the only tests we can make involve humans, we have no other source of intelligence and as i said half a dozen times now, in the context we do have, which is us nothing other than what we make shows design, unless you can point some out?
Ah, my friend, Then science is doomed from the start. One must condiser several things:
Intelligence is a product of evo.
We are but one step in millions.
We cannot scientifically say at what point intelligence arose in evolution, if it was there in some form from the beginning or, if intelligence is even dependant upon biology.
What intelligece even is, scientifically, we cannot definitively say.
because it makes or breaks whether or not it is science, if ID isn't required to answer "who designed the designer?" we might as well accept esp exists or ufos. because if ID isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions it supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it?
Right. So because we cannot answer what the fundamental cause is for the "forces" in physics or even what they are, we might as well accept esp exists or ufo's. Because science isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions is supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it? Physics is not even clear on what is physical.
my real argument is that the identity of the designer as god is led by the reasoning that if the context of knowing if something is designed
is considering something complex as implying intelligent design then by logic the designer is designed as well.
It appears to me, real issue is not with the scientific concept of ID. Your issue is with some devisive people who want to use the science to claim God did it. This is very unscienctific of them. As unscienctific as the many on this sight I have seen use science to argue there is no higher Godlike power. Take great issue with them as well. There is nothing unscientific about the pursuit of ID theory. It is a valid question worthy of scientific inquiry and many are pursuing it.
if the designer of the designer is designed, then it is meaningless and an infinit loop unless you invoke something eternal like god, this happens due to lack of evidence to measure ID or test it or do any science with it
Did you say If? Thats a big if and it's yours.
Where did you come up with the conclusion that a designer if there is one has to have a designer? Even if that were the case how did you arive at the conclusion that an infinite concept of that nature is meaningless? Where is the science? Since when does science determine meaning?
do you even bother to read my answers? you keep saying this but my answers never get through, ID claims the universe is designed, do you know of anything other than a god that can do this?
I cannot say anything scientifically definitive about a God.
do you even know anything about ID? it says evolution can't explain complexity it has nothing to do with evolution other than to say evolution is impossible , so it must have been designed.
I know you take great issue with a certain group of devisive people.
There are many that do not fall into this catagory. There are many who
take ID theory seriously and do not see it necessarily conflicting with the general theory of evo, as it does not.
i said unlike what you claim i did.
that evolution answers the questions that ID claims it does and answers the why for we have a baddly setup spine and legs and heart and breath passage and backwards eyes
You are not thinking scientifically. Science answers HOW. Science cannot answer WHY. Huge difference. Wether you do this intentionally or by habbit, either way it is incorrect. You need to pull your head out of the machine shop and start taking a more honest scientific view. Consider that evolution includes all individual specie behavior and all interaction between species. Not just the physical mechanics.
What effect one "defect" will have you can not definitively say with respect to science. There has been no research done into what effect a phisical aspect of a specie would have on the entire process. However, we are acutely aware of how interconnected living systems are. One would be a fool not to take this into account.
another question, why bother defending something you don't really agree with?
I never said I did not agree with the scientific concept if ID theory.
It would not be good science to not pursue all the questions involved.
You are attempting to use science to argue against an idea before even investigating it.
or defending something you really don't understand?
I'll give you a litte time to reconsider this statement.
just to add one last thing:
The authoritative description of intelligent design[36] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[37] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[18]
As I said, your issues appears to be not with ID as a concept but with those that wish to use it too push their philosophical view that God did it.
Now, back to the subject. ID theory is a scientific endeavor. To not pursue it would be unscientific. The science of evolution does not contradict it.
If people following either endeavor conclude a philosophical answer the result ceases to be science.
ID can be tested from a human understanding of intelligence. How successful we are at the endeavor is still in the happening.
™ Version 4.2
