Simple ID questions, one more time
Ilas
they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
product of intelligent design.
Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
living thing.
a...@c031.aone.net.au
> A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
> you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
> answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
> definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
>
> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
> SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
> we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
>
> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> product of intelligent design.
ID is a peculiar substance which, once adopted as an explanation of any
existence, will at once exclude any other explanation. Evolution itself
becomes part of the grand design. Unless it is assumed the Intelligent
Designer is itself a composite of competing ideas, there can not be a
partial Intelligent Design of life, molecular structure or the
universe. It is either all or nothing.
>
> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
Like all the deities of antiquity, Wotan, Zeus, Jupiter, Quetzalcoatl,
Bahl, the God of the Bible, Allah, etc., the Intelligent Designer(s)
are all conceptions of the human mind.
>
> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above.
> living thing.
If you accept the above, the fact that the Designer is a product of the
human mind, then the answer to your question is simple: the Designer's
visions are entirely human in nature. Whatever human ingenuity can
visualise, the designer will be capable of doing. It is a process of
trial and error!!
derfla.
justchillin
Simple question, simple answer.
Q1. All living things. In fact all things.
Q2. The grand architect of the universe.
Q3. Can't. Let's say that the Bible is a book of why not of how.
Ilas
news:1143632125.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
OK, at least that's honest. God did it. Problem is that ID is being touted
as a non-religious "scientific theory" that should be taught in schools and
accepted as legitimate by science (and the general public). Do you see why
your answers might pose a bit of a problem to the ID movement?
Rotwang
There lies the big problem. Must of the public can't see why ID couldn't be
taught as science even if there could be some religion involved.
Mike Goodrich
"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
> A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
> you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
> answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
> definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
>
> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
> SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
> we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
>
> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> product of intelligent design.
All of them.
>
> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
Why?
>
> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
> living thing.
Why?
Grendel
> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
> you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
> answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
> definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
>
> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
> SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
> we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
>
> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> product of intelligent design.
Ok, first lets get our definitions straight. What is your definition of
design?
And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
designed?
Elmer
> (snip)
>>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>>product of intelligent design.
> All of them.
Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
"designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
michael....@gmail.com
You can't prove anything with science you can only model something; you
can at best disprove something.
Therefore your question is ill-posed (i.e., it is loaded).
In any case you would - as a disinterested objective investigator - be
interested in gaining insight as to whether unguided naturalistic
processes are the best explanation of its existence.
Assuming you have done a quality job of gaining such insight, you could
then ostensibly be in a position to make a qualified and perhaps even
quantified inference concerning the question of whether the empirical
signature of intelligent activity was present.
M.G.
TomS
Elmer stated..."
What I find interesting about his reply is that it says that
each *individual* living thing is the product of design.
And this has absolutely nothing to say about evolutionary biology.
Because evolution biology does not treat the origins of
individuals. The sciences which are more relevant to the origins of
individuals are developmental biology, reproductive biology, and
biochemistry. Evolution is about collectives, such as populations
and species.
If the "concept" that individuals are the product of "design"
is supposed to conflict with a "naturalistic" science, that science
would *not* be evolutionary biology.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Augray
<michael....@gmail.com> wrote in
<1143639511.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> :
>Elmer wrote:
>> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> > (snip)
>> >>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>> >>product of intelligent design.
>>
>> > All of them.
>>
>> Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
>> "designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
>
>
>You can't prove anything with science you can only model something; you
>can at best disprove something.
Of course, since there is no model of Intelligent Design, claims for
design are vacuous.
>Therefore your question is ill-posed (i.e., it is loaded).
Asking for evidence is loaded?
>In any case you would - as a disinterested objective investigator - be
>interested in gaining insight as to whether unguided naturalistic
>processes are the best explanation of its existence.
What else do you suggest?
>Assuming you have done a quality job of gaining such insight, you could
>then ostensibly be in a position to make a qualified and perhaps even
>quantified inference concerning the question of whether the empirical
>signature of intelligent activity was present.
But since the only "inferences" are based on personal incredulity,
they're pretty much useless.
>M.G.
Ilas
news:vFvWf.1627$u15.3...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
>>A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
>> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have
>> thought. If you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for
>> later, but even an answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along
>> the lines of "entity X definitely designed living being Y", which
>> would be quite a start.
>>
>> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about
>> evolution, SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions
>> below and I think we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very
>> much.
>>
>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100%
>> the product of intelligent design.
>
> Ok, first lets get our definitions straight. What is your definition
> of design?
>
>
> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
> designed?
Ilas
news:FtuWf.43803$YX1.5364@dukeread06:
That's fairly obvious I'd have thought. You state all living creatures
are designed but don't want to answer who designed them. Frankly, that's
bizarre. Can you not see that?
>> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the
>> above living thing.
>
>
> Why?
That's fairly obvious I'd have thought. You state all living creatures
are designed but don't want to answer the process by which they were
designed. Frankly, that's bizarre. Can you not see that?
So far, we've got:
Q1. All of them
Q2. Dunno
Q3. Dunno
which pretty much adds up to "I don't know what, I don't know who, I
don't know how, I have no proof and see no way of getting proof, but I'm
pretty sure something did something".
And then we have Grendel trying to change the subject. Mmm. With that
level of rigourous research, it's beyond me why ID isn't taken seriously
by the scientific community.
CreateThis
> Ok, first lets get our definitions straight. What is your definition of
> design?
>
> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
> designed?
Say, those questions sound familiar...
Oh, yeah - they're the questions we've been asking creationists for years!
Do your own work.
CT
Ilas
news:j8xWf.10111$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
They are, but I'm fairly new here, as I'm sure are others. I think they're
worth asking over and over, because it reveals the frankly pitiful level af
argument from the ID side to anyone who hasn't seen it before. So, if there
are ID advocates reading this, here's a quick reminder:
Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
product of intelligent design.
Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
living thing.
Please stay on topic, use both sides of the paper if you need to, and raise
your hand if you want to go to the toilet. You have 2 hours starting
........now.
Matt Silberstein
Q4) Please tell us one other thing we can say about the designers
other that they exist and somehow designed all life?
Q5) Please tell us about one attempt by an ID advocate to learn more
about the designers?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
michael....@gmail.com
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:52:08 -0500, in talk.origins , "Mike Goodrich"
> <goodr...@yahoo.com> in <FtuWf.43803$YX1.5364@dukeread06> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
> >> A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
> >> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
> >> you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
> >> answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
> >> definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
> >>
> >> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
> >> SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
> >> we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
> >>
> >> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> >> product of intelligent design.
> >
> >
> >All of them.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
> >
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
> >> living thing.
> >
> >
> >Why?
>
> Q4) Please tell us one other thing we can say about the designers
> other that they exist and somehow designed all life?
Why?
>
> Q5) Please tell us about one attempt by an ID advocate to learn more
> about the designers?
Why?
Matthew Isleb
> Elmer wrote:
>> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> > (snip)
>> >>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>> >>product of intelligent design.
>>
>> > All of them.
>>
>> Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
>> "designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
>
>
> You can't prove anything with science you can only model something; you
> can at best disprove something.
>
> Therefore your question is ill-posed (i.e., it is loaded).
>
> In any case you would - as a disinterested objective investigator - be
> interested in gaining insight as to whether unguided naturalistic
> processes are the best explanation of its existence.
Whoa, you've gone from "which living thing" to "all of existence." How'd
you manage that?
-matthew
peter
Is it ok for a non-ID-supporter to answer?
> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> product of intelligent design.
Dog varieties, all domestic livestock (cows, turkeys, horses, etc.),
most food crops. Then there's design at a more specific level for
things like 'Golden Rice.'
>
> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
Various groups of people, most of whom are unknown since they weren't
recorded. Golden Rice was the result of genetic engineering research
by a Swiss and German team.
>
> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
> living thing.
Most were the product of unnatural selection, aka selective breeding,
over many generations.
Insertion of the coding for production of beta-carotene into the rice
genome in the case of Golden Rice.
Ilas
news:1143647145.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>> Q4) Please tell us one other thing we can say about the designers
>> other that they exist and somehow designed all life?
>
>
> Why?
>
>>
>> Q5) Please tell us about one attempt by an ID advocate to learn more
>> about the designers?
>
>
> Why?
OK, we're really motoring now. I think we're really fleshing out ID here,
putting the intellectual flesh on to the pseudo-scientific bones. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but in summary we have "Something did something. Don't
know what did it, don't know how, don't know anything at all about what did
it, don't want to know either, and none of that's important. What is
important is that something did something".
Given all that, how would you persuade me of the merits of ID? Thanks.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
> CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in
> news:j8xWf.10111$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Grendel wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, first lets get our definitions straight. What is your definition
>>> of design?
>>>
>>> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something
>>> is designed?
>>
>> Say, those questions sound familiar...
>>
>> Oh, yeah - they're the questions we've been asking creationists for
>> years!
>
> They are, but I'm fairly new here, as I'm sure are others. I think they're
> worth asking over and over
CT was referring to the questions asked by Grendel and not yours. :)
Grendel's questions should be answered by creationists, and not by those
that find ID perplexing.
JR
<snip>
michael....@gmail.com
So you are looking for personal service?
I suggest you read Dembski on his three part filter a.k.a. the DI.
M.G.
Ilas
news:dfyWf.64425$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
> CT was referring to the questions asked by Grendel and not yours. :)
>
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143647145.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Good points! Yes, I agree...your answers are really the best reasons to
dismiss ID out of hand.
frogm...@yahoo.com
If you don't mind me stepping into your thread, I would like to
rephrase/add the following questions:
Is there any current process occurring today that absolutely requires
divine intervention and/or designer intervention? That is, cannot be
described/modeled with a naturalistic explanation. Anything,
cloud/snowflake formation, mountain building, erosion, conception,
birth, aging and growth, etc.
Does your answer apply to yesterday as well, last week, last year, in
the last 5000 years, 4 billion years?
Give a specific, testable prediction that ID offers?
---Jay
Matt Silberstein
"goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> in
<1143639511.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Elmer wrote:
>> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> > (snip)
>> >>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>> >>product of intelligent design.
>>
>> > All of them.
>>
>> Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
>> "designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
>
>
>You can't prove anything with science you can only model something; you
>can at best disprove something.
>
>Therefore your question is ill-posed (i.e., it is loaded).
So let' re-ask. How do you show design if all life is designed? I
assume that you reject Behe's claims regarding IC. Or are some
features designed and some not designed? Or are some more designed
than others?
>In any case you would - as a disinterested objective investigator - be
>interested in gaining insight as to whether unguided naturalistic
>processes are the best explanation of its existence.
In what way is "it was designed" an explanation? Does it tell us
anything about how or when or why or where?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
"goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> in
<1143647145.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because it would give some value or meaning to the inference of
design. Because it would make "it was designed" something other than
an empty useless claim. Because it would help us understand what
happened and would help us make better predictions. Because it is what
scientists would do and would want to know. It is the questions that
archaeologists and anthropologists ask when they detect design.
Ilas
news:1143648877....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Ilas wrote:
>> OK, we're really motoring now. I think we're really fleshing out ID
>> here, putting the intellectual flesh on to the pseudo-scientific
>> bones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in summary we have "Something did
>> something. Don't know what did it, don't know how, don't know
>> anything at all about what did it, don't want to know either, and
>> none of that's important. What is important is that something did
>> something".
>>
>> Given all that, how would you persuade me of the merits of ID?
>> Thanks.
>
>
> So you are looking for personal service?
Nope, just an answer to 3 straightforward, simple questions. If the best
you can do is "why?", I'm not really that impressed, but more to the point,
it makes me wonder why you believe what you do, and why you believe anyone
else should.
Ilas
news:i4dl22p8a96k5bfoi...@4ax.com:
> On 29 Mar 2006 07:45:45 -0800, in talk.origins ,
> "goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> in
> <1143647145.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:52:08 -0500, in talk.origins , "Mike
>>> Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> in
>>> >> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely,
>>> >> 100% the product of intelligent design.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >All of them.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Why?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed
>>> >> the above living thing.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Why?
>>>
>>> Q4) Please tell us one other thing we can say about the designers
>>> other that they exist and somehow designed all life?
>>
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>>
>>> Q5) Please tell us about one attempt by an ID advocate to learn more
>>> about the designers?
>>
>>
>>Why?
>
> Because it would give some value or meaning to the inference of
> design. Because it would make "it was designed" something other than
> an empty useless claim. Because it would help us understand what
> happened and would help us make better predictions. Because it is what
> scientists would do and would want to know. It is the questions that
> archaeologists and anthropologists ask when they detect design.
It's a good point. I live very close to Hadrian's Wall. Now, obviously
that was planned and designed (Q1). I'm pretty sure those who have
examined it (and continue to do so) didn't say "don't care who designed
it, don't care about about how it was built, don't care about learning
anything about the people who built such an amazing thing, and I'd advise
everyone else to do the same".
michael....@gmail.com
I reiterate my previous suggestion.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Grendel wrote:
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
> >A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
> > they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
> > you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
> > answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
> > definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
> >
> > If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
> > SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
> > we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
> >
> > Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> > product of intelligent design.
>
> Ok, first lets get our definitions straight. What is your definition of
> design?
>
>
> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
> designed?
Great questions! Got any answers? We have been asking the
Intelligent DESIGN people for years.
Let us try this one, tell me what you think.
1) Define Design as an event with low probability.
2) Calculate the probability of object A coming about by natural means
as "very small".
3) A is "designed".
Now, what does that tell you about design as a process involving
intent to solve a problem, and plan for achieving it?
NADA.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Ferrous Patella
> A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought.
> If you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but
> even an answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of
> "entity X definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a
> start.
>
> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about
> evolution, SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions
> below and I think we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very
> much.
>
> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100%
> the product of intelligent design.
This is nonsensical. All knowledge in science is provisional. This sounds
like some creationist saying "But evolution isn't *proven*."
>
> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
One could detect design without knowing what the designer is. It would be
like seeing some animal tracks without being able to tell what kind of
animal.
In principle, one could detect design without knowing anything about a
designer. What if we found a signature 2 km high embossed on the fjords in
Norway or serial numbers encoded into our DNA?
>
> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the
> above living thing.
>
Again, not necessary to detect design for the same reasons as above. A
designer could use processes undetectable by us (for example, processes
using dimensions outside the time-space continuum) and still leave
evidence of design.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"In normal usage, Civil and Environmental engineers don't deal with near c
velocities unless something has gone horribly, horribly wrong."
CW winner, 02May05
Tracy P. Hamilton
TomS wrote:
> "On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:13:20 GMT, in article <QJvWf.5488$tT....@news01.roc.ny>,
> Elmer stated..."
> >
> >Mike Goodrich wrote:
> >> (snip)
> >>>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
> >>>product of intelligent design.
> >
> >> All of them.
> >
> >Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
> >"designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
> >
>
> What I find interesting about his reply is that it says that
> each *individual* living thing is the product of design.
>
> And this has absolutely nothing to say about evolutionary biology.
>
> Because evolution biology does not treat the origins of
> individuals. The sciences which are more relevant to the origins of
> individuals are developmental biology, reproductive biology, and
> biochemistry. Evolution is about collectives, such as populations
> and species.
>
> If the "concept" that individuals are the product of "design"
> is supposed to conflict with a "naturalistic" science, that science
> would *not* be evolutionary biology.
Prepare to be ignored - again.
I wonder which of the theories about IC, CSI, EF enabled Mike to
jump to this conclusion.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
>> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
>> you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
>> answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
>> definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
>>
>> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
>> SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
>> we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
>>
>> product of intelligent design.
>
> design?
>
>
> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
> designed?
These are questions that she was asking you.
Mark
>> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
>>
michael....@gmail.com
Non Sequitur.
> Because it would help us understand what
> happened and would help us make better predictions. Because it is what
> scientists would do and would want to know.
Sure - we'd all like to be omniscient, but we are not. Further,
sometimes all you have is the artifact which you can continue to
investigate empirically, but no other info about prospective designers
that you can investigate first hand except perhaps historical reports
and other such forensic types of investigations/info.
> It is the questions that
> archaeologists and anthropologists ask when they detect design.
Fine! Rather than griping about it, feel free to jump right in and
make a contribution to the world's knowledge. Complainers are
everywhere, but men of action - well now that is a rare breed.
OTOH, it is not a given that you can answer these questions within some
stated time frame. You can't rush science is the old saying!
Have a nice day,
M.G.
Elmer
>>>(snip)
>>>>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>>>>product of intelligent design.
>>>All of them.
>>Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
>>"designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
> You can't prove anything with science you can only model something; you
> can at best disprove something.
> Therefore your question is ill-posed (i.e., it is loaded).
Oh come on Mike. I wrote "prove" as a quicker substitute for
"demonstrate the evidence for" as I had toast in the toaster.
> In any case you would - as a disinterested objective investigator - be
> interested in gaining insight as to whether unguided naturalistic
> processes are the best explanation of its existence.
Well, since the "guider" of naturalistic processes is natural law, it's
more a question how those laws were written.
> Assuming you have done a quality job of gaining such insight, you could
> then ostensibly be in a position to make a qualified and perhaps even
> quantified inference concerning the question of whether the empirical
> signature of intelligent activity was present.
No Mike you just said it all was the result of intelligent design. That
rather cuts down on any counter examples.
Ilas
news:slrne2lg4n.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
> These are questions that she was asking you.
It's he. Last time I looked anyway.
Ilas
news:Xns979559A7ED12F...@199.45.49.11:
> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>
>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100%
>> the product of intelligent design.
>
> This is nonsensical. All knowledge in science is provisional.
ID isn't science.
> This
> sounds like some creationist saying "But evolution isn't *proven*."
OK, I'll rephrase. On present evidence, I'm 100% convinced that I, and all
other life, came to be here through a process of evolution, and I am 100%
convinced that the ToE explains that process. Based on present evidence,
name one living thing that you (or any ID advocate) is 100% convinced arose
through a process of design. Better?
>> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
>
> One could detect design without knowing what the designer is. It would
> be like seeing some animal tracks without being able to tell what kind
> of animal.
OK, fair enough. So detect design in a living thing for me. Just one living
thing will do for starters.
> In principle, one could detect design without knowing anything about a
> designer. What if we found a signature 2 km high embossed on the
> fjords in Norway or serial numbers encoded into our DNA?
Then maybe I'd be convinced something strange was going on. Has that
happened?
>> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the
>> above living thing.
>>
>
> Again, not necessary to detect design for the same reasons as above. A
> designer could use processes undetectable by us (for example,
> processes using dimensions outside the time-space continuum) and still
> leave evidence of design.
OK, fair enough. Show me evidence of design in a living thing. Just one
living thing will do for starters.
Thank you.
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
Q3- The advancement of homo sapien sapiens over homo sapiens is almost
too marginal to measure, but the real difference translates into
turning ideas into words, words into language, language into a written
form and that written form into literacy within populations. Through
language, homo sapien sapiens are able to organize their efforts, build
pyramids, fashion governments and create technology. The human mind
represents an evolutionary leap that by its own measure exceeds the
geological time limitations of gradual evolution.
JTG 3/29/06
Ferrous Patella
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in
> news:Xns979559A7ED12F...@199.45.49.11:
>
>> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>>
>>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely,
>>> 100% the product of intelligent design.
>>
>> This is nonsensical. All knowledge in science is provisional.
>
> ID isn't science.
...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is not
science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does as much.
There is nothing about trying to detect design that is unscientific in its
nature.
ID as science is a very young paradigm. At the risk of violating your
request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID would be to
perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA). Surely there would
be some grant money to had from either the private or public sector.
[Snip goalposts on wheels]
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
Inez
Grendel wrote:
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
> >A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
> > they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
> > you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
> > answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
> > definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
> >
> > If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
> > SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
> > we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
> >
> > product of intelligent design.
>
> design?
I should think that would be the duty of the person proposing the
"intelligent design" theory.
> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
> designed?
>
I believe this is just a restatement of the original question.
CreateThis
> ... A
> designer could use processes undetectable by us (for example, processes
> using dimensions outside the time-space continuum) and still leave
> evidence of design.
Do you mean evidence that doesn't look like design by humans? How else
would we recognize it? If it looks like human design, what leads us to
believe it isn't by humans?
CT
Augray
<michael....@gmail.com> wrote in
<1143651659.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> :
Not at all. Otherwise, the obvious response to any claim of design is
"So what?"
>> Because it would help us understand what
>> happened and would help us make better predictions. Because it is what
>> scientists would do and would want to know.
>
>
>Sure - we'd all like to be omniscient, but we are not.
What does omniscience have to do with the question?
>Further,
>sometimes all you have is the artifact which you can continue to
>investigate empirically, but no other info about prospective designers
>that you can investigate first hand except perhaps historical reports
>and other such forensic types of investigations/info.
Of course, this presupposes that it *is* an artifact in the first
place. Obviously, identification of an item as an "artifact" implies
knowledge of the purported designer's motives.
>> It is the questions that
>> archaeologists and anthropologists ask when they detect design.
>
>
>Fine! Rather than griping about it, feel free to jump right in and
>make a contribution to the world's knowledge.
Mike, you should follow your own advice. Your contribution to
knowledge in this regard has been nil. And this is even when people
*beg* for you top contribute.
>Complainers are
>everywhere, but men of action - well now that is a rare breed.
Is that a complaint?
>OTOH, it is not a given that you can answer these questions within some
>stated time frame.
Mike, you're not even interested in asking the questions.
>You can't rush science is the old saying!
ID advocates have no interest in science at all.
>Have a nice day,
You too Mike.
>M.G.
snex
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>
> > Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in
> > news:Xns979559A7ED12F...@199.45.49.11:
> >
> >> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
> >>
> >>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely,
> >>> 100% the product of intelligent design.
> >>
> >> This is nonsensical. All knowledge in science is provisional.
> >
> > ID isn't science.
>
> ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is not
> science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does as much.
> There is nothing about trying to detect design that is unscientific in its
> nature.
"intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design in
nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools. if
somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd be best
advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate them
with conmen.
>
> ID as science is a very young paradigm. At the risk of violating your
> request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID would be to
> perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA). Surely there would
> be some grant money to had from either the private or public sector.
there is no way to search DNA in an analogous way to the way SETI
searches for signals. SETI is looking for narrow band radio waves, the
kind we use on earth, because it operates under the (questionable)
assumption that other intelligence might communicate the same way. any
patterns we found in such narrow band waves would be completely
uninterpretable by us.
likewise, even if a pattern in DNA exists for the purpose of sending us
a message from our supposed designer, we have no possible way to decode
it.
Matt Silberstein
"goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> in
<1143651659.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
That is not what you (should) mean. It may well be unsupported, but it
is not a non-sequitur. To support it I will point out, yet again, that
you and the entire ID crowd stop with "it was designed". You pointedly
have nothing more to say at all. It is absolutely useless since it
seems to apply to everything, it is empty because it has not meaning,
no specificity. What does it mean to say X is designed if all X are
designed?
>
>> Because it would help us understand what
>> happened and would help us make better predictions. Because it is what
>> scientists would do and would want to know.
>
>
>Sure - we'd all like to be omniscient, but we are not.
Do you assert it requires omniscience in order to know anything about
the designers or the design process? If not, then this is a red
herring. We are not omniscient but we can certainly say lots about
evolution and gravity and such.
>Further,
>sometimes all you have is the artifact which you can continue to
>investigate empirically, but no other info about prospective designers
>that you can investigate first hand except perhaps historical reports
>and other such forensic types of investigations/info.
Forget "sometimes", what about the other times? I am asking for
anything you can say about anything wrt this design? In terms of this
claimed design, it seems, all we ever have is the "artifact", we don't
have anything that leads any ID advocate to say anything at all about
the designers. They don't tell us anything about when this design
occurred, they don't even suggest whether it was a one time event or
occurred over time. They don't give us a hint on the process the
designers uses. About all they seem to agree on is that it was a
single designer though I don't think I have ever seen any argument by
anyone on why it is one rather than many.
>> It is the questions that
>> archaeologists and anthropologists ask when they detect design.
>
>Fine! Rather than griping about it, feel free to jump right in and
>make a contribution to the world's knowledge.
I don't see any value in design so I am not going to do what seems
like a waste of time. I don't bother with design *because* I don't see
any way to answer any of these questions.
>Complainers are
>everywhere, but men of action - well now that is a rare breed.
What about those who neither complain nor act? Oh, wait, the ID people
keep complaining that they are not given the same consideration as
scientists, but somehow fail to act.
>OTOH, it is not a given that you can answer these questions within some
>stated time frame. You can't rush science is the old saying!
They have had quite a time, Design pre-dates evolution by hundreds of
years. So far you don't have a *single* thing to say. Not one! The
ones doing the rushing here are the ID advocates who want there vague
notion considered science when they are unable to take us a single
step past "it was designed".
>Have a nice day,
I will.
snex
snex wrote:
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
> > news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
> >
> > > Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in
> > > news:Xns979559A7ED12F...@199.45.49.11:
> > >
> > >> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
> > >>
> > >>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely,
> > >>> 100% the product of intelligent design.
> > >>
> > >> This is nonsensical. All knowledge in science is provisional.
> > >
> > > ID isn't science.
> >
> > ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is not
> > science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does as much.
> > There is nothing about trying to detect design that is unscientific in its
> > nature.
>
> "intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design in
> nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools. if
> somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd be best
> advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate them
> with conmen.
sorry, thats "best advised to NOT use the term."
michael....@gmail.com
That's funny.
It tells us that Hamilton is confused about the difference between a
scientific initiative which is principally concerned with truth, and an
engineering program which is principally concerned with utility.
Interesting how many folks are trying to gripe about a scientific
initiative because it doesn't satisfy them as an engineering one.
Explains a lot really.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1143656126.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Q1- the human mind
>
The human mind was intelligently designed? By whom?
> Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
> laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
> why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
> not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
> evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
How can you use the term "Intelligent Design" without the inference of a
designer? The term is meaningless without a "designer" who posseses
"intelligence".
>
> Q3- The advancement of homo sapien sapiens over homo sapiens is almost
> too marginal to measure, but the real difference translates into
> turning ideas into words, words into language, language into a written
> form and that written form into literacy within populations. Through
> language, homo sapien sapiens are able to organize their efforts, build
> pyramids, fashion governments and create technology. The human mind
> represents an evolutionary leap that by its own measure exceeds the
> geological time limitations of gradual evolution.
>
This is an answer to question number 3????
JR
>
> JTG 3/29/06
>
Ferrous Patella
Again the SETI example comes to mind. We are looking for signals that look
like human signals. If we find some, that does not mean we have found
humans.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
peter
> Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:
> > Now, what does that tell you about design as a process involving
> > intent to solve a problem, and plan for achieving it?
> >
> > NADA.
> That's funny.
>
> It tells us that Hamilton is confused about the difference between a
> scientific initiative which is principally concerned with truth, and an
> engineering program which is principally concerned with utility.
Theology and forensics are concerned with truth, science is primarily
after understanding.
>
> Interesting how many folks are trying to gripe about a scientific
> initiative because it doesn't satisfy them as an engineering one.
What scientific initiative? I thought this was a discussion about
Intelligent Design.
Matt Silberstein
"goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> in
<1143657238....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Please tell us about the scientific initiative that is Intelligent
Design. What actions have they taken on that initiative? I mean, other
than complaining that they are not talked about in high school science
classes.
>Interesting how many folks are trying to gripe about a scientific
>initiative because it doesn't satisfy them as an engineering one.
>
>Explains a lot really.
I would like to see some predictions, the hallmark of science, from ID
science.
Robert Grumbine
No surprise that you grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
Those who favor 'design' as an 'explanation' are stuck with
an engineer -- the designer. Tracy recognizes this. Constructing
things is the work of an engineer. Designing them is as well.
But no matter, no surprise there.
The point is, there's no scientific initiative in ID, precisely
on grounds of them acting like engineers. Engineers can be satisfied with
'it is' and not worry about how and why. (Good ones seldom are,
but that's a different matter).
Scientists very much are concerned with the how and why. The ID
program, as Tracy shows, ignores that, as you would like us to.
You want us to be satisfied with your 'it is' answer. But we're
acting like scienists and asking those questions. If we were to
act like bad engineers instead, and take your 'it is' answer as
sufficient, you'd be a lot happier.
Modern science, in any case, does have a concern about utility.
Ideas can be useful towards doing science, or not. Those which
are useful -- say by generating questions that can be answered by
observation, or by producing explanations about how observations
relate to each other, or by making predictions about things that
you ought to observe under some given conditions -- stay in science.
ID, as you continue to demonstrate, does no such thing. It generates
no questions. The obvious questions of what, who, how, when, why, it (you)
specifically disallow. It relates no observations. It certainly
makes no predictions, as predictions have to be specific as to one
or more of the what/how/when/where/...
So ID is useless to science. It might be useful for constructing
stories, or for winning political points, or some other non-scientific
matter. But it's useless to and for science. The absence of ID
lesson plans, or even a desire from the DI for there to be such, is
yet another indicator of its uselessness.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Ferrous Patella
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
[...]
>>> ID isn't science.
>>
>> ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is
>> not science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does
>> as much. There is nothing about trying to detect design that is
>> unscientific in its nature.
>
> "intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design in
> nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools. if
> somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd be best
> advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate
> them with conmen.
Arguing that ID needs to be renamed just because a bunch of yahoos in
rural PA misused it is like saying evolution needs to be renamed because
Hitler misused it.
>> ID as science is a very young paradigm. At the risk of violating your
>> request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID would be to
>> perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA). Surely there
>> would be some grant money to had from either the private or public
>> sector.
>
> there is no way to search DNA in an analogous way to the way SETI
> searches for signals. SETI is looking for narrow band radio waves, the
> kind we use on earth, because it operates under the (questionable)
> assumption that other intelligence might communicate the same way. any
> patterns we found in such narrow band waves would be completely
> uninterpretable by us.
We could look for a "carrier" biological medium. One with very little
variation (narrow "bandwidth") but capable of carrying a "signal". There
needs to be some substance make of just of few molecules but readable in a
liner fashion.
>
> likewise, even if a pattern in DNA
DNA! Why didn't I think of that!
> exists for the purpose of sending
> us a message from our supposed designer, we have no possible way to
> decode it.
We do not need to decode it, just be able to recognize it as a intelligent
signal.
Robert Grumbine
Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>
>> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns979559A7ED12F...@199.45.49.11:
>>
>>> news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>>>
>>>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely,
>>>> 100% the product of intelligent design.
>>>
>>> This is nonsensical. All knowledge in science is provisional.
>>
>> ID isn't science.
>
>...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is not
>science.
Sure you can. Whether your declaration is respected is a different
matter.
>That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does as much.
>There is nothing about trying to detect design that is unscientific in its
>nature.
Didn't you read his ruling? He didn't declare that trying to detect
design was unscientific in nature. He declared that the [insert noun
or noun phrase] under the label of ID being pushed by the Dover school
board was unscientific.
That's a very different issue than you present here. On that issue,
Jones was the trier of fact, and ruled as to that fairly specific fact.
Not fiat declaration.
>ID as science is a very young paradigm.
As yet, it's either a very old corpse, rotted away to dust, or it
is so young that it is has yet to be born.
>At the risk of violating your
>request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID would be to
>perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA). Surely there would
>be some grant money to had from either the private or public sector.
I don't know about surely, but maybe. If someone were to pursue
such research -- and to find things which could be identified on a
scientific basis (Behe/Dembski's 'it's designed because I look at it
and say so' is not a scientific basis) to have been designed then it
could become a very young paradigm. With ID being largely out of DI,
Phil Johnson, ..., the odds aren't good. It's corpse dust.
Certainly if ID is to mean what DI wants it to mean, then it isn't
science. (Ignoring the part of their desire that says they want it
to be called science. But retain the rest of their 'program'. Even
if they got what they say they wanted, it isn't science they'd be
getting.)
Robert J. Kolker
> Q1- the human mind
>
> Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
> laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
Evolution is not progressive. It produces a movement to a local optimum
in the space of designs adapted to the current environment.
> why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
> not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
> evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
The whale, a seadwelling mammal arose from a landwelling mammal which is
the descendant of seadwelling life forms. From sea to land back to sea.
The "progress" you sea is illusory. What you are seeing is natural
selection at work. This produces a good enough fit between surviving
life forms and the environment in which they live.
>
> Q3- The advancement of homo sapien sapiens over homo sapiens is almost
> too marginal to measure, but the real difference translates into
> turning ideas into words, words into language, language into a written
> form and that written form into literacy within populations. Through
> language, homo sapien sapiens are able to organize their efforts, build
> pyramids, fashion governments and create technology. The human mind
> represents an evolutionary leap that by its own measure exceeds the
> geological time limitations of gradual evolution.
You are looking at cultural adaptation which proceeds much more quickly
than evolution by natural selection. The "human mind" as you put it, is
a succession of successful cultural adaptations. The brain of homosapien
fifty or seventy thousand years ago is basically no different from ours now.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Theology and forensics are concerned with truth, science is primarily
> after understanding.
Theology has nothing to do with objective factual truth. Theology is a
rationalization for the belief in spooks which is essentially irrational
and anti-factual.
Bob Kolker
robin
please disregard. I have been spending some time re-reading Tom Paine,
especially Age of Reason. His main criticism of historic Christianity,
which he calls "monarchical priest-craft" was, besides its suppression
of science, which he regarded as unforgiveable, but he also singles out
the censorship, the constant swaggering arrogance (my paraphrase), the
obsession with imposing defacto confomity of opinion, and finally the
persecution and oppression and esploitation of anyone too weak to
resist.
I am an evangelical by background and by choice, but at what cost my
people paid to get grafted on to the white man's religion, not that it
was all bad, but in the opinion of many, was a long conversion process
that, from this point at least, there is no turning back.
But why must everyone THINK the same? Why must we all be expected to
believe the same?
In Tom Paine's case, he rejected the Christianity of his forefathers,
and turned to Nature, or to be more specific, he turned to science, as
a more reliable explanation of the unknown. Whether the phenomena of
observable science can be attributed to divine intervention, it is
patently clear that they can. It is instructive to turn to anthropology
for the simpler creation accounts of non-Western peoples.
Like Einstein, I happen to believe that non-theistic inquiry, including
the physical sciences, are best when NOT separated from the subjective
or socalled feminine affections of the heart. Not that I fully
understand that mysticism that Einstein spoke of, but there is
something that resonates in my tribal soul.
If you want to understand the Bible, go to the simpler texts of the
socalled primitive "religions."
May I offer something written by Miss Annie Besant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are going to read one of the inspired books of the world- The
Imitation of Christ; The Golden Verses of Pythagoras; The Light on the
Path; The Voice of the Silence -it is well to preface the reading
with a prayer, if-that be your habitual way of raising your
consciousness to its highest mood, or with the repetition of a mantra,
or the soft chanting of some familiar and beloved rhythm, in order to
bring yourself into a sympathetic condition. Then read a phrase,
re-read, brood over it, savour it mentally, suck out its essence, its
life.
Thus shall your subtle body become, to some extent at least, attuned to
that of the inspired writer, and repeating his vibrations, shall set up
in your consciousness the corresponding changes. Priceless is the value
of inspired books: they are steps of a ladder set up between earth and
heaven, a veritable Jacob's ladder, on which descend and ascend the
angels of God.
[above from Theosophy of Annie Besant]
snex
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:1143656813....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>
> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
> >> news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
> [...]
> >>> ID isn't science.
> >>
> >> ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is
> >> not science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does
> >> as much. There is nothing about trying to detect design that is
> >> unscientific in its nature.
> >
> > "intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design in
> > nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools. if
> > somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd be best
> > advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate
> > them with conmen.
>
> Arguing that ID needs to be renamed just because a bunch of yahoos in
> rural PA misused it is like saying evolution needs to be renamed because
> Hitler misused it.
strawman. "ID" isnt being misused. "ID" represents the pseudoscience
itself.
>
>
> >> ID as science is a very young paradigm. At the risk of violating your
> >> request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID would be to
> >> perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA). Surely there
> >> would be some grant money to had from either the private or public
> >> sector.
> >
> > there is no way to search DNA in an analogous way to the way SETI
> > searches for signals. SETI is looking for narrow band radio waves, the
> > kind we use on earth, because it operates under the (questionable)
> > assumption that other intelligence might communicate the same way. any
> > patterns we found in such narrow band waves would be completely
> > uninterpretable by us.
>
> We could look for a "carrier" biological medium. One with very little
> variation (narrow "bandwidth") but capable of carrying a "signal". There
> needs to be some substance make of just of few molecules but readable in a
> liner fashion.
and it needs to be unlikely to be able to form naturally.
however, even if SETI does discover such a signal, it does not
instantly declare that life has been found. it has already been fooled
once by pulsars. how would you be able to do the same for DNA?
>
> >
> > likewise, even if a pattern in DNA
>
> DNA! Why didn't I think of that!
>
> > exists for the purpose of sending
> > us a message from our supposed designer, we have no possible way to
> > decode it.
>
> We do not need to decode it, just be able to recognize it as a intelligent
> signal.
and how do you do that with respect to DNA?
snex
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:hcAWf.61502$Jd.2...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net by CreateThis:
>
> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
> >
> >> ... A
> >> designer could use processes undetectable by us (for example, processes
> >> using dimensions outside the time-space continuum) and still leave
> >> evidence of design.
> >
> > Do you mean evidence that doesn't look like design by humans? How else
> > would we recognize it? If it looks like human design, what leads us to
> > believe it isn't by humans?
>
> Again the SETI example comes to mind. We are looking for signals that look
> like human signals. If we find some, that does not mean we have found
> humans.
nor does it mean we have found intelligence.
CreateThis
> In article <1143657238....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> goodr...@yahoo.com <michael....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's funny.
>>
>>It tells us that Hamilton is confused about the difference between a
>>scientific initiative which is principally concerned with truth, and an
>>engineering program which is principally concerned with utility.
>>
>>Interesting how many folks are trying to gripe about a scientific
>>initiative because it doesn't satisfy them as an engineering one.
>>
>>Explains a lot really.
>
>
> No surprise that you grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
Also no surprise that he didn't try to answer any of the questions, just
tried to weasel some words around.
Explains a lot really (but nothing we didn't already know).
CT
Mark Isaak
<goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>> product of intelligent design.
>
>All of them.
>
>> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
>
>Why?
Without a designer, you don't have design. Until Q2 is answered, we
can say with absolute certainty that ID is bogus.
>> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
>> living thing.
>
>Why?
Because some people want to know.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ferrous Patella
> In article <Xns9795688ABA7B2...@199.45.49.11>,
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>>news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
[...]
>>> ID isn't science.
>>
>>...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is
>>not science.
>
> Sure you can. Whether your declaration is respected is a different
> matter.
:)
>>That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does as much.
>>There is nothing about trying to detect design that is unscientific in
>>its nature.
>
> Didn't you read his ruling? He didn't declare that trying to detect
> design was unscientific in nature. He declared that the [insert noun
> or noun phrase] under the label of ID being pushed by the Dover school
> board was unscientific.
I read it from end to end multiple times.
The part I object to is where he said that "ID cannot uncouple itself from
its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." He made no
qualifications about it being the version of "ID being pushed by the Dover
school board" and says it is impossible for ID to be science. This is
overstepping his authority.
I hold that ID can be science and have tried to show just one way it could
be.
>
> That's a very different issue than you present here. On that issue,
> Jones was the trier of fact, and ruled as to that fairly specific
> fact. Not fiat declaration.
>
>>ID as science is a very young paradigm.
>
> As yet, it's either a very old corpse, rotted away to dust, or it
> is so young that it is has yet to be born.
>
>>At the risk of violating your
>>request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID would be to
>>perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA). Surely there
>>would be some grant money to had from either the private or public
>>sector.
>
> I don't know about surely, but maybe. If someone were to pursue
> such research -- and to find things which could be identified on a
> scientific basis (Behe/Dembski's 'it's designed because I look at it
> and say so' is not a scientific basis) to have been designed then it
> could become a very young paradigm.
The problem with Behe & Dembski isn't that. The problem is that they are
looking for "not evolved", which does not equal "designed". If they do
find something that could not have evolved (tricky in itself, since that
would be like trying to prove a negitive), that something would be a very
good place to consentrate a search for design.
> With ID being largely out of DI,
> Phil Johnson, ..., the odds aren't good. It's corpse dust.
Again, guilt by association.
>
> Certainly if ID is to mean what DI wants it to mean, then it isn't
> science.
I think the folks at DI would love a research program that actually found
scientific evidence *for* design.
> (Ignoring the part of their desire that says they want it
> to be called science. But retain the rest of their 'program'. Even
> if they got what they say they wanted, it isn't science they'd be
> getting.)
>
--
peter
You might note that I made no claim that theology *found* truth, rather
that it was concerned with it. Success in the endeavor is an entirely
different question.
Ferrous Patella
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> news:1143656813....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>>
>> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> >> news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>> [...]
>> >>> ID isn't science.
>> >>
>> >> ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID
>> >> is not science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where
>> >> he does as much. There is nothing about trying to detect design
>> >> that is unscientific in its nature.
>> >
>> > "intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design
>> > in nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools.
>> > if somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd
>> > be best advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would
>> > associate them with conmen.
>>
>> Arguing that ID needs to be renamed just because a bunch of yahoos in
>> rural PA misused it is like saying evolution needs to be renamed
>> because Hitler misused it.
>
> strawman. "ID" isnt being misused. "ID" represents the pseudoscience
> itself.
Is not. (See I can play the bald accretion game too.)
>>
>>
>> >> ID as science is a very young paradigm. At the risk of violating
>> >> your request above, I think a very good line of inquire for ID
>> >> would be to perform a SETI-like search in biology (maybe in DNA).
>> >> Surely there would be some grant money to had from either the
>> >> private or public sector.
>> >
>> > there is no way to search DNA in an analogous way to the way SETI
>> > searches for signals. SETI is looking for narrow band radio waves,
>> > the kind we use on earth, because it operates under the
>> > (questionable) assumption that other intelligence might communicate
>> > the same way. any patterns we found in such narrow band waves would
>> > be completely uninterpretable by us.
>>
>> We could look for a "carrier" biological medium. One with very little
>> variation (narrow "bandwidth") but capable of carrying a "signal".
>> There needs to be some substance make of just of few molecules but
>> readable in a liner fashion.
>
> and it needs to be unlikely to be able to form naturally.
Which is why Behe spends so much time looking for feature that could not
have evolved.
>
> however, even if SETI does discover such a signal, it does not
> instantly declare that life has been found. it has already been fooled
> once by pulsars. how would you be able to do the same for DNA?
I thought the pulsar incident happened before SETI. Isn't that why they
are named something like 'LGM207'. The LGM stands for Little Green Men.
I agree that more is needed before one can declare that DNA has an
intelligent signal, just as SETI would need to do more even if then found
a radio transmission over a narrow bandwidth.
>
>>
>> >
>> > likewise, even if a pattern in DNA
>>
>> DNA! Why didn't I think of that!
>>
>> > exists for the purpose of sending
>> > us a message from our supposed designer, we have no possible way to
>> > decode it.
>>
>> We do not need to decode it, just be able to recognize it as a
>> intelligent signal.
>
> and how do you do that with respect to DNA?
Same way we would for SETI. Maybe that is where someone like Dembski would
come in, although I would hold out for someone like Turing.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Phobophile"
Record holder for most CW votes per word
Tracy P. Hamilton
I seem to recall a little challenge, Pagano Christmas Puzzle II,
where strings of text were given, and asked whether they had CSI in
them,
i.e. detectable as designed by one of Dembski's methods. It would seem
that an enterprise concerned with truth would not be shy about actually
testing itself.
What was your methodology and conclusion then?
I really enjoyed looking over that thread again. It shows
ID for the empty rhetoric it is.
Let us see what the word design means (since Grendel asked,
and you seem to think it might not have anything to do with solving
problems, or planning).
>From www.m-w.com:
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan :
DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect
crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her
studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed
primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans
for
intransitive senses
1 : to conceive or execute a plan
2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
> Interesting how many folks are trying to gripe about a scientific
> initiative because it doesn't satisfy them as an engineering one.
>
> Explains a lot really.
ID is not scientific because it does not detect design. It explicitly
does not
detect intent, planning, devising, creating, fashioning, executing, any
of
those words above.
In science, the methods need to have utility. In engineering, the
object to be made has to have utility. See, I understand the
difference.
So, is there an ID detection method or not? Numbers talk, bullshit
walks.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Ferrous Patella
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
[...]
>> Again the SETI example comes to mind. We are looking for signals that
>> look like human signals. If we find some, that does not mean we have
>> found humans.
>
> nor does it mean we have found intelligence.
It does make you wonder the "I" in SETI is for.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture," says Pastor Ray Mummert, defending the Dover School
District's awkward attempt to introduce ID into the public school
classroom.
CW winner 01APR05
Ferrous Patella
goodr...@yahoo.com:
> I reiterate my previous suggestion.
No you didn't. You said you were going to, then quit.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Joe Cummings
>
>
>
>"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns97955777...@195.188.240.200...
>> A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
>> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
>> you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
>> answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
>> definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
>>
>> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
>> SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
>> we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
>>
>> Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>> product of intelligent design.
>
>
>All of them.
>
>
>
>>
>> Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
>
>
>Why?
>
>
>>
>> Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
>> living thing.
>
>
>Why?
Mike,
Are you so ashamed of your God that you would deny him?
I thought you were made of sterner stuff than that.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Matt Silberstein
<mail1...@pop.net> in
<Xns979573CE7DC43...@199.45.49.11> wrote:
>news:1143656813....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>
>> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>>> news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>[...]
>>>> ID isn't science.
>>>
>>> ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is
>>> not science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does
>>> as much. There is nothing about trying to detect design that is
>>> unscientific in its nature.
>>
>> "intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design in
>> nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools. if
>> somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd be best
>> advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate
>> them with conmen.
>
>Arguing that ID needs to be renamed just because a bunch of yahoos in
>rural PA misused it is like saying evolution needs to be renamed because
>Hitler misused it.
>
You have that directly opposite. That there could be something
scientific called Intelligent Design is irrelevant to the conclusion
that the existent thing called Intelligent Design is not science.
[snip]
RAM
Note this:
>scientific initiative which is principally concerned with truth,
Earlier Goodrich in this thread you write "You can't prove anything
with science you can only model something; you can at best disprove
something."
Truth = modeling | disproof
> and an
> engineering program which is principally concerned with utility.
>
> Interesting how many folks are trying to gripe about a scientific
> initiative because it doesn't satisfy them as an engineering one.
>
Then give us a theoretical model of the design process.
> Explains a lot really.
Your inability to be consistent about what science attempts to do
really does explain a lot about why you always fail to provide
substantive responses. Conceptually meandering back and forth between
"truth" and modeling reveals you are into rhetoric and not insights
about design.
I would go so far as to argue even providing an engineering explanation
by ID theorists would be a substantive step toward understanding ID.
If they could do this; it, at least, would partially substantiate
design by "unknown 'intelligent?' designers." So you are substantively
wrong on both accounts above.
RAM
snex
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:1143661496....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>
> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
> [...]
> >> Again the SETI example comes to mind. We are looking for signals that
> >> look like human signals. If we find some, that does not mean we have
> >> found humans.
> >
> > nor does it mean we have found intelligence.
>
>
> It does make you wonder the "I" in SETI is for.
i was unaware that science was done by acronym now. when did examining
evidence fall out of favor?
Ferrous Patella
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> news:1143661496....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>>
>> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Again the SETI example comes to mind. We are looking for signals
>> >> that look like human signals. If we find some, that does not mean
>> >> we have found humans.
>> >
>> > nor does it mean we have found intelligence.
>>
>>
>> It does make you wonder the "I" in SETI is for.
>
> i was unaware that science was done by acronym now. when did examining
> evidence fall out of favor?
>
Are you saying the folks at SETI *aren't* looking for intelligence?
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
snex
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:1143666191.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>
> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
> >> news:1143661496....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
> >>
> >> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Again the SETI example comes to mind. We are looking for signals
> >> >> that look like human signals. If we find some, that does not mean
> >> >> we have found humans.
> >> >
> >> > nor does it mean we have found intelligence.
> >>
> >>
> >> It does make you wonder the "I" in SETI is for.
> >
> > i was unaware that science was done by acronym now. when did examining
> > evidence fall out of favor?
> >
>
> Are you saying the folks at SETI *aren't* looking for intelligence?
the fact that they are looking for intelligence has nothing to do with
whether or not their methods are able to find it.
fact is, and any SETI researcher will tell you this, any signal
whatsoever they receive could be caused by non-intelligent causes that
we yet have no knowledge about. there is no proposed method of
determining whether or not actual signals are designed. there are only
methods of determining that they are NOT designed.
Robert Grumbine
Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>news:122lo1q...@corp.supernews.com by Robert Grumbine:
>
>> In article <Xns9795688ABA7B2...@199.45.49.11>,
>> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>>>news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
[...]
>> I don't know about surely, but maybe. If someone were to pursue
>> such research -- and to find things which could be identified on a
>> scientific basis (Behe/Dembski's 'it's designed because I look at it
>> and say so' is not a scientific basis) to have been designed then it
>> could become a very young paradigm.
>
>The problem with Behe & Dembski isn't that. The problem is that they are
>looking for "not evolved", which does not equal "designed". If they do
>find something that could not have evolved (tricky in itself, since that
>would be like trying to prove a negitive), that something would be a very
>good place to consentrate a search for design.
Seriously, yes their problem _is_ that. They have no definition
of design that anybody else can use. Scientists don't work by 'trust
me, I say it is'. The extent they're looking for 'not evolved' is
irrelevant, as they also have no definition for that beyond 'ask us'.
More in a moment.
>> With ID being largely out of DI,
>> Phil Johnson, ..., the odds aren't good. It's corpse dust.
>
>Again, guilt by association.
Description. If ID is _not_ largely out of DI, please correct me.
Given what I've seen in my years in TO (including Johnson's visit
here), if it is largely DI, the odds of any science coming of it
are not good. Seriously. Examine their publication record.
Examine the publication record is part of that 'more in a moment'.
>> Certainly if ID is to mean what DI wants it to mean, then it isn't
>> science.
>
>I think the folks at DI would love a research program that actually found
>scientific evidence *for* design.
Well, that's the problem and the beginning of the rest of the above
'moment'.
DI advances no science, and nothing that could become science. What
they would like -- strictly as spectators -- to see other people do
is irrelevant. At least, also not science.
Maybe 'scientific research program' is a stumbling point. (I'll omit
'scientific' as a qualifier for this and later.) Wishing people to find
little green men on mars is not a research program, for instance. It
says nothing about how to look, nor (beyond 'mars') where. Having found
little green men on mars, it also says nothing about what you're going to
do with the information. No hypothesis is tested, no theory destroyed.
Just an interesting fact which you, for reasons of your own, wish would
be discovered to be true. But one failing as science, also, for the
fact that repeated failure to find little green men on mars neither changes
your desire for them to be found, nor your belief that they're there to
be found.
Contrast with something which did produce a research program, even though
(I believe) the relevant fields never did, at least in majority, consider
it correct -- the periodic extinction hypothesis of Raup and Sepkoski
(see _The Nemesis Affair_ by David Raup for first hand description of
the public and scientific responses and their evolution). After compiling an
extensive data base of families and genera through time, Sepkoski thought
he saw a recurring pattern of spikes in extinction on a quasi-regular
basis. He and Raup then worked to build statistical tests of the
hypothesis, and to nail down at what period it occurred. That is,
they started from data which suggested a hypothesis to test, and from
the data, made tests with some care.
After they completed their testing, they published in the scientific
literature, and thence began the research program for the field at large.
(Contrast with ID's defense in Dover, where Minnich(?) was pleading for
ID to be taught so that the next generation could find evidence for it.)
The research program largely consisted of trying to shoot holes in
the idea. The process of shooting holes (scientifically, against a
scientific target) produces more science, irrespective of whether
the target turns out to be correct. In this case, the program included:
Work on improving the dates of the geologic periods (maybe the periodicity
is just an artefact of poor dating).
Collect more fossils around the periods of the mass extinctions with
an eye to showing that the extinctions weren't sudden events (hence, not
really 'mass' extinctions).
Go back farther in time and show that the periodicity disappears with
a longer record.
Go looking through the cores for markers (or their absence) that would
indicate large impactors consistently being present at the times of
mass extinctions. (The hypothesis came out in the 1980s, and
mass extinction by impactor, even at the KT boundary, was controversial
itself. Regular period suggests an astronomical forcing, though
may not absolutely require it.)
Develop better tests of periodicity in this sort of data set, and show
that it really isn't present.
For the most part, I think the responses didn't really disprove the
hypothesis. Rather, the lack of a mechanism to produce the period
was, all along and ultimately, the main obstacle. Regardless, though,
it started as science, provided a research program, and, correct or
not, was and resulted in good science being done.
For intelligent design (the non-discovery institute version you're
trying to promote, whatever it is exactly) ... well, what problem does
it solve? We see a lot of life, and it seems to evolve, without any
sign that something other than known evolutionary processes are
required. 'there was a designer, somewhere, somehow, who did something,
but who erased his fingerprints so that we don't see any of the when,
where, how, or what', just doesn't fit with science. It might be true.
But there's nothing surprising in the data (insofar as stuff we already
have is relevant data) to make the question of design interesting. Right?
No eyeballing the curve and wondering whether the data are periodic, for
example.
What research program does it suggest? Your above 'try to detect
design' is not a research program. Where, how? What observations of
nature lead you to believe that 'try to detect design' can lead us to
more specific observations or tests to make?
The last 2 paragraphs aren't rhetorical questions. If you've
got science answers for them, then it's a start towards the birth
of the paradigm. Until they're answered, though, id is just the
ghost of the ground Paley's dead horse once laid on.
Ray
wrote:
>A few simple questions for those of you in the ID camp. Apart from Q3,
>they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have thought. If
>you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for later, but even an
>answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along the lines of "entity X
>definitely designed living being Y", which would be quite a start.
>
>If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about evolution,
>SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions below and I think
>we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very much.
>
>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>product of intelligent design.
Me
>Q2. Please explain who or what the "desisgner" actually is.
Cosmic MIND (by some called GOD).
>
>Q3. Please explain the process by which the "designer" designed the above
>living thing.
Just like humans design: by using its intelligence and other skills
(some of which are yet unknown to science)
Ferrous Patella
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:23:14 GMT, in talk.origins , Ferrous Patella
> <mail1...@pop.net> in
> <Xns979573CE7DC43...@199.45.49.11> wrote:
>
>>news:1143656813....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by snex:
>>
>>> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>>>> news:Xns9795BF1F...@195.188.240.200 by Ilas:
>>[...]
>>>>> ID isn't science.
>>>>
>>>> ...for a given value of "is". One cannot declare by fiat that ID is
>>>> not science. That is why I dislike Judge Jones's ruling where he does
>>>> as much. There is nothing about trying to detect design that is
>>>> unscientific in its nature.
>>>
>>> "intelligent design" is not a scientific attempt to detect design in
>>> nature. it is a method to sneak creationism into public schools. if
>>> somebody wants to genuinely search for design in nature, theyd be best
>>> advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate
>>> them with conmen.
>>
>>Arguing that ID needs to be renamed just because a bunch of yahoos in
>>rural PA misused it is like saying evolution needs to be renamed because
>>Hitler misused it.
>>
> You have that directly opposite. That there could be something
> scientific called Intelligent Design is irrelevant to the conclusion
> that the existent thing called Intelligent Design is not science.
It sounds like we are saying the same thing coming at it from opposite
directions.
Like I said before, it depends on what 'is' is. Is ID what the DI says it
is or is it what it could be if it were pursued scientifically? With Jones
ruling, now anything called 'ID' has a legal precedent for being
unconstitutional, even if it is scientific.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Ray
wrote:
>"justchillin" <wrig...@netins.net> wrote in
>news:1143632125.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> Simple question, simple answer.
>>
>> Q1. All living things. In fact all things.
>>
>> Q2. The grand architect of the universe.
>>
>> Q3. Can't. Let's say that the Bible is a book of why not of how.
>
>OK, at least that's honest. God did it. Problem is that ID is being touted
>as a non-religious "scientific theory" that should be taught in schools and
>accepted as legitimate by science (and the general public). Do you see why
>your answers might pose a bit of a problem to the ID movement?
>
Religon explains the WHY of God (his intentions), science the HOW of
God (his methods to fulfill his intentions).
Ray
wrote:
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>>>product of intelligent design.
>
>> All of them.
>
>Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
>"designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
Purpose and design are inseparable - purpose is the first step in any
design process, and design does not take place without purpose.
Therefore, that which has or have had a purpose for someone is
designed, that which does not is not.
Besides, just bunnies are not living things, which the question
refered to.
Ray
wrote:
>On 29 Mar 2006 05:38:31 -0800, "goodr...@yahoo.com"
><michael....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>>You can't prove anything with science you can only model something; you
>>can at best disprove something.
>
>Of course, since there is no model of Intelligent Design, claims for
>design are vacuous.
>
The model is the same as that for human design: a conscious being
want's to satisfy an inner need or desire and designs whatever
physical object that's necessary to fulfill that urge.
Matt Silberstein
<mail1...@pop.net> in
<Xns97958E19099D6...@199.45.49.11> wrote:
ID is that thing people refer to when they say/write "ID". So, yes, ID
is what the DI et. al. say it is. That does not mean it is science
because they say it is science. Science is the category we put or
don't put ID *in*, not a quality of ID itself.
Ye Old One
Science explains the WHAT/HOW/WHEN of the universe. Science explains
the WHY where WHY is a valid question. Science has found no evidence
for a god nor a need for a god.
--
Bob.
TCE
> God (his methods to fulfill his intentions).
Excellent, you sound like someone who understands God; why does he give
new-born babies brain cancer and have them die slowly in agony,
torturing their parents?
---
Strange
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:1143656126.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Q1- the human mind
> >
>
> The human mind was intelligently designed? By whom?
>
> > Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
> > laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
> > why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
> > not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
> > evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
>
> How can you use the term "Intelligent Design" without the inference of a
> designer? The term is meaningless without a "designer" who posseses
> "intelligence".
That's like asking how can you have evolution without an evolutioner.
Who possesses the means of evolution?
Intelligence is a combination of natural forces that produce consistent
progress through evolution. In your terms, it's the balance of nature.
Design is what happens when this balance interacts with time. Progress
becomes the design. The process doesn't require a designer, anymore
than evolution requires an evolutioner.
> >
> > Q3- The advancement of homo sapien sapiens over homo sapiens is almost
> > too marginal to measure, but the real difference translates into
> > turning ideas into words, words into language, language into a written
> > form and that written form into literacy within populations. Through
> > language, homo sapien sapiens are able to organize their efforts, build
> > pyramids, fashion governments and create technology. The human mind
> > represents an evolutionary leap that by its own measure exceeds the
> > geological time limitations of gradual evolution.
> >
>
> This is an answer to question number 3????
Would you prefer the number 42?
Dembski has completed only 57% of his thesis on ID. It's not like
Darwin, who's been completed since 1859 and had 145 years of
speculation to support it, without serious competition. ID isn't really
a competitor, anyway. It's an add-on theory to evolution, like
feathered dinosaurs. The threat it poses is reactionary, because
Dembski skews his books for the Christian Fundementalist book market
(It pays better!).
JTG 3/29/06
>
> JR
> >
> > JTG 3/29/06
> >
Augray
<jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in
<1143674868.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>Dembski has completed only 57% of his thesis on ID. It's not like
>Darwin, who's been completed since 1859 and had 145 years of
>speculation to support it, without serious competition. ID isn't really
>a competitor, anyway. It's an add-on theory to evolution, like
>feathered dinosaurs.
How in the world is "feathered dinosaurs" an add-on theory to
evolution?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1143674868.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
>> news:1143656126.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Q1- the human mind
>> >
>>
>> The human mind was intelligently designed? By whom?
>>
>> > Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
>> > laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
>> > why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
>> > not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
>> > evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
>>
>> How can you use the term "Intelligent Design" without the inference of a
>> designer? The term is meaningless without a "designer" who posseses
>> "intelligence".
>
> That's like asking how can you have evolution without an evolutioner.
> Who possesses the means of evolution?
>
> Intelligence is a combination of natural forces that produce consistent
> progress through evolution. In your terms, it's the balance of nature.
No it isn't. It is only if you wish to redefine "intelligence" to fit your
argument. From Webster's "Intelligence" is:
a.. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
a.. The faculty of thought and reason.
a.. Superior powers of mind.
Intelligence infers mind, and the word means nothing that resembles your
definition.
> Design is what happens when this balance interacts with time. Progress
> becomes the design. The process doesn't require a designer, anymore
> than evolution requires an evolutioner.
If you want to use design *without* intelligence, then your argument is a
little more plausible.
>
>> >
>> > Q3- The advancement of homo sapien sapiens over homo sapiens is almost
>> > too marginal to measure, but the real difference translates into
>> > turning ideas into words, words into language, language into a written
>> > form and that written form into literacy within populations. Through
>> > language, homo sapien sapiens are able to organize their efforts, build
>> > pyramids, fashion governments and create technology. The human mind
>> > represents an evolutionary leap that by its own measure exceeds the
>> > geological time limitations of gradual evolution.
>> >
>>
>> This is an answer to question number 3????
>
> Would you prefer the number 42?
>
> Dembski has completed only 57% of his thesis on ID. It's not like
> Darwin, who's been completed since 1859 and had 145 years of
> speculation to support it, without serious competition. ID isn't really
> a competitor, anyway. It's an add-on theory to evolution, like
> feathered dinosaurs. The threat it poses is reactionary, because
> Dembski skews his books for the Christian Fundementalist book market
> (It pays better!).
I would prefer an answer to the question. If you want to say, "I don't know
what the process is (yet)", then do so. That would at least answer the
question.
JR
John Harshman
> jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>><jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
>>news:1143656126.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Q1- the human mind
>>>
>>
>>The human mind was intelligently designed? By whom?
>>
>>
>>>Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
>>>laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
>>>why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
>>>not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
>>>evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
What exact does "forward" mean here? The reason lifeforms don't regress
(digress??) in to previous forms is just the complexity of the system
and the very low probability that exactly the same series of
environments and mutations will happen twice, much less in exactly the
reverse sequence. That's Dollo's Law. But there is no arrow of progress.
Species become simplified about as much as they become more complex.
Reptiles may not evolve into fish, but they do evolve into ichthyosaurs
and mosasaurs. (And mammals turn into whales.) Birds don't evolve into
Struthiomimus, but they do evolve into Struthio. What's the difference?
>>How can you use the term "Intelligent Design" without the inference of a
>>designer? The term is meaningless without a "designer" who posseses
>>"intelligence".
>
>
> That's like asking how can you have evolution without an evolutioner.
> Who possesses the means of evolution?
Nobody. But intelligence and design, as we normally understand the
terms, both require entities. If you want to redefine the words, that's
your prerogative, but don't expect anyone to understand you.
> Intelligence is a combination of natural forces that produce consistent
> progress through evolution. In your terms, it's the balance of nature.
> Design is what happens when this balance interacts with time. Progress
> becomes the design. The process doesn't require a designer, anymore
> than evolution requires an evolutioner.
Again, your personal definitions impede communication.
[snip]
Augray
<8n1m22h2lb608rqdi...@4ax.com> :
What is your support for that claim? How would you test it? If the
inner need or desire of the designer is unknown, how do you know if
the artifact being examined fulfills that? For instance, what inner
need or desire does malaria fulfill, and how well does malaria fulfill
it?
Elmer
>>>(snip)
>>>>Q1. Please name one living thing that is absolutely, definitely, 100% the
>>>>product of intelligent design.
>>>All of them.
>>Then how do you prove design if it's all designed? A rabbit is just as
>>"designed" as a dust bunny or a scree pile.
> Purpose and design are inseparable - purpose is the first step in any
> design process, and design does not take place without purpose.
What a rabbit's purpose? An Ichneumon?
> Therefore, that which has or have had a purpose for someone is
> designed, that which does not is not.
But if God created and designed this universe then every blasted bit
*is* designed, dust bunnies included.
> Besides, just bunnies are not living things, which the question
> refered to.
Is a prion or virus alive or not?
Ari Allyn-Feuer
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
> jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
> > news:1143656126.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Q1- the human mind
> > >
> >
> > The human mind was intelligently designed? By whom?
> >
> > > Q2- There is no designer. Intelligent design is a by product of natural
> > > laws, which result almost universally in progressive evolution. This is
> > > why lifeforms do not typically digress into previous forms. Reptiles do
> > > not evolve into fish, mammals do not evolve into reptiles, birds do not
> > > evolve into dinosaurs. Intelligent design moves forward.
> >
> > How can you use the term "Intelligent Design" without the inference of a
> > designer? The term is meaningless without a "designer" who posseses
> > "intelligence".
>
> That's like asking how can you have evolution without an evolutioner.
> Who possesses the means of evolution?
>
> Intelligence is a combination of natural forces that produce consistent
> progress through evolution. In your terms, it's the balance of nature.
> Design is what happens when this balance interacts with time. Progress
> becomes the design. The process doesn't require a designer, anymore
> than evolution requires an evolutioner.
So, what you're saying is that evolution occurs, life takes its present
forms....and you step in and call it design.
You can name an existing theory anything you like, I suppose, but it's
quicker and more convenient to call it by its proper, descriptive,
preexisting name: Evolution.
Unless you mean to say that the present course of evolution was
predestined by physical laws, and that some kind of mechanism made
physical laws the way they are for the purpose of bringing about
evolution's present course? If so, cite some evidence, any at all,
that this is so.
> > >
> > > Q3- The advancement of homo sapien sapiens over homo sapiens is almost
> > > too marginal to measure, but the real difference translates into
> > > turning ideas into words, words into language, language into a written
> > > form and that written form into literacy within populations. Through
> > > language, homo sapien sapiens are able to organize their efforts, build
> > > pyramids, fashion governments and create technology. The human mind
> > > represents an evolutionary leap that by its own measure exceeds the
> > > geological time limitations of gradual evolution.
> > >
> >
> > This is an answer to question number 3????
>
> Would you prefer the number 42?
No. We would prefer a responsive answer, one that deascribes a real
mechanism rather than ranting in messianic tones about the presumed
unique characteristics of human intelligence.
> Dembski has completed only 57% of his thesis on ID. It's not like
> Darwin, who's been completed since 1859 and had 145 years of
> speculation to support it, without serious competition. ID isn't really
> a competitor, anyway. It's an add-on theory to evolution, like
> feathered dinosaurs. The threat it poses is reactionary, because
> Dembski skews his books for the Christian Fundementalist book market
> (It pays better!).
We would prefer 42%. :)
You say that ID advocates' research is incomplete? Fine. If you can't
answer the questions, ID is unscientific for now. Finish your research
and try again.
In the mean time, stop saying ID is science and stop asking for ID in
the schools.
Or would you like to try again?
>
> JTG 3/29/06
>
> >
> > JR
> > >
> > > JTG 3/29/06
> > >
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Elmer
Well, I guess that lets out an omniscient, omnipotent being then. Such a
being has no "needs" or "inner desires" and no "urges".
Grendel
> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in
> news:vFvWf.1627$u15.3...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>> they're pretty basic, answerable in just a few words I'd have
>>> thought. If you can't answer Q3, never mind, we'll leave that for
>>> later, but even an answer to Q1 and Q2 would give us something along
>>> the lines of "entity X definitely designed living being Y", which
>>> would be quite a start.
>>>
>>> If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about
>>> evolution, SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions
>>> below and I think we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very
>>> much.
>>>
>>> the product of intelligent design.
>>
>> of design?
>>
>>
>> And what is it exactly that tips you off to the fact that something is
>> designed?
>
>
> "If any of you do answer, please don't go off at a tangent about
> evolution, SETI, or any other subject, just stick to the questions
> below and I think we'll finally be getting somewhere. Thank you very
> much."
There was no tangent, I just want to know how you define design.
When you look at a fence...does it looked designed to you?
yes or no?
How about a road? Does it look designed?
yes or no?
>
snex
the onus is on the IDers to define their own terms. the relevant
question is, how do YOU define "design?"
>
>
>
> >
Gary Bohn
news:FtuWf.43803$YX1.5364@dukeread06:
<snip>
What basis do we have that only intelligent agents can produce
complexity?
If specified complexity is different than plain vanilla complexity how
do we determine that a particular complexity is indeed specified without
any prior knowledge of the intent and abilities of the intelligent
agent?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
hersheyhv
I do not determine that a fence was designed by whether or not it
"looks" designed to me. That would be a private definition which is
scientifically useless. I determine the *probability* that it was
designed as a fence on the basis of prior knowledge of the types of
fences that humans make. Now, how do you determine whether it was
probably designed?
> How about a road? Does it look designed?
> yes or no?
I would use the same standard. Does the road or path look like the
type of road or path that, from prior knowledge, is like the roads that
humans make? Or is it more like the roads or paths that deer make?
Or like the ones that ants make? Or that dogs make? [Smell or taste
would be more important than vision in the last two cases.] Now, how
do you determine that something is a road, and if a road, one designed
by some organism?]
>
>
>
> >
Grendel
"hersheyhv" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:1143684886.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
When an archeologist digs up an ancient piece of pottery, what exactly
determines the difference between that and a lump of hard dirt?
How does the archeologist detect design? Is it something obvious? Clearly
the answer is yes.
How about a paleontologist digging around and striking something hard? What
is it that indicates fossil/artifact/rock?
It's very clear that simple observation with reasonable mental abilities can
quickly determine if something was designed.
In fact, that same process is used by everyone, everyday.
Enter evolutionism....all of a sudden, simple,obvious design becomes a
mysterious entity, "no one really knows"
Yes, all of a sudden, mention evolution, and evolutionists quickly shed any
normal operating parameters for detecting design.
It's like you people are being blinded from seeing the obvious, and kept
oblivious of simple reasoning.
This is soooo apropos.... "it escapes their notice"
2 Peter 3
4and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers
fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of
God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and
by water,
6through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with
water.
7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire,
kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
You will have a lot of explaining to do someday.
snex
maybe your cherished notion of what you think is obvious is mistaken.
look at the earth, its "obviously" flat. its "obviously" motionless
with the sun going around it.
if its so "obvious" why do you try to substitute sarcasm and insults
for explaining it to anybody?
<snip empty threats>
Shane
Sometimes. If I give you a piece of hard dirt, can you tell me if I
designed it, or it ocurred naturally?
> How about a paleontologist digging around and striking something hard? What
> is it that indicates fossil/artifact/rock?
> It's very clear that simple observation with reasonable mental abilities can
> quickly determine if something was designed.
Nope, that would be what hersheyv described, quite correctly, as
private definition, to which you will get endless argument from all
directions.
A simple test.
0001010101010100010110110111010101101011110101010110101
Is that string designed or random hitting of the 0 and 1 keys?
> In fact, that same process is used by everyone, everyday.
> Enter evolutionism....all of a sudden, simple,obvious design becomes a
> mysterious entity, "no one really knows"
No, that is not why design is mysterious. Design is mysterious because
it's very proponents are not able to produce a methodology whereby
design can un equivocally be detected.
> Yes, all of a sudden, mention evolution, and evolutionists quickly shed any
> normal operating parameters for detecting design.
> It's like you people are being blinded from seeing the obvious, and kept
> oblivious of simple reasoning.
>
> This is soooo apropos.... "it escapes their notice"
>
> 2 Peter 3
> 4and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers
> fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
> 5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of
> God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and
> by water,
> 6through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with
> water.
> 7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire,
> kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
>
> You will have a lot of explaining to do someday.
My reading of your posts indicates that you may well be in the same
predicament.
This is soooo apropos....
Matthew 7:21 - Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
A.Carlson
wrote:
They can *assume* design but since they are not omniscient they may be
wrong.
It is not uncommon for nature to throw a few curves in this
department. The Giant's causeway being just one example. Spherical
stones have also been known to have been created by nature in more
ways than one.
Self-replicating life that has undergone an immense amount of
untraceable processes is hardly something to base an assumption on.
For starters, how do you detect the difference between design and
adaptation? There are certainly many clues in nature that there has
been a lot of adaptation going on.
>In fact, that same process is used by everyone, everyday.
>Enter evolutionism....all of a sudden, simple,obvious design becomes a
>mysterious entity, "no one really knows"
What is 'obvious' to you is not necessarily right or obvious to
others. You still have the burden of proof for that particular
assertion.
>Yes, all of a sudden, mention evolution, and evolutionists quickly shed any
>normal operating parameters for detecting design.
What is 'design' in this respect? Must we simply take your word for
it that since it appears to you to be designed then it *must* be
designed?
>It's like you people are being blinded from seeing the obvious, and kept
>oblivious of simple reasoning.
>
>This is soooo apropos.... "it escapes their notice"
Once upon a time it was 'obvious' to many that the earth was flat, the
sun revolved around it, rocks didn't just fall out of the sky, and if
they did the heavier ones would fall faster than the lighter ones,
sickness could be cured by bleeding, flies spontaneously generated
from rotting meat, humans couldn't endure speeds much faster than a
horse could gallop, the sound barrier couldn't be broken, women simply
weren't capable of holding many of the same jobs as men traditionally
did, integration wouldn't work or wouldn't be accepted, and a sub-4
minute mile was simply unobtainable. In the late 1800's it was also
stated that everything in the field of science that was knowable was
pretty much already known.
Needless to say, they were wrong! Science gives us a method to
overcome our biases and ignorance. Baseless assumptions are not part
of the process no matter how 'obvious' certain things might be to
some.
< Clip irrelevant preaching>
>You will have a lot of explaining to do someday.
Well, today's the day that you can do a little explaining of your own
and describe how 'design' can be detected with surety.
While you're at it perhaps you could also explain why you think
highschoolscience.com is such a nifty site and not full of egregious
errors. You said you stood by that site. Were you lying?
Tom McDonald
<snip>
Jist isn't here to explain anything. See how good he is at getting
people to go haring off on his tangents, while never stopping long
enough to back up anything.
He isn't even willing to explain his own religious beliefs. He won't
even say outright that he is a Christian.
He's here to stir shit. AFAICT, that's the sum total of his reason for
being here.
> While you're at it perhaps you could also explain why you think
> highschoolscience.com is such a nifty site and not full of egregious
> errors. You said you stood by that site. Were you lying?
Did he type words?
Steven J.
goodr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On 29 Mar 2006 07:45:45 -0800, in talk.origins ,
> > "goodr...@yahoo.com" <michael....@gmail.com> in
> > <1143647145.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > >> Q5) Please tell us about one attempt by an ID advocate to learn more
> > >> about the designers?
> > >
> > >
> > >Why?
> >
> > Because it would give some value or meaning to the inference of
> > design. Because it would make "it was designed" something other than
> > an empty useless claim.
>
>
> Non Sequitur.
>
>
> > Because it would help us understand what
> > happened and would help us make better predictions. Because it is what
> > scientists would do and would want to know.
>
>
> Sure - we'd all like to be omniscient, but we are not. Further,
> sometimes all you have is the artifact which you can continue to
> investigate empirically, but no other info about prospective designers
> that you can investigate first hand except perhaps historical reports
> and other such forensic types of investigations/info.
>
Without any information about prospective designers -- no idea of what
they might be capable of, no idea what they might want or need, no idea
of how they might like to go about getting what they want with what
they can do -- we have no basis for inferring design. We recognize a
potsherd, a poem, a watch on the heath, as designed, because they look
like things one known class of designers produces. If something
doesn't resemble the results of known or hypothesized designers -- if
we have no idea at all about designers that might be able and inclined
to produce such a thing -- then we can't tell the effects of an utterly
unknown designer from those of utterly unknown but unguided and
unintelligent causes.
Dembski's filter simply can't distinguish between unknown unintelligent
causes and unknown intelligent ones without the very omniscience which,
as you point out, we don't actually have. Of course, in practice,
Dembski isn't actually running phenomena through his filter
(systematically testing every possible regularity of nature and
contingent combination of regularities and chance, and ruling them out
as causes); he's starting with an argument from personal incredulity,
and then assuming, that if an adequately detailed "naturalistic"
account is not presented to overthrow his incredulity, that he has
somehow shown that no such account is possible.
As almost a side issue, note (as Tony Pagano has done several times)
that Dembski hardly claims to have shown that every aspect of every
living thing is designed, or even that very many aspects of living
things are designed. I'm not sure if, when you said that "all of them"
are 100% designed, that you actually meant to affirm that every detail
of every species is designed, but at least I infer that you mean to say
that humans specifically, as opposed to merely mammals as a class, are
designed, rather than modified by unguided processes from a designed
proto-mammal. Is that inference of your meaning correct? If so, can
you present an ID argument for that position?
>
> > It is the questions that
> > archaeologists and anthropologists ask when they detect design.
>
>
> Fine! Rather than griping about it, feel free to jump right in and
> make a contribution to the world's knowledge. Complainers are
> everywhere, but men of action - well now that is a rare breed.
>
Okay, here is a point: design by itself does nothing. You cannot live
in the blueprint of a house; you cannot even examine a house plan that
has not been realized as a blueprint or other physical representation.
There needs to be some means of implementing design. There is an
immense amount of evidence that design (for some value of "design") has
been implemented in living things through a process of branching
descent with gradual modification, and that natural selection of
mutations is a major means of effecting many of the modifications.
That is, evolutionists have been busy doing what ID proponents have
been so negligent about: working out the mechanisms by which "design"
is turned into actual, palpable, efficacious things.
>
> OTOH, it is not a given that you can answer these questions within some
> stated time frame. You can't rush science is the old saying!
>
It would be nice if ID proponents showed more interest in actually
asking these questions, and in testing, however inconclusively,
possible answers.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
> M.G.
-- Steven J.