember I said that science is able and willing to correct wrong headed thinking, but since this is a hunt for a possible genetic component to nutrition preferences

Given enough time, I don't disagree with that at all. That's why I once told you that science will eventually concede that ID does in fact have a scientific basis and that science is not settled in a courtroom.

I will be very interested in what your colleague has to say about the Mono Lake organisms. The most convincing thing I've read so far is that analysis of their DNA by EDX method showed no trace of arsenic.

Hope your checkup goes well.

What was settled in the courts was that ID was NOT science. It has a religious root and there is no way to disassemble its roots from its present assertions of being religiously neutral or even agnostic. Cant do it, sorry but all but a very very few are together on that one.

So, If Somebody decided to use the large Hadrian collider for a religious purpose, all of the data obtained following that religious event is not valid scientific data Because somebody decided to use the large Hadrian collider for a religious purpose? I feel that is what has happened to ID.

We (belivers in ID) don't understand why, if the data supports as one possible conclusion, that the identity of the of the designer is a person of religious and historical significance, that data and scientific inquiry and discussion of that interpretation of the data is off limits from a public policy stand point. It seems the court has picked a side. Nobody on the ID side calling for the elimination of discussion and research of biological evolution which was initiared by random (as freso would say) so called natural events. So, why is the court in one single court case by one single judge (John E Jones III) in a bigotted decision, deciding that atheism is the religion (or belief system) of the scientific and schorally communty because, the Christian God (according to the scientific and historical data) is a likely candidate for the identity of the designer ? And so, by default God is off limits for them to discuss research and as scientific inquiry even though the inquiry might lead to a different indivual or individuals of intelligent nature. (Though i doubt it). Why are atheists so afraid of the first amendment and academic freedom ( especially when it comes to spending parent's tax dollars in their local public school and unversties)?

Some people just refuse to understand the difference between religious' belief and science. There's no hope.

you present a conclusion from absolutely no relevant question that I have read out of your entire statement.
"If someone would use the Large Hadron
Collider from a religious worldview?"(PS, Hadrian built a wall and had the Brits pay for it)
What would the proposal look like for that experiment?? I tell ya Ive fallen off your melon truck.

NOTHING is off limits in science as long as it can make sense. We are always looking for answers to these Inter-Galactic questions nd SO FAR, noone has presented ANY data that supports this conclusion that you swear is based upon evidence.WHERE IS IT?? WHAT IS IT??

Sure, and the theory that the universe is expanding is bogus because it was proposed by a priest.

Get a grip man, science is not settled in a courtroom.

Who said anything about a courtroom?
Any theory that can be verified, even if you presented one, is considered acceptable science.

Please tell that to farmerman.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Etablishment clause and the Free expression clause of the 1st amendment both set the basis for "freedom of worship". If Congress were to find for those evidence-free (but myth based) Creation stories, it would be in violation of the Amendment itself.
I have no idea how you can miss this very simple but important point , (other than the fact that you are NOT a citizen of this country where that Constitution is in effect). You are certainly free to try to change this Amendment but it will take many generations even if it were a popular belief.
Education is the enemy of such myth though, so I really believe that your chance to change the Constitution on this point is over 125 years too late.

There;s a lot of history involved in which the author of the first drafts of that Amendment (John Dickinson of the "Lower Counties of Pa), based his drafts on the separation of the states of Pa and Marylqnd which were founded on foundations of two unfriendly religions and were separated based on a single North south and East West line layed out by two surveyors in 1761-66. It protected citizens of each of these individual colonies from practicing favored religions. When Dickinon layed out the First amendment in draft form, he expanded the "right" to be included in the ARticles of Confederation and it was brought into the Constitution of the states.

Science doesnt give a rats ass about religion. BUT, religion has NO PLACE in science at all .
If you can find actual scientific evidence (not mouth play) that ID dos govern the direction this planet has taken, then Ill be happy to back off. Ive got 40 years under my belt in several areas of relevant interdisciplanary research and have yet to hear , read, or be part of a major symposium or conference on the subject of ID (other than gatherings where funny stories of "what the hell are those ID guys doing lately" , are exchanged

There is no evidence (beyond speculation) that the big bang or super novae have created or are currently creating matter. ( if there is please point it out to me ) There is a lot of evdnce that it always requires intelligence to create complex order. Especially the order required to establish the 1/2 spin particles and anti-particles in the quantum mechanics of matter and how they react with the higgs bosons of the higgs field to give us the complex and consistent shapes of the atomic orbitals.

Well there's your problem! That's like get'n all your info from Fox News.

Firt time you herd of Georges LeMaitre? Its always good when someone lerns. If youd gone back several years in this very thread youd see that the "A Clergyman proposed the Big Bang so therefore its science"
OF COURSE IT IS SILLY. Your analogy is as unhinged as one can get . We celebrate Nicolas Steno, Gregor Mendel, Nicolas Copernicus, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and many other clergy men who had provided all sorts of evidence and hypotheses that became theories in science.
Whats the Point you are trying to make??

The case in court seems to be a matter of willful obtuseness on your behalf. The Theory of Evolution was already mature when it was taken to court in louisiana, tennessee, and pennsylvania.In each case science was under attack by creation "science" or "ID science". Unless we are all unable to think strait, the local laws FORCED science teachers or students to buy into the (undeniably religious based rules of "Scientific Creationism" or "I D").
If you either deny these facts or just cant think , then you have much more reading to do.
Science itself was not being adjudicated in any of these court cases, the limits of the clauses of the 1st amendment to admit that religious beliefs about creation stories (sans evidence) are scientific.

. Well, you better tell your ID colleagues becaue they are lining up again for an upcoming case in Kansas.
I believe youre only talking brusquely about ID or Creationism is because your side has lost every case when brought to the district courts orSupreme Court. (Ya think that maybe these thousands of people whove been involved were wasting their time trying to adjudicate changes to.. or protect the original clause meanings as they appear in the 1st Amendment?

Weve discussed this a lot when you started hre. You have apparently decided to not understand or accept the evidence such as Penzias and Wilson or Mather and Smoot or how the CMB is observed at different elementql wavelengths throughout the visible universe.Such is the beauty of the spectral data that weve devised a mean to determine the Planck time duration and the formations of heavy atoms and organic molecules in deep space.

This entire thread, started by the late Wandel , a real calming voice in this debate. He was quite specific that , with the court ruling of 2005, The 3rd district Fed court has taken the definition of ID as strictly a religious based worldview. It is NOT derived from science experiments or discoveries. GOING IN, ID sets up its belief system as one that is BASED UPON AN ASSUMPTION THQT THE UNIVERSE IS TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE DEVELOPED NATURALLY.
It sort of like all the "Alien Hypothesizers" like ERic Von Deniken , David Childress, or Robert Shoch ( a late bloomer who went from being a pretty good geomorphologist to a rabid believer in all that man has accomplished MUST HAVE been done for us by aliens) .

Apparently, according to these guys, the way ancient temple walls were laid down had to be above our knuckle dragging ancestor's capabilities .(Even though most all of these temples contain loads of cartoons about how the builders did all the work . Doesnt nobody go and look at the walls of the Temples in Egypt and see the whole story of how they built stuff? There are even bas relefs of how many of these stones were cut using stone and copper tools. There are NO pictures of little space guys in uniforms or space suits.

Fake science is like fake news, just say it enough and loud enough and youll be able to convince lots of people who, according to Neil Degrasse Tyson, are too busy to learn the facts.

The point is that you have no basis on which to claim that my analogy is 'unhinged' because the two examples are virtually identical. On what basis do you 'untangle the religious roots' from one but not the other?

Your attempt to muddy the waters by linking ID to believers in alien involvement with the pyramids is just avoidance of the real issue.

CI had a good point when he said:

Well of course you brought up the courtroom distraction but he is right about theories. Any theory, even one of our own, can be studied scientifically. If you wanted, you could study astrology that way, doesn't mean it's true, but the method for the study would be the same.

Your unconditional rejection of scientific study of ID amounts to personal predjudice or desire to ban what is for you a forbidden subject. I can't think of another possibility.