The design inference

Yes, but what of the ID'er? If not god who? http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htmCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b] First of all, I must ask whether or not it really matters? ID should stand or fall on its scientific merits, not theological ponderings.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: Agreed, but it has no scientific merits and the theological ponderings are what seem to drive the majority of the arguments.

​

quote:

---

"The notion of a perfect God must be rejected since not all designs are perfect. The knee or the lower back for example, could have been better designed by a 2nd year ME student."

​

How do you know that a perfect God would not make imperfect structures. How do you know the nature of God at all?

---

​

JM: I don't nor do I claim to. I am merely repeating the claims of fundamentalist christians who claim HIS perfection.

​

quote:

---

"The last point I wish to make is that neocreationism (in the form of ID) is simply a clumsy new device try and reintroduce religion into the public science classroom."

​

I must ask you where you get the basis for this comment. The following comment is a quote from Orr that states that most ID scientists have widely varying views. I don't see how Orr's quote supports your notion. I also don't see how you could come to this conclusion when you admit that one of ID's chief promoters does not believe in God. Your next line follows:

---

​

JM: I refer you to the most recent case of ID in Ohio. Do a search and you shall see. While ONE ID theorist also claims to be an atheist is of little consequence. The majority are clear on both the nature and the identity of the ID'er.

​

quote:

---

"The characteristics of the designer are seldom stated outright, but one need not look far to find clues as to who the designer might be."

​

This statement is also not supportive of your notion that ID is a new attempt to introduce religion into schools.

---

​

JM: See Ohio's recent battle.

​

quote:

---

I find it relatively obvious that WHO or WHAT the individual IDer thinks is the designer is faith-based. One can make their own conclusion based on the implication of Intelligent Design Theory. The mere fact that most IDers believe God is the designer is not relevant at all to ID's scientific implications. Therefore, it is of no harm to introduce students to the concept of Intelligent Design.

---

​

JMf course not. ID is part and parcel of human endeavors. That does not necessarily mean it is part and parcel of everthing. ID is taught all the time. It simply has no relevance to biological systems.

​

quote:

---

Perhaps aliens (who themselves evolved naturally without having IC)are bombarding our planet with invisible and undectable rays of energy that allow Irreducibly Complex Structures to form in living things. This scenario may not seem very likely on a theological level, but that does not matter. The point is that it is possible to infer Intelligent Design without implying God. Any notion to the contrary, I believe, is a result either of ignorance or of wishful thinking.

---

​

JM: Sure and pink elephants coulda done it. How does such a conclusion (as yours or mine) aid in the understanding of biology? Evolution explains the historical observations, it is predictive, retrodictive and testable. What does ID offer that is superior to evolution?

​

[QUOTE]By the way, your site is pretty nifty. I liked the Bacterial Flagellum graphic you have.[/b]

---

JM: ThanksCheersJoe Meert

Just out of curiosity, why would Behe get a pulitzer for ID? Best fictional work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:

​

Sorry to wake you during your most productive hours.

---

JP claims to be an engineer and concluded that that one fact makes him an expert on design in biological systems. He's read a book by Dembski that confirmed what he firmly believed in the first place and now there is no turning back. I have been convinced that JP doesn't truly understand the religious agenda that is the sole focus of ID because that's his focus as well. I will say this, the ID folk have convinced a Moonie and an atheist to join their ranks so they can claim that the whole thing is unrelated to religion. Look deeper and you'll see these guys are being used like stage help in revival tent.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
As soon as the IDer's manage to find this designer, please let me know. There are many people who would like to pettition to have his creationist license revoked

---

JM: The funny thing is that for all the claims that ID is not religious, it's the only group that is arguing for a political mandate to change science. I don't know if that strikes any other scientist as 'very queer', but it does me. You don't see the superstring theorists arguing to have their views share equal time in the high school classroom with Einstein and Newton. You don't see the non-plumists (a plume is a hot mantle upwelling) arguing to have plumes removed from the classroom. YOu don't see mathematics groups seeking to remove "Fermat's Last Theorem" from the textbooks because it hasn't been proven! It's only because ID touches on our humanity that people argue about it. The ID'ists see no value to humanity unless it was intelligently designed and make no mistake about it, the intelligent designer is none other than God (there are a few token non-religious folk in the movement). This movement tries very hard to masquerade as legitimate science, but there is no scientific research aimed at biological ID (not a single paper---even by Behe! and please save the lame conspiracy excuses for someone who doesn't understand peer review).CheersJoe Meert