Why ID Will Win

Consequently, I take a hard line on Godwin's law

Quote:

ok if we cant explain something then god did it... thats very primative way of explaining things...

In that case, when WOULD you accept that there must have been a Creator? If you saw a meteor fall out of the sky, stop three inches from your nose, comment on the weather, and then fall on your big toe, would you then acknowledge that a higher power was at work, or would you insist that it occurred in accordance with the natural laws (assuming you kept it around to prove to yourself that you weren't stoned silly at the time).

Anyway, I'll admit that the steps themselves proposed for the evolution of the bombadier beetle make sense, but the mechanism assumed for the transition seems woefully lacking to me. As you zoom in to the cellular and molecular levels, the enormous complexity required for the production of enzymes or even simple chemicals becomes apparent. What are the intermediate steps between a cell excreting nothing to excreting a highly specified enzyme consisting of thousands, if not more, atoms?

goodfielder wrote:

By the way I was interested to read the introduction to the Sir Arthur Keith piece was by Earnest Hooton. I was only slightly surprised.

You'd better explain who Arthur Keith and Earnest Hooton are. They have both drifted into obscurity and for good reason.

raprap wrote:

]Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
by Mark Isaak.....

Mark Isaak is a known ideologue and a member of the talk.origins inner clique. He'll be standing there promoting evolution even after the first five hundred years of burning in hell for it.

I'm not saying that isolated populations won't speciate after even relatively short amounts of time. That has been observed. However that doesn't involve an increase in genetic information. Plenty of animals can mutate and gain an extra arm or wing, etc. But they always contained that information to begin with. A frog never mutates a wing, and a snake never grows a new leg.

BTW parados, you should try using complete sentences. They are a lot easier to understand.

Anyway, I'll admit that the steps themselves proposed for the evolution of the bombadier beetle make sense, but the mechanism assumed for the transition seems woefully lacking to me. As you zoom in to the cellular and molecular levels, the enormous complexity required for the production of enzymes or even simple chemicals becomes apparent. What are the intermediate steps between a cell excreting nothing to excreting a highly specified enzyme consisting of thousands, if not more, atoms?

Science has not yet explained a small fraction of what is there just in your biology example.By the time it gets anywhere near 10% it will have vanished up its own fundament due to the synergy principle.

Defining intelligent design as science
Intelligent design proponents often claim that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are:

Intelligent design lacks consistency.[20]
Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[21]
Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[22]
Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[23]
Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[24]
In light of its adherence to the standards of the scientific method, intelligent design can not be said to follow the scientific method. There is no way to test its conjectures, and the underlying assumptions of intelligent design are not open to change.

Additionally, in the United States there is a legal definition of what constitutes science. In its 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, in effect developing their own demarcation criteria. The four Daubert criteria are:

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Intelligent design also fails to meet the legal definition of science on each of the four criteria.

Why do SD supporters insult scientists so much?

Answer-because they think they are themselves scientists because they defend scientists which is very severely patronising of scientists who must view them in some way I don't think the moderators would allow me to depict.

Scientists need no-one to defend them and especially not those who think of defending them as a status symbol or a style choice.

And many ID scientists have been blacklisted from peer-reviewed journals, even with papers that don't relate to ID at all.

ID doesn't call into question the science that can be tested by repeatable experiments like chemistry, physics, psychology, etc. It only questions evolution which happened with no one to document and cannot be repeated