Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

quote:

---

ID is based on observation. As Behe so clearly points out "the black box is now open". We now can observe the inticate complexity and parallels to our designed and connected world.

---

I haven't even fully read Behe's book, but this is clearly false. What Behe was referring to as the "black box" is the process that creates these intricate biological systems. Behe has done nothing to open this box. Instead, he just peels off the Darwin sticker and slaps "The Intelligence Did It" in it's place. Behe has yet to show the process of ID happening but instead assumes it. He claims that IC systems came about in "one fell swoop" but has yet to observe this process hapenning. Behe simply takes an unknown and slaps the name "ID" on it. Behe is doing nothing less than inserting supernatural causes into a gap in our knowledge just like the people in ancient Greece who said that Zeus throws down thunderbolts.

quote:

---

Now all you have is to keep back-peddling to the origins of everything. However despite your desperate attempts to do so ID is only concerned with life on Earth. ID does not care IF it has metaphysical implications. ID lets the evidence lead it.

---

Firstly, the metaphysical is not testable by evidence. Therefore, ID can not lead us to metaphysical implications. Axioms are the building blocks of the metaphysical and they are assumed to be accurate and are not testable.Secondly, ID is totally about origins. It is about an intelligence NOT ON THIS EARTH. You keep dodging this question, but maybe you will actually answer it this time. Does ID theory, as you present it, REQUIRE the input of a supernatural deity? YES OR NO.Next, you have to answer the other questions. Namely, did the first designers come about due to natural causes, can you differentiate between design caused by evolution and design caused by intelligent design, and that ID is used as a political tool to insert God into secular classrooms.

quote:

---

You are wrong, again. The black box is the cell. We can now peer inside of the cell and see what is going on.

---

I always understood it differently. The term "black box" has always meant a mechanism that is hidden, where all we see is the input and the output. How the "black box" produces the output from the input is known as then unknown mechanism. The phrase "Darwin's Black Box" then means that Behe is doubting the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. That is, the input is random mutation and the output is complexity. The observation of complexity and IC is the output, not the black box itself. Either way, the argument is the same.

quote:

---

LM if you or anyone else can show the bacterial flagellum arose by nature acting alone then do it and stop whining.

---

I am still waiting for Behe to show the bac flag coming about in one fell swoop. Why shouldn't he be required to have the same weight of evidence?

quote:

---

Assertions like that are meaningless. Sure we can deduce the metaphysical from the evidence.

---

How can we deduce a supernatural designer in the absence of evidence for such an entity? Even if life is designed this does not rule out a designer whose origins are natural.

quote:

---

How can we test the premise that life arose from non-life by nature acting alone?

---

By simulating conditions on an early, lifeless earth. We already know that RNA and proteins can form in abiogenically, so all we have to do is show that random polymers of RNA or protein can result in a simple replicator. Once there is a replicator evolution takes over. The result of evolution is then complexity and irreducible complexity, as has been shown by numerous computer simulations and real world experiments. However, we have yet to cross the first hurdle, the construction of a random polymer capable of self replication. Does this mean that one doesn't exist? Possibly. Is it possible that we just haven't found the right combination of polymers? It is possible. This is why ID jumps to the wrong conclusion, and does so because of the need to further political and religious goals.

quote:

---

For example if life could arise by natural processes, only IF some initial conditions are met and those initial conditions could not be met without life, then we can deduce the metaphysical.

---

Why is it necessary for life to be present for life to arise? Where do you get this idea from? Certainly not from actual research.

quote:

---

Actually the "one fell swoop" is under your scenario, ie the theory of evolution. Under Behe's scenario the parts and instructions for the bac flag were part of the initial conditions, ie preprogrammed.

---

So I take it you don't even understand the very theory you are arguing against. The evolution of the bac flag would not have been completed in one fell swoop but by a step by step process. Behe claims that the bac flag came about in one fell swoop, the opposite of what is proposed in an evolutionary model. We need to see his evidence, as well as his evidence that it is preprogrammed into the genome. So far all we have is Behe's incredulity and bare assertions.

quote:

---

And how do we know what those conditions were?

---

Through the study of geology.Instead of going point by point, I would like to get back to the original claim, that Intelligent Design is NOT creationism.I would claim that creationism is the belief that God is required for the creation of life. ID, as you have presented it, requires the very same thing. This has been your argument as I understand it:Premise: IC systems and complexity can not arise without an intelligent designer. Life, and intelligence for that matter, require biological IC systems and complexity.Conclusion: Therefore, the origin of life is a supernatural designer, ie the Christian God.Do I have your argument listed correctly? If so, how do you differentiate yourself from the other people claiming that God created life, otherwise known as creationists?

quote:

---

No, you don't have my argument correctly. I suggest you read the literature about ID as written by IDists.

---

I am not asking for the arguments in those books, I am asking for YOUR argument. This is not a book of the month club, this is a discussion board. Please answer this question:Does ID, as you present it, require the existence of a supernatural designer? If yes, what separates ID from other theories in creationism?

IDman,Could you please answer the following question. Does ID, as you are presenting it here, require the input of a supernatural being? If yes, then isn't ID just a different flavor of creationism?