ID as Religion

quote:

---

holmes:
I know you have to be impartial, but I think it's pretty obvious no evidence was presented by IDman. All he did was assert the conclusions of some ID theorists, and hang a few quotes that did not address the topic.

---

That is not so. The evidence is the bacterial flagellum. The evidence is as Dr. Behe says:
Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BeheI can't help it if you people refuse to understand the concept of what evidence is. Life is evidence. The fact we have "natural" laws is evidence. Specified complexity and information are other evidences. Most, if not all, of the evidence has been laid out in the literature I cited. Failure to read said literature does not make it go away.When have I denied Behe? True I may disagree with Behe in common descent but I don't deny him anything. There are other scientists who disagree with common descent also. Many evolutionists agree with Lynn Margulis on endo-symbiosis for the origins of eukaryotes but disagree with her in other evolutionary matters. I don't understand your point.Bottom line is ID gets through the Lemon test and the Ninth Circuit's ruling on what constitutes a religion. IOW ID will take on RAZD in the real world any time.added during edit:
on the bac flag:
Natural selection selects functionally advantageous systems. Yet motor function ensues only after all parts have independently self-assembled. We know of only one cause sufficient to produce functionally integrated, irreducibly complex systems: intelligent design. This premise is falsifiable by showing that nature acting alone can produce said systems. Falsifiable, yes. Falsified, no. IOW it takes faith to think the bac flag arose by nature acting alone. There isn’t any evidence of nature doing so.Yes that too is evidence.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-10-2004 12:06 PM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
I actually do not like doing this because I agree that most practicing IDIOTs are using IDIOT theory as a religion, as IDman would seem to be a good example. He feigns science, but then resorts to all sorts of illogical claims and denies some of the scientific restraints Behe imposed on ID.

---

Nice insults. Is that the best you have? What science do I feign? As a scientist I am interested to know. What have I denied Behe?

quote:

---

holmes:
You ARE correct that pretty much all of them are using the "if we cannot determine a natural mechanism, it must be manufactured" criteria for design. Even Behe uses that.

---

That is not so. Behe uses the positive, as do many other IDists- Ratzsch, Gonzalez, Bradley, Meyer, et al., as evidenced by Behe's quote:Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BeheNothing about "nature couldn't do it", just based on what we DO know.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

ID Man:Name a single case in which a respected evolutionist has presented a possible development route of the prokaryotic flagellum in which each intermediary stage isn't advantageous as well. In fact, many in-betweens between no flagellum and a fully functional flagellum *already exist*.All bacteria have at the very least passive transport pores. Most (if not all) have active transport pores, in which a protein or multiple proteins simply line the pore and, using ATP and a target molecule, fold to push out a particular molecule. These aren't particularly complex, and can easily be randomly created from hundreds of other cellular proteins. Such proteins, should they mutate so that they protrude from outside the pore, can be used to help bond the bacteria in place, either to other cells or to a natural substrate. Some of these have become long and filamentous, which allows the bacteria to remain further away from its substrate or to allow more bacteria to cluster around a particular substrate. An active protein that, through random mutation, bonds to both the filament and the cell wall can - and will - shake the filament whenever it is activated, causing the bacteria to move around (so, if say, the protein came from a protein that was activated in response to the cell being under attack, it would make the bacteria swing around and evade its predator). Eventually, the filament being bound toa substrate no longer becomes a necessity; the bacteria wouldn't be effective at swimming, but would be able to move itself erratically when it was under attack. Beyond that, incremental protein changes make swimming more effective by adding a rotational deformation. All of the in-between stages exist.In short, your claim:
"Natural selection selects functionally advantageous systems. Yet motor function ensues only after all parts have independently self-assembled."
... is completely wrong, because intermediary stages already exist, to advantage. I reminds me of when I was debating with someone saying that any intermediary stages between a land mammal and a sea mammal would never work because they would be disadvantageous, and I was forced to mention something to the effect of, "Beaver? Otter? Seal? Any of these ring a bell?". When real-cases of in-betweens already exist, the argument that intermediates would be disadvantageous falls apart. Intermediates of the flagellum already exist. Consequently, the case against it falls apart.

holmes,I know that you are not an ID proponent, but I thought I would make a few comments.

quote:

---

My problem was that you have equated religion with supernatural... and a very broad definition of supernatural at that.

---

But that is what religion is, belief through faith in the supernatural. ID theories rely on the same thing, the presence of an untestable supernatural being that is assumed to exist only through faith. ID theories also state that this supernatural being caused things to happen in the natural realm, which sinks ID even further into the religious ranks.

quote:

---

Certainly the initial questions raised by ID theory is thoroughly scientific and without any faith at all, faith in the supernatural in general, and faith in a religion in specific. These basic questions are:

​

1) What criteria can we (or do we) use to determine if something has been designed/built, rather than occuring naturally (ie, mechanical activity with no intent)?

​

2) If these criteria are applied to biological organisms/structures, do we find evidence of design (intent) in them?

​

And unfortunately for anyone taking those two questions seriously, the completely agenda driven masters of the IDIOT movement have added...

​

3) If we can see design, what implications does that have for us? As if these people can possibly move from one to the other.

---

And the question that IDists never ask:2b) Are there natural mechanisms capable of producing the design in question?Of course, real science has answered this question and does not need to ask anymore questions in the realm of ID theories.

quote:

---

But as the above questions show, there is not an inherent intent to have any specific mechanism, and there CAN BE truly innocent, perfectly scientific ID theorists.

---

I fully agree with you. Yet when Dembski is asked to apply his CSI definitions and equations to actual biology he refuses. This is why ID is such a frustrating theory to argue against, because it approaches scientific testability but backs away at the last second. For all of the bluster that Dembski spews forth he has yet to even attempt to test ID theory through the scientific method. He claims that complex specified information can be measured, yet he refuses to measure it. Behe claims that IC systems come about in one fell swoop, yet he never shows evidence of this happening. I know I am preaching to the choir, but sometimes I just need to vent.

quote:

---

But I am a stickler for accuracy, and pure ID is not religion.

---

And again, I totally agree with you. However, the problem that with current ID theories applied to biological systems are these claims:1) Information REQUIRES an intelligent agent.2) Life contain information.3) Therefore, biological organisms were created by an intelligent agent.This leaves ID theory nowhere to go except to the supernatural. If the first designer or original designer can not come about through natural mechanisms, then they must either be supernatural or created by a supernatural force. The only other options are natural beings who are able to move between universes or backward in time, but this runs into the same problem of relying on unobserved mechanisms supported solely through faith.Now, if ID theory were to state that life can arise through natural mechanisms then ID theory is no longer needed to explain the presence of life. If natural mechanisms are sufficient to create the first designers, then complexity can arise through natural mechanisms. And I can't imagine the first designers NOT having IC systems as part of the biological makeup. Therefore, without the supernatural ID theory can not operate.

That is not evidence regarding whether ID is used as a religion or not. That is a single reference to a single ID author on a specific subject that happens not to be an example of ID being used as a religion.There are other authors and there are other quotes. Yes here is some evidence that is on topic...Dembski wrote a book called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology"You can start with trying to explain that title. After that you can explain the interior arguments which advise using science to back up the Bible and the Bible to back up science.That would be the type of evidence you'd have to be dealing with in this thread. There are other threads for discussing specific arguments for/against planks of IDIOT theory. What on earth are these arguments? This is hardly counts as evidence of any kind, much less science, even by IDIOT standards. You will find that I have read quite a bit. Failure to address the actual arguments in this thread will not make them go away. You cannot use the theories he laid out in Darwin's Black Box, and then say you disagree with the logical implications of them.His statements regarding the FACT that if there is design it may have only been at the point of abiogenesis, is not separable. That is the logical implication of his theory. This analogy does not fit. The other scientists have other options and are stating that she does not have evidence to place the mechanism of symbiosis as an overriding mechanism in other areas.If you, or anyone else, has some scientific evidence that abiogenesis could not be the place of design, I'd like to see it. I have not denied that it could. If you are capable of reading perhaps you would have noticed I am saying pure ID theory is not a religion.My only statement that as PRACTICED by many IDIOT theorists... and given two of your pieces of evidence I guess you are one of those many... it is a religion.Nice dodge, in not addressing that your lawyers have made the same argument against evolutionary theorists. This is off topic as it is a discussion of the arguments of IDIOT theory itself.But as an advance on some other thread, you simply have evidence for something or you do not. If we do not have evidence for a specific mechanism then we don't have a proven mechanism.The default position of there not being a designer is that there simply is no evidence for a designer (as a mechanism). Behe has only "proven" (at best) that we have no specific natural mechanisms as explanations for some certain structures.Or more specifically HE has not found any and does not know how, given the extent of our knowledge of biochemistry, how to explain the existence of those structures.He does not provide any positive evidence for a designer, just that it is still an open question.It takes faith to believe that a designer is the default answer if there is no known natural mechanism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, actually I have a direct reply to you, involving no insults, which you have not answered. Indeed you have chosen to respond to two posts NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU.This thread is a discussion on whether ID is in fact a religion. You have said that it is not... it is a science... and feign this position by mentioning specifics which do not contain overtly nonscientific statements.You then go on to undercut Behe's scientific legitimacy by acting as if he is wrong about the possibility (even under his own evidentiary claims) that evolution may be completely responsible for changes we have seen.Indeed you make silly comments like "life is evidence" and "natural laws are evidence", which is quite nonscientific claptrap. I have said that Behe comes the closest to making positive arguments. Unfortunately while he starts okay... admitting he is creating a criterion to "suspect" design... only to end on a much stronger statement than allowed and based more or less on a fallacy of analogy.If the ID movement wants to be taken seriously, scientifically, it has to stop jumping to the next level.The first thing that must be set up is a solid criteria for design. One that is acknowledgable as applicable in practice, and not based on "if no proven mechanism, then design."Only then can it be applied to specific entities.And even if such a thing were to be discovered there would need to be much more positive evidence regarding the mechanisms of design and about the actual designer before discussing teleology at all.And ONLY THEN, with a PROVEN designer, with a PROVEN design, with a PROVEN goal for specific entities, can ID theorists discuss implications on social agendas.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is patently untrue. What is true is that many fill the above criteria, if not in written theory, then in practice.However, as has been pointed out by ID theorists in some lucid moments, the designer does NOT HAVE TO BE SUPERNATURAL. The references to Crick's belief in aliens seeding the universe as an ID option, underscore this fact.In its PURE sense ID can be wholly scientific. It just hasn't been in practice, and may never get anywhere as a science because its leaders are only interested in promoting religion in a sheep's disguise of valid science. Actually what you list as 2b should be taken care of in point #1. The fact that it isn't just shows how weak their criteria are. That does not make it a religion though, as even UFO freaks can deny any religious or supernatural elements and use the same shitty criteria ID currently has.I wish people would not get so upset with ID that they make extreme statements about their position which are not true.Let me tell you, I absolutely loathe IDIOT theory (which is how it is currently practiced) and I have not been impressed by any work done strictly with ID (theoretically just detecting design in an object) so far.I recognize that both branches have failed as science, and the more popular (IDIOT Theory) is pretty much a religious Trojan Horse.But that does not take away from one thing, and that is maybe we can come up with criteria for detecting design. Maybe it will be useful in the future as more organisms become designed, and we need to sift through actual evolutionary changes and manmade entities.It'll have to reach that stage before we can apply it to the deep past, if indeed we ever can. Dembski (to my mind) has NOTHING to do with an actual ID theory. He is thoroughly an IDIOT theorist, and PATENTLY USING IT AS RELIGION.I pretty much gave up on his arguments having any merit when he began saying we had to abandon labelling arguments from ignorance as logical fallacies. I mean at that point... good bye! Remember I said they had to answer the first question first, which is what criteria can we use. I realize the above is what is being advanced by most... if not all... ID theorists.It completely fails as a criteria. Heck, you can't even get them to explain information properly. I hate to bring this up, but these options are enough, and there could be many more natural mechanisms that act at vast distances that we are simply unaware of at this time.It is faith if they SAY what mechanism was used. But all they have to do to find design is to come up with valid criteria no matter the mechanism.For instance, it is plausible to imagine we could find an artifact that we could identify as having been designed by something other than human hands. If it was found on earth, there could be many questions as to mechanisms (if it has materials not common to earth at any time) of how it was made and how it got here. That would not undercut the fact that it was designed.Well that is what they are SUPPOSED to be looking for, and plausibly could. They will first have to come up with criteria for detecting design in a biological organism.Given the vast lack of knowledge we have about how biological things change over time, and unlike artifacts they do change by themselves over time, they are going to have to do a lot better than "if not known, then design" and analogies to mouse traps as criteria for "detecting design". Yes it can, simply nowhere as easily as a bunch of religious philosophers, mathematicians, and lawyers think it can.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes,I muddied the waters a bit by not separating ID theory and the practice of ID theory by creationists. Sorry about that. I agree that ID theory itself does not require a supernatural being to exist, but I think we both agree that when creationists use the theory a supernatural being is assumed to be necessary. I can understand your frustration with the links made between religion and pure ID theory. Part of the problem is that "ID theory" is more of an evolutionist colloquial shorthand for the theory used by creationists.

quote:

---

For instance, it is plausible to imagine we could find an artifact that we could identify as having been designed by something other than human hands. If it was found on earth, there could be many questions as to mechanisms (if it has materials not common to earth at any time) of how it was made and how it got here. That would not undercut the fact that it was designed.

---

This very example is what has been going through my mind as well. Something like a laser gun just below the K/T boundary. Of course this would be indicative of a non-human intelligent being or culture, no doubt about it. However, as you already know, biological organisms that reproduce can not fit the same criteria as a laser gun.

quote:

---

Well that is what they are SUPPOSED to be looking for, and plausibly could. They will first have to come up with criteria for detecting design in a biological organism.

---

And even more importantly, how to detect non-design in biological organisms.

Exactly. I guess my take on the whole thing is to let their own words hang them.IF ID is science, which is how they keep promoting it, IDMan citing how the lawyers got everything cinched up that way... FINE.Then let everyone approach it as science and not fall into the trap being set by criticizing ALL ID for being creationist. I mean that's EXACTLY the kind of stuff they are looking for.Just walk in and throw back all the curtains and let the sunshine of science burn away all the garbage of creationism. The obvious ones like Dembski will fry in an instant.And if it is science, then these advocates are going to have to welcome all this added attention to the admittedly factual evidence Biblical literalism has NO SUPPORT, and that ID is still an infant idea with no theoretical weight to challenge current evolutionary theory.They say teach the controversy? Fine. They will see there are "issues" of mechanisms within an evolutionary theory that has ample evidence to support it regardless of mechanism, as opposed to a highly contradictory (almost wholly pathwork) set of criteria for the beginning of an ID theory which has no proposed mechanisms, much less evidence for such mechanisms.If there is a controversy within evo, a fullscale civil war must be going on within ID ranks.Teach that? Fine. Evolution comes off better. Or perhaps they can start actually defining "information", and how it is detected and measured in an objective sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, let’s look at this issue first. The definition in the dictionary is pretty straightforward: whatever is not natural is supernatural. But when we go beyond what we know is natural we get into a gray area: what we can see as probably having a future natural explanation, what we can see as possibly having a future natural explanation, what we think would be unlikely to have a future natural explanation, and things we would be pretty sure would not have a natural explanation (say a large hand reaching down from the sky ...). Where an individual would draw these lines would vary from person to person according to their individual beliefs (usually religious, but they could be nebulous superstitions).So let’s say for argument here that supernatural to an individual is anything that he cannot possibly foresee having a natural explanation. Thus I can say that I foresee a natural explanation for abiogenesis, so it is a natural process in my opinion, but that someone like buzz or willow cannot foresee abiogensis being a natural process so it is a supernatural process in their opinion. If we run this definition through the argument I still get the same result.If this does not narrow it down enough for you, what would you suggest? (and likewise for ID man -- if this definition is not okay what would you do with it?) This is bending off the topic, as it is looking at what ID purports to do without looking at what it is.I would say that the first question is problematical, as this has not been established. Certainly some have claimed to have a method (IC for instance), but when we look at them we find that the conclusions of design are usually ones of ignorance of the natural mechanisms (usually produced with statements of incredulity, like "how could that possible happen"), and we also find that there are IC systems that have been produced by natural means (and thus the existence of any IC system is not proof of a designed feature).Thus we cannot scientifically get to the second question until the first has been established as a scientific principle. As yet I see no method to positively and irrefutably differentiate intentional design from accidental design or from the appearance of design (the example I’ve used for this is the kaleidoscope - from one end a pretty pattern, from the other the actual random jumble is visible) due to too little information.That said, I want to stay on topic, [color=gold]and in particular, I don’t want to go beyond the question of the definition of supernatural at this point -- until ID man has the opportunity to provide his two-cents worth.[/gold]Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't think that that is quite accurate. Here are the defs again... Neither are simply not natural, then supernatural. These appear to be more positive claims of an EXISTENCE OUTSIDE the natural. Such that we identify the natural world, and a boundary into a "supernatural" world, or "supernatural forces".Only the second would be softer in that it includes "seems". But I think that is a little too shaky to hang one's hat on, as your example shows. Not only do I agree with the above, that's WHY I'm disagreeing with you. You have made the labelling of "supernatural" and so religion, so fluid and subjective that it becomes a multi-edge blade capable of criticizing everything.Its not just Buz and whatever, but ID Theorists that make the same attack on evolutionary mechanisms and abiogenesis. According to your theory then... they are right?It seems to me everyone is getting it wrong.Until one posits "some unknown force beyond nature or natural laws did it", therefore to an entity that by its nature cannot be described or tested at some point, I don't believe one is making a religious or "supernatural" claim.I can't accept a watering down that "a force or mechanism we have not discovered yet may have been involved" becomes labelled as "supernatural"."Unlikely", okay. "Unconvincing", okay. "Religion", no. Well, not exactly. I have been upfront the whole time stating that IDIOT Theory is being USED as a religion. The problem is that they are using... as IDMan points out... an actual possible scientific research program called ID as a legal shield.It is their strength in the courtrooms, but I think it is also the chink in their armor in the real world and in the classroom.Accept that it IS what it purports to be... and indeed some may even be totally behind that actual theory. Some writing certainly does follow along with it.Then move into it as all scientists would and REVIEW IT. Those using the purported ID theory as a shield would be removed as it would be clear where they are NOT sticking in practice to their own stated scientific program.That way you are free to use the critique you have given, but narrowly focused on individual ID proponents and mechanisms and not ID itself (which has been crafted to avoid the label of religion). Heheheh... You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. And that's the key. Okay so ID CAN be scientific. There is the first question: criteria for identification. They haven't made it past that at all.The few attempts have been weak to worthless, and the best one has already been countered by real life examples.Great, it's scientific, but it simply does not work yet. Thus evolution remains the prominent scientific theory for species diversity. Yes, let them teach that in schools. And we can't get to the third either. You'll note in Behe's book that he cautions people not to skip ahead and that much more research has to be done.But those looking for God in a beaker have hopped skipped and jumped at hearing the "possibility" that ID might have "metaphysical implications" to actually talking about the implications and are trying to then write backward to the first step. Too bad for them. I noticed he answered the two posts I didn't write to him so he could make it look like I never said anything he had to actually deal with.My guess is he's already spent his two pennies.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In another ID thread, someone posted this link to a former IDIOT theorist, that is leaving the fold because he wasn't YEC enough.It was a shocking read, and not simply why he was kicked out. CLEARLY the guy getting kicked out had already left the scientific fold well before he left ID.He is a perfect example of ID as religion. So here you have perfect evidence for what you laid out in your first post. And the fact that he is getting kicked out of ID by upper ups for not being MORE SO, is damning to the movement as a whole.But then in courts and legislatures they manage to pull a curtain around themselves and leave only the noncreationist nonreligious portions. And then use evo criticism of ID theory as religious as evidence evos are biased.I think it'd be much easier to use evidence like the above to show your point hits the mark with the IDIOT MOVEMENT AT LARGE, and so blast away much of the adherents and literature, rather than focusing on such a general thing as ID itself.Does this make sense? You can't catch a general theory with its pants down, but you can catch individuals that way.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The Ninth Circuit court’s 3-part test to define religion:
First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.Part 1:
a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design? Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer. Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people. In concurring with Edwards v. Aguillard, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, [A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.Part 2:
a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching
ID says nothing of morality, metaphysics or an afterlife. Code of conduct or a belief in divine revelation is not required. ID won’t help IDists find any underlying meaning of the universe. ID is simply a theory on the source of the appearance of design and extends beyond biology. In biology ID merely tries to apply well-established scientific method to the analysis of what we observe, i.e. IC in biological organisms. Clearly ID is an isolated teaching.Part 3:
a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs
ID is not beholden to any religious texts. Its adherents come from varying religious backgrounds. There aren’t any ID ceremonies. ID offers nothing to worship. ID says nothing about worship, how, why, what, where. There aren’t any ID holidays.ID is not religiously motivated. IDists are motivated by knowledge- knowledge of our existence. There is a truth to our existence. A reality on how life and the universe arose. That is what IDists seek.Now if people want to keep moving the goalposts that is another story. What are their motives for doing so?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Rei:
Name a single case in which a respected evolutionist has presented a possible development route of the prokaryotic flagellum in which each intermediary stage isn't advantageous as well.

---

All I know of is Ken Miller's refuted attempt.

quote:

---

REI:
In fact, many in-betweens between no flagellum and a fully functional flagellum *already exist*.

---

I am only aware of the type III secretory system. This scientific research has shown that it may have evolved from the flagellum- if anything.

quote:

---

Rei:
All bacteria have at the very least passive transport pores. Most (if not all) have active transport pores, in which a protein or multiple proteins simply line the pore and, using ATP and a target molecule, fold to push out a particular molecule. These aren't particularly complex, and can easily be randomly created from hundreds of other cellular proteins.

---

That is nothing but an assertion. Where did those hundreds of other proteins come from? The stockroom?

quote:

---

Rei:
Such proteins, should they mutate so that they protrude from outside the pore, can be used to help bond the bacteria in place, either to other cells or to a natural substrate. Some of these have become long and filamentous, which allows the bacteria to remain further away from its substrate or to allow more bacteria to cluster around a particular substrate. An active protein that, through random mutation, bonds to both the filament and the cell wall can - and will - shake the filament whenever it is activated, causing the bacteria to move around (so, if say, the protein came from a protein that was activated in response to the cell being under attack, it would make the bacteria swing around and evade its predator). Eventually, the filament being bound toa substrate no longer becomes a necessity; the bacteria wouldn't be effective at swimming, but would be able to move itself erratically when it was under attack. Beyond that, incremental protein changes make swimming more effective by adding a rotational deformation. All of the in-between stages exist.

---

Again, nothing but assertion.Beavers, otters and seals? And from what did these evolve? You have no idea if these organisms evolved to their current state or designed into their current state. You have no idea if they did evolve what mechanism was involved- purely natural or pre-programmed.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer.

---

...and this is where it fails as science and becomes bad philosophy.Why conclude "intelligence" out of a lack of knowledge?Why not say "we don't know", and "let's investigate further"?In other words, how can I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we:1) don't understand yet, but will in the fututre, or
2) don't have the capability to ever understand?Just because we can't figure out a problem doesn't mean an Intelligent Designer didit. It only means that we don't understand, nothing more.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-11-2004 09:04 AM