What exactly is ID?

Actually, I did answer your question in a round about way. (See below) I would say that I don't disagree with what science says about the age of the earth.You see creationists take issues and work from science and they attempt to shoehorn those issues into a biblical framework. Proponents of ID should not attempt to do this. (At least not all of them do this.) They should look at the natural world from various scientific fields and form hypotheses from them.I'm not saying there is something that is morally wrong with this or maybe even scientifically wrong with this. I think people should attempt to shed their religious bias when analyzing the evidence. This is easier said than done.

I think reproduction is not undirected but the process of survival (many things that can happen) is not an overall directed process and cannot be quantified by linear mathematical formulas. Hence, this is why I think it is chaos. If you disagree with me, then I will rethink it.

Why does it have to be only from a religious point of view? There is something dishonest about this but I can't put my finger on it. It has something to do with the way you define science. I was fresh out of high school 20 years ago. I was never taught creationism in school. I still remember the illustration of human/primate evolution in class. You would have to define science for me to debate you on this. If you all were right and considering the sheer numbers of people here against me, you people should be drinking, laughing and having a good time with this forum at my expense by illustrating how dumb and stupid my comments are.

First, I would like to point out that the messages you replied to in your two following messages were a bit off topic themselves and I would like those discussions taken in other threads in order to keep this one focused.I would like to know if for you, I.D. is some form of theistic evolutionism or something else. If it's something else, please spell out clearly what is the history of life from an I.D. perspective. I ask because I found the issues about I.D. to be quite blurred. As an example, you can see that in an earlier message, LucyTheApe disagreed with you on the issue of the age of the Earth while supposedly on the same side as you.

I'm sure some people consider it as such but I never looked at any surveys of what some of the smartest people behind ID think. I'm sure Behe thinks it is theistic evolution. Let me attempt to answer this starting with one of the fallacies made against ID.Darwinists say: ID can't even begin to discredit neo-Darwinism because it has no theoretical form. Or in other words, It has never been reduced into a form that can be proposed as a hypothesis.I used to think that they were right and that is one reason (of a few) why I started to forumulate my own called "assemblism". Although, I believe William Dembski proposed an ID hypothesis.I later realized that an intelligent designer, assuming the IDer wasn't an alien but God, could do whatever God wants. If God wanted to build life with a box of tools such as but not limitied to Darwinism, symbiogenesis, and self-organization and assemble life from parts of some of the more simple lifeforms in order to form the more complex, then what would prevent God from doing this?I'm sure there are some assumptions in this. It would presume that time isn't a concern for God.Also, Stephen Meyer has pointed out that an intelligent designer doesn't have to break any natural laws in order to design things. People do it all of the time. We don't have to brake any natural laws when we venture into outer space.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I was asking about your own opinion, I'm well aware that different Iders have different opinions although the different positions in I.D. don't seem to be very clear. As you know, I.D. is presented as a scientific alternative to Evolution that's why it gave me the impression that I.D. had a different history of life from Evo. I may be wrong and only the mechanisms between the two differs. If that is so, you still need to spell those out clearly.
Also, I would also like to know where different IDers all agree to give some kind central theory of ID.From what you told me so far, it seems to me that your version of ID is evolution + Intelligent Designer(theistic evolutionism). Meaning you don't disagree with what Evo says, just that they missed at least one mechanism(ID), is that right?

Yes, you can describe what I think that way but I would rather put it into something more like the following form:Intelligent Designer uses tools and/or infuses complex specified information into the genome and as organisms evolve through microevolution. The way I put it is somewhat speculative so whether there are something that I have missed, I might change my view to accomodate what I come across.Stephen Meyer has been highly influential on my thinking in this matter but I don't know if he would totally agree with me. I am still tryihg to piece this together. Stephen C. Meyer | Philosopher of Science

If you can prove to me that complex specified information arises from the simple and then can gradually increase through a step by step unguided or self-organizational process, then I will leave this forum.Better yet, I will become your attack dog for a month on this forum and then leave.((This was a message in reply to Perdition, not Son.))I don't know why that happenedEdited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

As I have already pointed out, those discussions should be taken to another thread to keep this one on topic.

Do you mean that for you, organisms micro evolve by themselves but that the intelligent designer intervene for macro evolution? By the way, how does the intelligent designer intervene? For example, where is he? How does he manipulate populations from where he is? Etc...

quote:

---

If you can prove to me that complex specified information arises from the simple and then can gradually increase through a step by step unguided or self-organizational process, then I will leave this forum.

---

Complex Specified Information is a term frequently abused by ID supporters. Do you mean Dembski's version or the way that the term was used before the Dembski seized on it ?

I would define it by the term William Dembski used.Order but redundant information:That That That ThatComplexity:random places or postsSpecified complexity:Many of the Darwinists on evcforum.net don't like traderdrew.

Yes but I don't know when or at what point an intelligent designer would intervene. If the intelligent designers were aliens, they probably would abduct people and organisms. I don't think that intelligent design has ventured into answering that question. There are certain things that intelligent design hasn't ventured into. I would have to think about if ID should investigate it. I do know one thing, ID doesn't tell us what religious rituals to perform or what kind of clothing we should wear.

No, that isn't Dembski's definition.Dembski's definition is that an event is CSI if it has a valid specification and the probability of occurrence is less than his Universal Probability Bound 2^-500.And there are no known examples in biology.Wouldn't it be good to find one before asking for explanations of how it could exist ?

If you know of one then post it and I will study it.