Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

In the thread designed for you to explain anticaption theory you have failed miserably. Evading questions, and giving non sensical answers. You still haven't answered what anticipation and harmonic oscillators have to do with each other. Why are you bringing it up hear as fact if you can't even explain it there?

quote:

---

Well Percy I'm sorry that you were not impressed by the logic of the argument for specified complexity because I was. I suppose since evolutionists do seem by and large to support 'the theory of no design' even when it looks like design, it is to be expected.

​

The problem is again in the philosophy of the evolutionist - it can't be designed because there is no designer so even when it looks like design by reason of its intricate organization, we call it 'designoid' or 'apparent design' as if you know for sure that something that truelly looks like design truelly can't have been designed.

​

In the Bible it is called 'willful blindness' -we can't see it because we don't want to.

---

Beretta, let me give you an example.A while ago, astrophysicists discovered a very orderly, very complex string of data coming from space, and one of the initial reactions was "Oh crap! We might've just discovered intelligent alien life out there!" These were extremely ordered radio pulses, and after the initial excitement died down scientists started studying the phenomenon.Turns out it wasn't aliens at all, but instead was the radio pulse of a rapidly-spinning astral body... and thus, neutron stars and pulsars were discovered. Something looked designed, but after the real research was done that dug past the surface, it turns out there was no design at all.The lesson is that plenty of things look complex, intricate, and orderly... snowflakes, pulsar emissions, the "Face on Mars," etc. However, these are all perfectly natural phenomena when you actually do the science.There is no "philosophy of evolutionists" that demands we exclude design from science. Quite the contrary. Plenty of scientific fields focus on the quest to find "design" in observed phenomena. Prime examples would be forensics, archaeology, or even the SETI project all want to find design. Science is perfectly open to the idea of design, but there has to be genuine, solid evidence for it, and ID proponents simply haven't provided this evidence at all, and instead spend all their time raging on about how closed-minded biologists are.

I asked this quetion sometime earlier, but I think I should ask it again.Say your arguments convinced me now that evolution isn't true, what evidence can you point to that will undeniably show "the hand of the designer" at work. In other words, Where is the POSITIVE evidence FOR design. No more arguments against evoltuion, we're passed that stage, convince me ID is the way to go instead of unintelligent guitar wielding metal thrashers. Yes that last bit was silly, but in the absence of any evidence at all, I can claim they did it by hitting the right riffs on their Universe, Life and Everything creating guitars by sheer chance.Edited by Huntard, : Spellings

Discrete Harmonic Oscillator? Is that what you call toothbrushes in Never Never Land?

The Superposed Hyperincursive System of the Discrete Harmonic Oscillator
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?pro...

How is that on topic?

Explain it to me, please. I'm a mathematical phsycist and well aware of hyperincursive systems. I personally find them fascinating, especially in the realm of AI. But this has nothing to do with "freedom", or "creation", or "God", or any other nebulous concept. You are merely trying to co-opt a high-brow, esoteric area of research for your own misguided religious use. Sorry, doesn't wash.

A hyperincursive system creates multiple options for every step in time, and chooses one of them which becomes actualized, the other options revert to zero. That is the definition from memory, now how is this not freedom. Its also used by Taborsky to explain evolution in terms of reasoned and informed choices, used by Dubois to explain human free will. Its quite evident that you know absolutely nothing about hyperincursive theory. I suggest you look into it.

How does it "choose", Syamsu? It helps explain the appearnce of free-will - there is a big difference. If I know nothing about it, then please explain And please don't hold back on the maths, as that is my area of expertise, and I would love to learn something new. Could you explian where in the mathematics the "freedom" arises?

I think helping is kind of an understatement.I dont remember exactly where the freedom arises in the math. Review of incursive and hyperincursive computing anticapatory systems or something, is the introductory paper, I suggest you take a look at that.

Hi Syamsu,Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The option I have been considering lately is..to define design as organization as opposed to chaos.
The thought that has occurred to me lately, in chaos theory and patterns in random is that..Even Though my dog is thoroughly familiar with "cars" the dog will never understand the design or mechanisms of "cars."
The mathematics of "winning the lottery" is an example of knowing intuitively that there is a design but not being able to describe in mathematical terms or develop a scientifically useful model for that "pattern in random" other than the very clumsy "statistical probability."
Intelligent Design, for me, is the idea that the universe is coherent, orderly and that by means of our intelligence we can understand the mechanisms...That would signify that man is an echo of the process (creator) of the universe. However, if we are so dissimiliar from the source or the source is not coherent (random or chaotic) then Darwin and evolution are not "true" either (being an organized system of belief) because the universe would not be in a coherent or decipherable order and/or we would not be able to understand it, ultimately, anymore than my dog, not being an echo of the process that created cars, can understand cars.
Intelligent Design, to me, means that the universe is coherent, orderly and man can understand its mechanisms.(LOL..I hope this is coherent. It is a thought that I have not quite verbalized yet but I think I have expressed it as well as I can.)Edited by XX, : No reason given.

I think you need to think this out a bit more. It is not quite baked yet; you're maybe half way there. ; - )"That the universe is coherent, orderly and man can understand its mechanisms" is the assumption upon which science is based, and which is so often criticized by creationists for excluding the supernatural from science.It just doesn't seem right to have this as the basis for ID, when ID is clearly both non-scientific and religiously-based (in other words, not based on evidence).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Coyote:
Thank you for replying. I wanted to add that I do not believe in an "anthropomorphic God" because God would be significantly different than man.
Chaos and Random exists and..if linear time is ...hmmm..how shall I say..not relevent in the model
then the "logic' of the entire patterns or some patterns or any specific pattern may not be coherent or accessible to man's understanding..as illustrated by a mathematical modeling of the lottery numbers.BTW..I came here to see if the DNA studies for Cro Magnon were online or if anyone knew where to obtain them and I am getting side tracked by my own..sidetracks..
Cro Magnon DNA anyone?
Thank You

Suppose I accept that there are flaws in evolution and it's theoretically possible that life on earth was designed by intelligent entities - what is the evidence that it actually was? For me, evidence that would convince me is- evidence that designers existed
- evidence that they have been on earth
- evidence that they have intervened in the generation of life
- an explanation of why they are not doing it now, or if they are, how they are doing it without being visible to us.