Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

I believe I'm doing quite nicely.You continually blasted evolutionary theory and methodological naturalism (or materialistic naturalism) as inherently biased and unwilling to see that ID is right and has detected design. You went on to posit Del Ratzsch's book as proof of this. You have also said that ID has greater weight as a theory than evo.Yet at an ID website I saw quotes from Del, countering what you said. And this is not quote mining, I am giving you the source to double check. Once again...All quotes from Del at: http://www.iscid.org/del-ratzsch-chat.php After quoting one of the above to counter one of you claims, you said you agreed with him on it. But that is contradictory.I am just stating facts here, not even making an argument.If I am not following along please let me know where I got derailed. Well it is correct that Del said it was a valid position to hold. Are you saying Del is incorrect that the position can be valid, that Del did not say this, or that while he said it and is correct, you personally aren't of the stated position? This is a very curious position. So you are wholly against common descent then? And that makes you a creationist?But let's address your assertion above. I said that science is studying the nature of change and its underlying mechanisms in living entities. The assumption being made is that those same mechanisms were working in the past.While the fossil record is incapable of producing evidence for specific (particularly biochemical) mechanisms, it certainly contains evidence for the same pattern of parent/child reproductive cycles. Unless you doubt fossilized eggs or fossilized pregnant organisms?That is all that is NECESSARY for us to validly project backward. And what is great is that the fossil record is capable of providing counterexamples... BUT HAS NOT. So far fossils have maintained consistency with the theory. You are now doubting the formation of the fossil record itself???? Uh, yeah we do know how fossils are formed. Unless they were "designed" to fool us, fossilization is pretty well understood.You are now clearly departing from Behe's position. Can you tell me which ID theorist you are using as your model of ID theory?I might add that if you are doubting the fossil record... how it is formed... what can we know about anything?Again, curious given your signature quote which suggests we are designed for discovery. You have an odd view of positive evidence. I'm uncertain how you believe chemists and physicists do their work... or geologists? Most of their work is wholly out of physical viewing of actual phenomena.I have already said that organizational behavior has been seen. It would take time to cement this into symbiotic relationships to such an extent individual organisms fully surrender their identity. However we do have some evidence that this HAS HAPPENED. Citations please. And can I ask why you feel that an entity which has lost, or is losing its individuality to its symbiont would NOT start losing sequence structures? I think that's part of the point. How could eukaryotes have been the first population? This does not fit the fossil record does it?And your statement "it all depend on the mechanism" is not an answer to my questions.If ID is supposed to be a theory that HAS a COMPETING MODEL such that it challenges evolutionary theory... what is that model? What are some general descriptions of the mechanisms? How did life transition from pro to eu?And if you have a problem with common descent, the time to tell is NOW! Otherwise I can only assume that you are obfuscating for a reason. Behe is for common descent. No matter the underlying mechanism for change at the biochemical level, at the macro level it is common descent or not. Which is it?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have skipped answering my posts 128, 131, and 132. The most important for you to address would be post 132.And it has some reflection on your comments here... You said this after describing what Behe outlined as the possibility of "frontloading". But accepting that scenario requires a trust in our knowledge regarding the fossil record and the evolutionary model of common descent. Yet you have spoke against both of these.Please explain which theorist you follow and what the model is for species diversity? Is it (regardless of underlying mechanism) common descent or not?And if not, then you are by your own description in the creationist camp, right? I have and I am. Yet you keep running from me.LM is correct in bringing up step by step processes, and mrH has added the other element LM may not have mentioned, which is multiple uses of a feature. These are known in biology.Is there a reason to believe that the bacflag could not have emerged this way?I realize you want to fall back on "but we did not SEE it happen", but that is true for ID as well. If you are willing to accept inference to something we have no evidence for on its own, why are we to DOUBT inference to something we do have evidence for on its own? I'll back you on this one. We do not know what the exact environmental conditions were at the time life first appeared. This is because on top of general environmental conditions, there were many specific local environments.But this is a double edged sword. While it prevents us from knowing under exactly what conditions life could have arisen, it also prevents critics from claiming they know conditions would have prevented life from rising. This criticism is getting tired. You should be able to explain what you mean without constantly telling others they must read ID. It is not like there are a lot of detailed research articles, or deep exhaustive analyses that would be tedious to relate in a post.But as it stands, if you don't want to deal with the problems of people not having read ID literature, why don't you stick to answering my posts? I have read much if not most of their literature. Apparently more than you.And what's more you have not fixed on which IDtheorist's model you are agreeing with. Do you stand behind Behe and common descent, and the fossil record, or no?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have mentioned lots of literature and authors and some of them are quite inconsistent with each other. They are inconsistent if not directly through stated disagreements (as seen in Ratzsch vs Dembski), then in logical disagreements between models they are espousing.I guess this is to say that too many creationists of all stripes are taking advantage of ID and saying the exact same thing you are... it's in the literature.It is time that you be very specific and explain which authors you hold to be correct and NOT part of the creationists glomming onto valid ID theory, as well as which ones are the creationist camp and you disagree with.It might also be important, to delineate it as a scientific pursuit, what model is being pursued? Once and for all, are your FOR OR AGAINST common descent (regardless of underlying biochemical mechanism)? Are you for or against our knowledge regarding fossilization? I thought you said that baraminology had nothing to do with creationism at all?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)