The I in ID

ID man ID says nothing about a designer.All we ever get is that life was designed yet you fail to offer a mechanism.Let us ask the hard questions of you. What do you mean by intelligence? What is the mechanism you propose by which intelligence manipulated matter either initially or continuously? How and where does intelligence exist?Where does that intelligence originate?What intelligence designed that intelligence?I hope you are able to answer with something of substance.

Seems to me you don't know which side of the question you are on here. Life making life sounds pretty "natural" to me, so I don't see your problem. Sexual reproduction is design? The intelligence of the parents is involved? Then the world is full of designers, some with very little intelligence if all sexually reproducing species are included -- do plants have intelligence? Perhaps you talk to them. Or is intelligence only involved when it is convenient for you? Another self-fulfilling presupposition? Perhaps you can show me where the difference is in reproduction that does and does not include intelligence -- at the genetic level? You are the one making the self limiting assumption, as was already pointed out and confirmed by your own response as detailed on my (unanswered?) post?See http://EvC Forum: The I in IDNow we have "materialistic naturalism"?? What is different about that from just naturalism? Or is there a spiritualistic naturalism? Seems to me you don't distinguish "naturalism" from "materialistic naturalism" here yourself. Care to elaborate?Again it looks like you invoke intelligence at your convenience. That doesn't seem too "bright"now does it? And yet again we have no examples of that assertion. Or is the 'observation' that "yep, beats me how it could have happened, so intelligence must have done it" the level of evidence you use? That's all I've seen so far.Enjoy.

---

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

I fully agree with Sidelined and RAZD that your scattershot logic is making ID anything you want it to be. And the thing you don't want it to be is exactly what it is: creationism.When creationists denigrate "materialistic naturalism" (or whatever combination of those terms they use pejoratively), we're supposed to think there's any other sort of scientific methodology. Unfortunately for them, there is not. No, Pasteur and Newton didn't use anything different than materialist, naturalistic science when they were revolutionizing biology and physics. They never postulated any outside agents or mystical forces, just the same verifiable, measurable, and detectable variables that scientists use today. The reason methodological naturalism is universally accepted as the basis of empirical evidential inquiry is not because of a materialist prejudice, but because there's no way to do science unless we limit our presuppositions to what can be empirically verified in some way. If ID denies this, then it joins creationism in the realm of pseudoscience.When creationists say that God created matter or life, obviously that's a short-cut intended to stand in for a real explanation of origins. The origin of a fairy-tale God who has always existed doesn't require an explanation, according to creationists. When the ID people say that life began with a designer, they're really saying the same thing. The need for an explanation for the origin of a presumably complex living designer is irrelevant because it's a religious question, not an honest scientific one.The ploy of calling this brand of creationism 'Intelligent Design' is to distance its advocates from the easily-refuted brands of young-Earth creationism and to sneak it into secular school curricula under the guise of legitimate science. It is nothing but creationism, and nothing like science.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I don't think that is what he said at all. I also think that saying an acorn isn't alive is, well, dumb. Life may be hard to define but I sure think we can agree to draw the line with the acorn (or other sex cells) on the "alive" side.Let me see if I can read what ID Man is saying. It took an intelligence to "design" life; to get it started. After that the natural processes we understand took over.That is all I see him saying. Am I missing something?Myself I'd allow him his GotG for awhile if that is what he wants.

quote:

---

When creationists say that God created matter or life, obviously that's a short-cut intended to stand in for a real explanation of origins. The origin of a fairy-tale God who has always existed doesn't require an explanation, according to creationists.

---

Great couple of sentences. It shows that it is not god of the gaps but rather god is a gap...any gap in scientific knowledge, creationists/IDists try to fill with god..if they cannot find a gap, they ignore evidence and claim a gap is there anyway...unfortunately, science has a nasty habit of filling in gaps and thus god is constantly shrinking.

I understand their role - they had no role in "designing" me.Rather, they engaged in a natural biological process that, without their input, selected a mix of their chromosomes to pass on to me.At no point did "design" occur, unless you think it's possible to design without using your brain. (Is that where you get these arguments, perhaps?) I will grant you that my definition is broad but it is not in any way ambiguous.That that is of or subject to the laws of physics is natural. That that is not of, or not subject to, the laws of physics is supernatural.No ambiguity whatsoever. I don't know how they came to be. You don't know, of course, that they haven't always been, or that it's possible for them not to be.But my ignorance is no reason to conclude design. I'm saying that life is natural because it is subject to the laws of physics. How did it come to be? According to the laws of physics. I'm not against it; there's just no reason to believe it because there's no evidence of it.However, the laws of physics do exist, and life is subject to them. That's evidence that the laws of physics governed the origin of life. What observation, specifically? When have you observed intelligent entities designing life from lifelessness?

[quote][S]aying an acorn isn't alive is, well, dumb. Life may be hard to define but I sure think we can agree to draw the line with the acorn (or other sex cells) on the "alive" side.[/quote]You're right. What I intended to stress is that the reproductive process is materialistic, and the development of a tree from its seed stage or a baby from the union of egg and sperm is based on the naturalistic mechanics of cell division, not intelligent agency. I'd rather have egg on my face than sperm.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-25-2004 11:53 AM

Totally agree with you. ID is nothing but creationism that has been repackaged to look like science. As a PR exercise, its' been quite impressive, as a scientific theory its a bit of a damp squib of a firework - it sounds and looks impressive :"Look - it says it goes BANG loads of times, in all sorts of colours, and lasts for ever!"but does not deliver what it promises:fzzzzzpt! - "oh that was crap!"I personally think that the vain attempts of IDCers to distance themselves from creationism are quite funny. They declare that the existence of an intelligent designer does not necessarily mean a creator exists. It always beggars the question of what the Intelligent Designer did after designing life - I'm guessing he probably would have created it. Maybe not, maybe he then passed his design on to the Intelligent Production department, followed by the Intelligent Quality Control area (which judging by the evidence is a department that needs a bit of work ). See what I mean - dead silly!Ooops, sorry I seem to have ranted incoherantly at you (probably with umpteen spilling mustooks as well). {stay off the caffeine, stay of the caffeine!!}What was I meant to say, oh yes:Good point!

I think this is quite an important statement. If IDers propose that, at one point, design stops and natural processes take over then it should be possible to draw a line. If the hallmarks of design are so obvious, and ID is indeed based on observation then a definite stage of evolution should be able to be highlighted and a statement such as:"Right, everything up until this point was designed, from then on life was on its' own"should be possible.What I suspect is that this will not happen, and that the debate would dissolve into something similar to the 'define a kind' situation that YECs seem to get themselves into.

ID man alleges:

quote:

---

From what we do know about irreducibly complex structures is that it takes more than nature to design and contruct (sic) IC systems.

---

I thought what we 'know' about IC systems is that their component parts are so well-matched and interdependent that if one is removed, the system does not work. That seems obvious to me, but that point is quite different from the conclusion that the system requires intelligence to construct. And are you at least admitting that Nature designs and constructs all those non-IC systems? Isn't that giving Nature credit for some pretty significant design capabilities?

quote:

---

Life is such evidence [i.e., of intelligent design]. From what we do know only life gives rise to life. Nature is not life. Life exists in nature but that does not mean nature produced life.

---

So only if life didn't exist could we conclude that intelligence is unnecessary to produce life? Talk about stacking the deck.

quote:

---

Biological organisms contain DNA & RNA. We have never observed either molecule forming in nature. We have observed humans synthesize these molecules.

---

Oh. Kay. Since my kids and I saw a guy at Boston's Museum of Science create lightning with a Van der Graaf generator, and no one has ever witnessed it being 'created' naturally, lightning must require an intelligent agent. Does that sound facetious? Well, the crux of your argument is that it's more probable that some sort of designer entity spliced genetic material together billions of years ago than that there was some sort of material mechanism responsible for its creation. Since no one witnessed it, you say your view is just as scientific, falsifiable, and valid as ours. Now that's facetious.regards,
Esteban Hambre

When I first came to this forum, you and I had a discussion about what "creationism" included. As I recall you said that even beliefs like Deism were a form of creationism to you (thus you would include an "ID creationism" as well), and my comment was that this can confuse the issue. Lets be specific and say "biblical creationism" (which also differentiates it from muslim, jewish hindu and other fundamental type versions) for the fundamental literal christian creationism, and modify other references of creation like ID ("Designer Creationism" "Deist Creationism" ?) in order to clarify.Yes say "life X was created by agent Y" is a statement of creationism at a basic generic level, certainly it is a statement of faith. But I also allow that it is possible to believe in ID and not have to believe in any part of the christian or other mainstream faiths. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see this be more attractive to those with college level educations who are having some problems with the faiths of their youth. Making that kind of move would also leave on inclined to keep old arguments such as many of the more common "biblical creationist" kind. Of course this very behavior by major ID proponents muddies the waters as well, but I expect ID to grow beyond such early beginnings. This also applies to the "secular science" that I saw recently: science is necessarily secular or it is not science. This is also a false distinction.Enjoy.

---

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

I'd be happy to let him define exactly where he thinks intelligence in involved and where it is not.

This is similar to my point that ID requires supernatural action no different in concept to the actions of many early pantheistic gods causing natural events ... in this case Thor and similar gods, and that this makes it a religious faith.

---

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

When I first read this I thought I was reading some long lost writings of Neitzche.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

new movie title? ID and the Shrinking God ...(or should that be shirking?)