The I in ID

In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent. Or it is due to a lack of imagination in being able to explain it? If we can't explain it with our intelligence then you need another intelligence to explain it gets kind of circular imho.The problem is that X exists with or without the assumption of intelligence or even of our awareness of X. If you assume natural causes, then an inability to explain the natural derivation of X is not sufficient cause to look for other derivation methods, for nature has already solved the problem of making X. If you assume intelligent causes, then there is no need to look for any further natural derivations: that ultimately is a limited approach to science and the pursuit of new knowledge. Once you stop looking the ID explanation becomes self fulfilling assumptions. This attitude is very obvious in all the examples that have been proposed for ID. Religious fanatics will gloss over the many basic and irreconcilable contradictions between ID and their particular faith (How many gods? Old earth? Etc.). Personally I think that ID will contribute to a greater awareness of real science (by encouraging it's use) in those of the more fanatic beliefs and thus accomplish a different end result than is anticipated.ID very carefully says nothing about the designer, and yet the actions of that designer must be accomplished by supernatural means. These actions are no different in concept than that a pantheon of gods controlled the world (universe) and threw lightning bolts from the clouds. Replace ID with Deism in your statements and they are just as valid until you get to the last one: Deism is religious, and it makes fewer assumptions about "the designer(s)" and it(s) activities than ID does. Because Deism is on the other "side" of ID from the other established religions, that boxes ID in. Sorry, but saying it is not religious does not make it so. See Deism - Wikipedia for more information on Deism. See http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? for more on my critique of ID.Enjoy.

---

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

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Actually, from what we know, intelligence has never given rise to life.

---

Really? We know that? Any citations for that??

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Life is, by definition, natural.

---

That doesn't mean that nature produced life. It does mean that life exists in nature. There is a difference.

---

"...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"

CF is saying it never happened. You don't get a paper reporting something that has never been seen. You are claiming that it is what happens. That is the positive statement so you can easily show him to be wrong by reference the case(s) where it has been reported. Until you show otherwise his statement is true. That may change since we (intelligent?) are trying to produce life. That is true. However, again, you have no reason for thinking that nature didn't produce life. You (and we) just don't know how it did (yet?).

How could I cite something that has never happened? (This is the "you can't prove a negative" problem.)Show me a recorded or observed act of intelligence creating life. Even if life was created by intelligence, that intelligence must have been natural. Since there's no difference between life processes and natural processes, we know that life is natural. I would have thought that was obvious.

Note that I usually assume that no answer to a post, especially when another is answered by the relevant person, that the person either doesn't understand or is not able to provide a response.To be clear the post in question is
EvC Forum: The I in IDThis post shows logical failure of your position, invalidating it until this is rebutted.And it shows that ID is a religion because it relies on supernatural action more than Deism.Continued no response = no disagreement with the above.Enjoy.

---

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

quote:

---

In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent.

---

No, we can explain it and that explanation is a designer was involved. How do you explain nature alone producing life from inert matter and what is the evidence to support such an explanation? What options do you think we have when we ask the question (as scientists tend to do) how did it (life) get here?

quote:

---

The problem is that X exists with or without the assumption of intelligence or even of our awareness of X. If you assume natural causes, then an inability to explain the natural derivation of X is not sufficient cause to look for other derivation methods, for nature has already solved the problem of making X. If you assume intelligent causes, then there is no need to look for any further natural derivations: that ultimately is a limited approach to science and the pursuit of new knowledge. Once you stop looking the ID explanation becomes self fulfilling assumptions. This attitude is very obvious in all the examples that have been proposed for ID.

---

Then don't start with an assumption and allow the evidence to lead you to a logical conclusion. Also your assumptions are unfounded. No IDist says any research has to stop. True we do feel as though looking for a natural origin to life is as fruitful as looking for a natural origin to styrofoam, but if someone wants to keep looking we won't stop them. We feel that there is enough to doMe:
Religious fanatics will harp on that to promote their brand of religion. ID says nothing about a designer. ID says nothing about how to worship or give service to that designer (or designers). Therefore ID is not religious.Religious fanatics will gloss over the many basic and irreconcilable contradictions between ID and their particular faith (How many gods? Old earth? Etc.). Personally I think that ID will contribute to a greater awareness of real science (by encouraging it's use) in those of the more fanatic beliefs and thus accomplish a different end result than is anticipated.

quote:

---

ID very carefully says nothing about the designer, and yet the actions of that designer must be accomplished by supernatural means.

---

If that is where the evidence leads and becomes the logical and reasonable conclusion, I am OK with that.

quote:

---

These actions are no different in concept than that a pantheon of gods controlled the world (universe) and threw lightning bolts from the clouds.

---

Just because you can post those words means what, exactly?

quote:

---

Replace ID with Deism in your statements and they are just as valid until you get to the last one: Deism is religious, and it makes fewer assumptions about "the designer(s)" and it(s) activities than ID does. Because Deism is on the other "side" of ID from the other established religions, that boxes ID in. Sorry, but saying it is not religious does not make it so. See Deism - Wikipedia for more information on Deism. See http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? for more on my critique of ID.

---

The fact remains that ID doesn't say anything about worship, who or what to worship or how to worship. ID doesn't say anything about giving service to, who to give service to or how to give that service. Now if you want to redifine relion to suit your needs, that is OK. I am having none of it. If you want to stifle ID you should concentrate on supporting materialistic naturalism. IOW display for us how life come to be by nature alone- then tell us how nature came to be and where the matter and energy came from. I guess it all "turtles down",doesn't it.To clarify- ID is falsifiable. Philosophical rantings are not the answer to falsifying ID. ID is based on what we observe. ID extends beyond biology as exampled by the writings of Walter Bradley, PhD and the book The Privileged Planet.

---

"...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:

---

Show me a recorded or observed act of intelligence creating life.

---

Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

quote:

---

Even if life was created by intelligence, that intelligence must have been natural.

---

Define how you are using natural- and yes it makes a difference.

quote:

---

Since there's no difference between life processes and natural processes, we know that life is natural.

---

Again it all depends on how you are using the word natural. If you are saying nature created life than produce the citation. If you are saying life is natural because it exists in nature well that doesn't explain how life came to be. That is what is being discussed- how life came to be.If I don't answer in a timely manner it is due to my ISP having issues with this and other URLs. I do not know what is the problem but mostly I can't read or visit these pages.

---

"...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 requests:

quote:

---

Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

---

I have two kids. Nobody considers an egg or a sperm "alive," but together these contain the genetic material necessary to begin the process of cell division that leads to the development and birth of a living baby. Does this process require a designer at any step? Did I or my wife design our children?An acorn is not "alive" either, but under the right conditions it begins the same process of development that leads to the growth of an oak tree. Did the tree design its offspring? Was an intelligence necessary for this process to unfold?Intelligent-design creationists usually answer that the DNA process itself requires a designer, but that's not the question. Non-life is truly producing life, and the basis of the process is biochemistry, not intelligence. Darwinism explicitly denies the distinction between the design and the process that gave rise to it. The above examples are instances where life emerges through a natural process. If there is intelligence involved, please point out where it is in the hereditary mechanism.IDC'ers also counter the life-is-natural claim by saying that the origin of life itself had to require intelligence. However, this claim assumes what it's supposed to be demonstrating. We're never told why intelligence is necessary for the emergence of life, and since intelligence seems unnecessary elsewhere in biology, the claim is meaningless.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I'm fairly sure that neither of my parents designed me, and nobody else was there (I hope...) Of or subject to the laws of physics. Of or subject to the laws of physics. I don't think you'll find anyone here - except the creationists - who claims to know how life came to be. Unfortunately the precursors of life may have left little evidence except that contained in every one of us.But ignorance is not a reason to conclude ID.

As I said, "In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent" -- thanks for the demonstration. I explain it by saying that we don't know the answer, so we need to keep looking. The options are open, but the gaps in our knowledge of the ability of life to begin are closing.Your "explanation" is just an assumption -- for it to be valid in science it must result in testable predictions that differentiate design from non-design: as far as I know that has not happened yet. I don't start with an assumption, you do. Funny that once again you demonstrate my point -- your attitude in this and the first paragraph is that you no longer need to look because you have the answer. This amply demonstrates the intellectually stultifying effect of making an a priori assumption of an explanation. Thanks again. That the actions of the {designer within the concept of ID} are no different than the attributed supernatural actions of the {gods of various pantheons within the concept of many early religions}. I would think it's easy enough to understand, but sorry if it is over your head. Obviously you did not do the word replacement requested, so I will have to do it for you: Deism is a religion, therefore your conditions given do not preclude ID from being a religion; Deism can involve fewer assumptions about the level of supernatural activity of the "Causal Agent" than ID does, therefore ID is a weaked form of Deism (it relies more on "he did it" to explain things). It is very simple logic:A (Deism) = Religion
B (ID) is a weak subset of A
Therefore B = Religion
(Q.E.D.)This is not a matter of redefining religion but of recognizing it. If you don't want any of it I can understand that ... after all it invalidates your real interest in ID, eh?It also doesn't look like you read the articles mentioned. That's poor form. You really should read my topic on {is ID properly pursued?} http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? before you go much further on this, not to be arrogant about it, but so that you can better understand my argument without my needing to repeat the whole thing here. I respectfully suggest you either concede here that ID is a religion or take the matter up on that thread to leave this one on topic. My, aren't we getting dictatorial with the strawman argument. Why don't you display for us how life came to be by intelligence alone - then tell us how intelligence came to be and where matter and energy came from. Ball in your court -- you are the one making the positive assertion that it is due to intelligence, while my position is that we don't know (yet, but we'll keep looking while you sit down and rest). Oops, you missed giving the example of a falsifiable test that would validate this statement of opinion. And pointing out the logical shortcomings of your position is not "Philosophical rantings" -- ID just keeps coming up short.Enjoy.

---

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

Intelligent-design creationism is so ill-defined that it's difficult to establish a coherent theory from the pronouncements of its advocates. It seems no two IDC proponents agree on the amount of biological change that requires intelligent intervention, the kind of complexity that points to an intelligent origin, or even the definition of some of their basic terms. Here are a few IDC standbys, courtesy of the fuzzy thinkers who have made their way here to EvC:The mechanism is Design. Evolutionists all agree that certain things like outboard motors and Stonehenge were the products of intelligent design, but at least we can establish the mechanisms through which the intelligent agents produced these artifacts. When we want to explore the development of things like the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade, we try to establish how these systems could have emerged. Looking at homologous systems or genetic similarities gives us a good idea of how the Darwinian mutation-selection machine could have produced them. To say that the design itself is the mechanism is only self-evident when you already understand the underlying mechanism. We are discovering more of the cranes of RMNS every time we analyze the design work that went into creating these systems. The IDC use of 'Design is the mechanism' is a mere tautology, since they don't understand either.The Intelligence is inferred from the evidence. This is meant to make intelligent-design creationists look like the stalwart scientific investigators they manifestly are not. Despite the fact that they demand eyewitness evidence of every evolutionary transition, IDC'ers do in fact realize that science is largely based on inference from a multitude of observations. However, what constitutes the evidence from which they infer intelligent design? Why, take your pick: irreducible complexity, complex specified information, specified complexity, or any of numerous other factors that the IDC theorists put forth as the fingerprints of the Designer. Unfortunately, this evidence can only be defined in terms of what the IDC theorists consider impossible for unguided, material processes to create. For example, they infer that the DNA replication system is a product of intelligent design not because there is independent evidence that shows biological replication systems being produced by intelligent agents, but because it contains some attribute that they already assume can't emerge through natural processes. So the evidence points to intelligence because they've already decided that intelligence is the only explanation for the evidence. Note that the fact that the attribute can be found in nature would ordinarily falsify their assertion, but IDC'ers are adamant that their case is airtight.Life exists in nature but that does not mean nature produced life. This is a fairly recent non-sequitur that we have seen peddled frequently from IDC advocates. This is the shell game at its essence: are they saying nothing is "natural" if it required intelligence to produce it? Or if the natural process that produced it requires intelligence? The goalposts move so fast in this debate that evolutionists can be excused for assuming that their opponents are merely taking the piss. Why else would they assert that babies or trees are the products of intelligent design? Their point is that all the information necessary to begin the process of producing any living organism was front-loaded in the "program" billions of years ago by the intelligent agent responsible for creating the original life-form. Of course, this notion has been found wanting on several bases. If only very few descendents of a bacterium acquire a the ability to digest nylon, then the nylon-digesting ability can't have been present in the original bacterium. Furthermore, why don't we have untranslated genes for that ability, as well as genes for the ability to produce chlorophyll and whatever other genes we (and all other life on Earth) obviously should have inherited from our front-loaded ancestor? It's apparent that the genetic mechanism has evolved along with the organisms that have carried it through the countless rounds of selection that have taken place throughout the history of life on our planet. The process requires no guiding intelligence, and the novelty that fuels evolution is the product of random, undirected mutation.The identity of the Designer is irrelevant. This is perhaps the most glaring of the IDC fallacies. Actually, understanding the identity, motives, and capabilities of the intelligent agent is crucial in such fields as forensics and archaeology, with which IDC claims a methodological kinship. There is every reason to reject a design inference if the proposed agent could not have conceivably been responsible for the act or design. However, this loophole is a boon to IDC, which can claim that intergalactic gene-tinkerers or omnipotent celestial beings have tampered with our biosphere in some way, at some time, and for some reason. The notion of disconfirming evidence goes out the window when we can assume the existence of agents who must possess limitless and unprecedented powers, but whose designs never have to be optimal. In addition, the origin of complex life itself is hardly explained using such agents, since they must have been living and complex themselves. The pre-existence of such agents is very relevant to the issue of origins, whether intelligent design creationists want to admit it or not.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I think I have concluded it is due to a need to use more words like, "adherence", "coherenence" and "inherence". I am curious to realize if these terms for point sets can be directly related in Kantianisms as Cantor DID try to explicity offer the world SOMETHING that he had thought Kant meant to have available in the life sciences that was already evident in the dead sciences.

From what we do know only life gives rise to life. [I][b]crashfrog:
Actually, from what we know, intelligence has never given rise to life.[/I][/b]

quote:

---

NosyNed:
CF is saying it never happened. You don't get a paper reporting something that has never been seen. You are claiming that it is what happens. That is the positive statement so you can easily show him to be wrong by reference the case(s) where it has been reported. Until you show otherwise his statement is true. That may change since we (intelligent?) are trying to produce life.

---

I was trying to find out how we know intelligence has never given rise to life, in the face of the fact that only life has been observed to give rise to life. Is crashfrog saying his parents weren’t intelligent? As for papers on events that have never been seen, are you saying there aren’t any papers on the big bang? On the other hand if you or crashfrog shows us a paper on how nature alone gave rise to life I wouldn’t have any reason to infer a designer did.That doesn't mean that nature produced life. It does mean that life exists in nature. There is a difference.

quote:

---

NosyNed:
That is true. However, again, you have no reason for thinking that nature didn't produce life. You (and we) just don't know how it did (yet?).

---

Not so. I have plenty of reason for thinking nature didn’t act alone. If I didn’t I would be a material and philosophical naturalist or even worse, a Bright. I see the reason for ID in almost everything I observe. Until you can show me that nature acted alone and tell us how nature came to be, you have no right to tell me that the design inference is invalid. There are still plenty of questions that remain unanswered. But the reasoning behind the design inference has been valid since before Aristotle and Socrates. They just reinforced the notion. Many great scientists understood what you would have me deny. Sorry but I need more than your say-so.
What is your reason for thinking that nature produced life? What are our options to the question- how did life arise?

---

"...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"

Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
I'm fairly sure that neither of my parents designed me, and nobody else was there (I hope...)

---

Care to answer the question? Maybe you just don’t understand your parents role in designing you. After all you wouldn’t be here without them.Define how you are using natural

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Of or subject to the laws of physics.

---

That is very ambiguous. I do understand why you want to be that way.Again it all depends on how you are using the word natural.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Of or subject to the laws of physics.

---

Care to tell how those laws of physics came to be? Great scientists understood the laws of nature (which include the laws of physics) to be a product of a Creator.If you are saying life is natural because it exists in nature well that doesn't explain how life came to be.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
I don't think you'll find anyone here - except the creationists - who claims to know how life came to be.

---

ID is also about life’s origins. Creationists may think they know who but they don’t know how. And even if we identify the designer or creator there would still be much scientific work to do. Acknowledging the Creator didn’t stop Sir Isaac Newton.If you don’t know how life came to be than how can you be against ID? Why limit yourself to materialistic naturalism? What is your justification for dismissing design?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Unfortunately the precursors of life may have left little evidence except that contained in every one of us.

---

Yup, right. Get that published and someone may listen to you.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
But ignorance is not a reason to conclude ID.

---

If ID was based on ignorance you would have a point. However ID is based on observation. Is ignorance the reason you conclude nature did it?

---

"...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 requests:
quote:Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
I have two kids. Nobody considers an egg or a sperm "alive," but together these contain the genetic material necessary to begin the process of cell division that leads to the development and birth of a living baby. Does this process require a designer at any step? Did I or my wife design our children?

---

You miss the point completely. ID doesn’t say that a designer had to be involved with every instance of life. Also without life there wouldn’t be any sperm or egg to discuss. And sex cells are alive. Dead sex cells do not allow the species to propagate. I do find it strange that you would bring up sexual reproduction as the theory of evolution didn’t predict it and evolutionists can’t explain it.
Do you always paint yourself into a corner?

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
An acorn is not "alive" either, but under the right conditions it begins the same process of development that leads to the growth of an oak tree. Did the tree design its offspring? Was an intelligence necessary for this process to unfold?

---

Again you miss the point completely. Show us an acorn arising without the oak tree. Living cells make up the acorn. Do you understand what ID is? That corner is becoming smaller

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Intelligent-design creationists usually answer that the DNA process itself requires a designer, but that's not the question.

---

Hold it right there. What is an Intelligent-design creationist? I am aware of IDists and I am aware of Creationists. I also know the two are distinct and different. I also know why anti-IDists attempt to conflate the two.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Non-life is truly producing life, and the basis of the process is biochemistry, not intelligence.

---

If it is so you have been unable to show it.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Darwinism explicitly denies the distinction between the design and the process that gave rise to it. The above examples are instances where life emerges through a natural process.

---

I have shown that in both of your examples that it takes life to make life. Sperm, eggs and acorns didn’t arise by nature acting alone. At least there isn’t any evidence that it could or did.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
If there is intelligence involved, please point out where it is in the hereditary mechanism.

---

Now it is obvious you don’t understand ID. What you ask is akin to asking where is the intelligence in my computer’s operating system?. IDists say it took intelligence to write the genetic code and program the genomes of the original populations. What we now observe is the result that some evolutionary process had on those populations (or population).

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
IDC'ers also counter the life-is-natural claim by saying that the origin of life itself had to require intelligence.

---

What is an IDC’er? Please support your claim. Falsify ID if you can, but please stop misrepresenting it.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
However, this claim assumes what it's supposed to be demonstrating. We're never told why intelligence is necessary for the emergence of life, and since intelligence seems unnecessary elsewhere in biology, the claim is meaningless.

---

Right and the intelligence that wrote my computer’s OS is no longer necessary however that doesn’t mean my OS arose by natural processes. ID doesn’t say the designer needs to tinker with the design. Why is a designer necessary? You mean besides the fact that nature acting alone is a one-way dead-end street? We are never told how nature acting alone could give rise to life. Even if self-replicating molecules are granted that does not explain the emergence of a cell. BTW IDists infer an outside agency/ entity was involved. We don’t assume it.I take it you are just upset because not only do you have nothing to sell, no one is listening anyway. That must be why over 90% of the USA say that it is either a Creationist, IDist or theistic evolutionist. Only those supporters of materialistic and philosophic naturalism cling to the doctrine that nature acting alone produced life. They are the very small minority.

---

"...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"