Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

quote:

---

sidelined:
Just a bump to ask if you might reply to my post #64 and as an aside I find your signature

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

intriguing.Just what is meant by this? Is it implying that solar eclipses have only existed from the viewpoint of earth during the time when we have had the capacity to understand the significance of how they occur?

---

Here is the full quote: IOW it would be just a strange coincindence by materialistic naturalism standards. Add that to all the other strange coincidences that also lend themselves to scientific discovery discussed in that book and the question arises, "are these all just strange coincidences or is there some underlying metaphysical implication that Earth was designed for scientific discovery?" Which is what the book is about.

---

"...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:

---

crashfrog:
By identification of the mechanisms that cause it to happen; natural selection and random mutation.

---

Too bad you can't identify the mechanism for the alleged transformation of a population of procaryotes to eucaryotes. BTW that alleged (proposed) mechanism isn't RM & NS. Also you can't id the mechanism for any alleged transformation that happened in the distant path. Dr. Theobald (of the 29 evidences for macroevolution) understands this and that is why a mechanism is absent from his evidences.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
In other words, they can be tested by the same methodology you would use to substantiate "intelligent design."

---

As I have just shown you can't they can't be tested. Again you are caught in your own BS.

---

"...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"

Endosymbiosis. The evidence for this is that some cellular organelles possess vestigal remnants of otherwise-redundant cellular mechanisms.That wasn't really that hard. They can be, and have been, to the best of our ability right now.

Here's the definition I quoted from http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html: But this is no different than ID. ID proposes that God directed at least some evolution, and this definition says that God directed at least some evolution. The only difference I can see is that IDists think divine intervention is detectable, and theistic evolutionists think it is not. The only way for Joe Meert and Ken Miller to be theistic evolutionists by this definition and maintain themselves distinct from IDists is to understand that such views are not scientific. And if they don't, then they're just closet IDists.Here's another definition of theistic evolution from http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm that doesn't hold that God intervened in evolution: He later calls Behe a theistic evolutionist, and I certainly agree. I'm just having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Meert and Miller are theistic evolutionists, too.--Percy

quote:

---

holmes:
I want to get this straight, you agree with Del that evolutionary theorists are not merely dogmatic, nor are they biased, and they are correct for using methodological naturalism?

---

holmes please at least try to follow along.

quote:

---

holmes:
In addition, you believe these people have a valid reason to say that ID offers no promise and presents real risks to science?

---

No that is not correct.

quote:

---

holmes:
But to answer your question, evolutionary theory is a model built from both the fossil record (which shows some kind of change over time for "whatever" reason), and research into ongoing change and mechanisms of change in living organisms. It makes an assumption that the mechanisms we see today are the ones that happened in the past. Nothing in the fossil record betrays this assumption.

---

Nothing in the fossil record suports that assumption. That is what you need, positive evidence. Do we even know how the fossil record was formed?

quote:

---

ho;mes:
Do you have some reason to believe that symbiosis within such communities would not result in the community becoming an organism?

---

Again you need positive evidence. Have we ever observed a procaryote involved with a symbiotic relationship with another procaryote that led the organism to become something other than a procaryote?

quote:

---

holmes:
Maybe you haven't been keeping up with science, but mitochondria (essential to cell function) have their own DNA and it's pretty evident they were a product of symbiosis?

---

I am well aware of endo-symbiosis as put forth by Lynn Margulis. The reality shows the mitochondria fall well short of the symbiosis hypothesis. IOW the mitochondria we now observe have much shorter sequences than any bacteria we have ever observed. Suer they might have similarities but the differences are vast.

quote:

---

holmes:
And in any case, I would like to hear what ID says about prokaryotic and eukaryotic life. Once again, are you for common descent or what?

---

Again it all depends on the mechanism, as I have stated before. Also it could be the eucaryotes were one of the first populations.

---

"...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:

---

crashfrog:
Endosymbiosis.

---

Yes I know. That isn't RM & NS as YOU posted.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The evidence for this is that some cellular organelles possess vestigal remnants of otherwise-redundant cellular mechanisms.

---

The alleged evidence is based on the assumption that eucaryotes evolved from procaryotes. There is no way to test that assumption. IOW thgere isn't any empirical evidence that shows procaryotes can engulf other other procaryotes and live a symbiotic relationship that would lead to that assumption. Also there is the nucleus, which is also trying to be tied by endo. However they are falling short on that endeavor also.

---

"...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 says with a straight face:

quote:

---

Like a typical evolutionist you jump to the incorrect conclusion. We measure the aspect of an external agency with our knowledge of what nature can and cannot do and/ or would or would not do. Couple that with our knowledge of what external agencies can do and that would answer your question.

---

ID creationists are the greatest long-jumpers in the world, then, since they conclude that the design work in a biological system (or in the laws of nature) couldn't conceivably have been done by nature, since they know what nature is and isn't capable of. No, the design in bacteria or in the universe itself is much more likely to have been done by a disembodied, omnipotent design entity about which we know nothing more than its capability of designing lots of things that are currently scientific mysteries. ID creationists want us to swallow that assumption and call it a conclusion? No thanks.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Percy:
ID proposes that God directed at least some evolution,...

---

Wrong again. ID states no such thing.Joe Meert and Ken Miller are both christians. You don't get any more theistic than that.

---

"...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"

"It has no more explanation behind it than if we were to change the name to lepr..."- Well if you meant (it) (which we accept for debate or by reason of logininings...etc.) HAD not MORE {or} there isnt anthing (material) behind it, it would not matter to it(the thing itself) neither or NIther. Sorry to cross EYES line of the sdeI. There will obviously be "more" explanation"" when I, BSM, am done.You did say indeed, "If you have no measure of the agency then there is no substance to the intelligence and as such cannot be taken seriously." and I DO THINK that SOME measure will be provisionable. I am still trying to enlarge my response to Tony as to if the space is not 4-D or not but I can see why indeed you wished to cut the discussion as to the place between the measure and the belief of all beyond. ID man's response remians true indeed.Now, let me see if I can't help you to SENSE the possible existence of the measure BEFORE (in front of, not revealed via) the soul etc etc etc... I was looking at some VRML MAC program rederes over the weekend and I realized
http://www-winfo.uni-siegen.de/vrmlHistory/docs/
that VRMLHistory's"valid time" might be able to DISPLAY what I already tried to get across about macrothermodyanmics in English.If you try Whurlwind and some other program that starts its name with a "V" you will function your wrist differently to get the same "motion" of the 'world on the screen. There exists a gyroscope device built for excercise purposes which by human strength permits a less than 1/100th a second rotations that if designed in VRMLHistory VERSIONINGS providing a two order of navigation ability relative to the simulation (in seconds in VRMLHistory since 1970)this is (if?) enough interactive on-the-fly changeability in browser to have the user PLACED where Salthe thought organisms MUST be heirarchically such that if the result of the intereactive design MATCHED with the nature of levels of selection vs levels of organization then we would have the technique to measure the intellgenice of a design that currently restricts the Darwinization ^IN^ phenomenological thermodynamics constricted Wolfram wise the biological VIEWPOINTS of Dawikins AND Gould. By toying with the DIFFERENT VRML browers one can "feel" the non-temporal instance but if temporal versions are supported with such a device as I mentioned it would be possible to have IN BIOLOGY for time what dissection has been for racial differences. This is not an ethical issue but ONLY ONE of economics. Unfortunately for reasons even failed to acceptance of the material aspects of Georgi's work we have a hard time EXPANDING c/e so that the categorical differences of e/c and c/e become revealed as they are in the collective mind sum of all posters. We have the humans here, now we need the technology. This expands on the thought I had about "haptic" interfaces but
http://EvC Forum: Community Interest in adding haptic feedback -->EvC Forum: Community Interest in adding haptic feedback
I made short cuts. Sorry.I know this is rather dense. If it is too difficult for me to rewrite it just wait till I respond to TONY again as I am USING THIS COGNITION, in plying the reply. The thought is no longer qualitative only thanks to the e-mails from Moscow since the spring. The tech speak is about "unjumping" but lets leave the geek to the greeks, shall we?? So ID IS NOT CREATION and CREATING designs intelligently is not today as good an IC as we can have. Again, the grammetical ability to demostrate technically what has already been reported on EVC in words does not mean that the praxis matches reality as close as necessary for induction, (the difference from any currently expected alternative would have to be large (but that itself is only about the amount of $ put to it, the people doing the work, the day without war ...)for the construction would permit what in in the letters "t(sub)e" a regressive ability that we only have built so far for space. Regression of a Gladyshev Law on an interactive session is likely to produce results if the device was built for group activity rather than on the individuals basis, AS I HAVE SUBSCRIBED.

When did I post that? No, the evidence is based on observation and testing. The conclusion is, eucaryotes evolved from procaryotes via an endosymbiotic event.

quote:

---

MrHambre:
ID creationists are the greatest long-jumpers in the world

---

Too bad there isn't such a thing as an ID Creationist. But anyway IDist don't jump as far as materistic naturalistic morons (ie evolutionists). Who else could take a mechanism that refines already existing functionality and come to the conclusion that all life descended from some unknowable population(s) of some sort of single-celled organisms? How did those organisms get the ability to reproduce?Just what good is the theory of BS (otherwise known as the theory of evolution)?This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 10:45 AM

---

"...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"

Well, it's directly or indirectly responsible for every breakthrough in biology in the last 100 years.How about your ID stuff? What's come out of that?

quote:

---

To me this says that God was a driving force behind evolution. I don't think I'm misinterpreting this article, and this is only one place where you can see this view of theistic evolution expressed. Under this definition, ID is a form of theistic evolution, and Joe Meert and Ken Miller are definitely not theistic evolutionists.

---

Most theists think that God is the driving force behind everything, planets as much as mutations. The important distinction is between those who think (or suspect, or assume) that the history of life can be explained in terms of the same processes that we can see elsewhere in nature and those who don't. Traditional creationists (YEC and OEC) and almost all IDists (or perhaps more accurately, all IDists almost all of the time) fall into the second camp. Theistic evolutionists, including Miller (and me) fall into the first camp.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
When did I post that?

---

In post 67: [qs]crashfrog writes:
By identification of the mechanisms that cause it to happen; natural selection and random mutation.[/quote]

quote:

---

crashfrog:
No, the evidence is based on observation and testing.

---

What testing? What experiment was done that verified that procaryotes can evolve into eucaryotes?This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 10:50 AM

---

"...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:

---

crashfrog:
Well, it's directly or indirectly responsible for every breakthrough in biology in the last 100 years.

---

Another baseless assertion by the master of twist, spin and misrepresentation.

---

"...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"