The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

So MrIntelligentDesign is no longer suspended.Perhaps he will show up here again. Or perhaps he won't. I don't think it makes much difference. He has clearly shown that he has no real argument.

I hope MrID does rise again. I would seriously ask he show us how. How do you tell the difference in living vs non-living, intelligent vs non-intelligent using IDv2I don't think he understands that his 'publications' are not helpful because we cannot understand the syntax or the processes. He didn't write those so good.I would like him to walk us through an example, where to start, what numbers to use, what methodology. Maybe he can show us how his IDv2 improves over science.Right. Still, I'd like to ask.

I did happen to see him in the "online now" list last night a couple hours before his suspension ended, but nothing since then.And of course he hasn't posted any kind of response either. He's probably creating yet another say-nothing gibberish "article" in order to avoid any discussion in which he would have to support his "position".

Hope springs eternal... I think we have already seen his best work.

I've returned to preparing my questions of that, though my approach is to learn how his "new ID" is supposed to address and correct the problems with the "old ID". Here is the opening section in my draft: I'll follow that with a list in HTML's Definition List format of a few of the many well-known problems with ID including a <DD> discussion section. Those problems include:

• ID's failure to take into account naturally occurring complexity by trying to equate complexity with "design" even though naturally occurring complexity is so much more complex than designed complexity could ever hope to be. That would also include how the most common characteristic of a product of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity, such that if you find something in nature that is highly complex then that is evidence that it had evolved.
  ​
• ID's fatal confusion of science's practice of methodological materialism ("We are incapable of working with the supernatural, so we do not include it.") with philosophical materialism ("The natural universe is all there is.").
  ​
• ID's political and social agenda to transform science by forcing it to include the supernatural. Their motivation in pushing that travesty comes from the previous point in which they are unable to understand how science works.
  ​
• ID having to always resort to explaining everything away with "God Did It" (AKA "goddidit"). More specifically, they point out how highly complex something is such that they have difficulty explaining it completely, so they jump to their go-to "conclusion" of "goddidit".
  ​
  Of course, that "answer" not only answers nothing at all, but it also blocks any further investigation of that question. As we discussed in my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), "goddidit" effectively kills science.
  ​
• ID's worship of the God of the Gaps. This view argues that finding natural explanations for things works to disprove God, which would mean that our inability to explain something works to prove God. That would lead to an agenda which strives to preserve ignorance and to impede the growth of knowledge. Note that this worship of the God of the Gaps is also quite common among YECs.

So I want to know how MrID's "new ID" is supposed to address those central problems with the "old ID". What he has presented so far is that the only change in his "new ID" is that he replaced the made-up meaningless "magic words" of "old ID" with his own set of made-up meaningless "magic words", such that his "new ID" ends up being just as meaningless as the "old ID", if not more so.In another discussion which I already presented to xongsmith in Message 78 but in which I have tried to engage MrID, as we go through the natural processes of biological evolution, each step of which will take place even without any external intelligence's intervention, where exactly he would claim that that external intelligent intervention would be necessary and why. I see none necessary, but if he sees such a necessity then he needs to explain that. And of course in order to do that then he would need to know how evolution works (hence my repeated questions to him on that matter).Repeating that discussion from Message 78 redone here as a list:

• Populations of organisms produce offspring. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• For any given trait, the more parents possessing it means the more offspring inheriting it. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Only some of the offspring end up surviving to adulthood. No need for an external intelligence there, but rather it is intuitively obvious even to the most casual creationist observer that the offspring with traits that are more beneficial for survival will be more likely to survive.
  ​
• The offspring that end up being the parents of the next generation will be the ones who survived (whose definition should include being able to make it past sexual selection as well as having fully functional baby-making parts). Yet again, no need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Whether given traits are beneficial or not depends on the environment in which the organisms must live and survive. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Over generations we should expect to see many if not most of the members of a population possess more of those beneficial traits and fewer of the disadvantageous traits. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• As the environment changes (or the population moves into a new environment), which traits are beneficial or disadvantageous or neutral can and will also change. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Under those changed conditions and over the generations, the newly beneficial traits will come to dominate in the population. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Genetic mutations happen; it's a simple fact. No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Most genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious (remember those large percentages of seeds that fail to germinate and fertilized eggs that fail to develop?), but some are beneficial (both in terms of viability and of being advantageous in the environment).
  ​
  Please note that most seeds and zygotes fail to develop so they never become part of the gene pool and we never see them (the figure I've heard for humans is that 50% of conceptions abort spontaneously, many before the zygote would have had any chance of attaching to the uterine lining), which would account for MrID's bizarre "Dislocated Parts" ideas (if we are ever able to understand what the hell he's talking about).
  ​
  No need for an external intelligence there.
  ​
• Those new beneficial traits will spread through the population in accordance with population dynamics. No need for an external intelligence there.

So far, I have not seen any evidence of MrID ever addressing that fundamental question of where and why an external intelligence would be needed in the normal operation of evolution. Instead, we only see quasi-philosphical assertions; eg, he proclaims that word "modification" in "descent with modification" requires by the very definition of the word the intentional actions of an intelligent agent (eg, page 13). Yeah, his arguments do actually get that incredibly stupid.MrID has lots to explain.Edited by dwise1, : added initial qs block for context

Here are some answers:1. New ID vs oldThe new ID uses intelligence and non-intelligence. As you can see, the new knew the two opposite extreme, which means,
the new could categorize all X.The old ID uses complex from Darwin, thus, wrong.Thus, in all Xs that should be categorized for origins, the new is the answer.

​

2. Regarding posts about Evolution.

​

Evolution is not part of biological world or reality since the biological cell is importantly, intelligently designed.
Thus, you don't need external forces since the system that will produce all parts are intelligently designed, the cell.

​

Thus, in summary, Evolution never happens in biologicals world since Evolution uses non-intelligence..

Here are some answers:1. Living vs Non-Living is when a physical body has life, or like electric current of a toy. If a toy has no electric current, then, it is dead.
This is undeniable when a dog dies. The dog has physical body but has no life (electric current).
Thus, in Biological Interrelation, all physical bodies are just the defense systems (like nervous system, etc) of life.2. Intelligent vs non-intelligence = problem-solution-solution. (max limit is 3)
non-intelligence = problem-solution (max limit is 1)Thus, it predicts that if all living organisms is not-intelligently designed, it has no defense mechanism. Thus, evolution is wrong.

Oh sorry.It is hard to discuss when you have to educate your opponent first, and then, discuss, thus, I always share the link so that those who wanted to discuss with me, at least, knew their opponents' arguments. It makes the discussion shorter and fruitful.Sorry for that since I never thought of spamming.But thank you.

What is evolution? Simply put, evolution is non-intentional change in biological world.Now, let us explain the theory:Evolution theory is a non-intentional change in biological world that will lead to new species, to origin of species.But, since life uses intelligence,
Thus, evolution is wrong.

I see absolutely no use of IDv2 in your answer. You're saying something that is alive is alive. So tell us something we don't already know. Where does your IDv2 come into play here? I saw this in your paper. It means nothing to me. What are these numbers? You don't tell us how these relate. Where from? Justify. What does "problem-solution-solution" mean? I need detailed explanations of what these refer to and how you justified these meanings.So, I have a something. How do I use your new IDv2 to tell if it was created or not? How do I use your new IDv2 to tell me if this is intelligent or not? Where do I start?What is the first step in IDv2 to answering the question?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

1. About LifeIn forming replacement for Evolution in Biology, I had to go back to basic in reality. Thus, the new ID needs that info in life as electric current.2. About intelligence.. it is too long..here is the summary: The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations. | ZenodoIf you did not get it, then, I cannot help you.
I cannot spoon-fed...

If you cannot teach then you do not know. Your IDv2 is nothing until you can explain it, spoon feed it, to the rest of us.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Again, I’ve got this thing. How do I tell using you new IDv2 if it is created or natural?What is the first step? There has to be an initial step in any process. What is yours?It really is a simple question. Thing … created or natural? What is IDv2’s first move?You do know the answer to this question, don't you? You did invent this stuff, right?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What's the matter with you? He already told you, life is like an electric toy. Sheesh!

I thought that statement might spark your interest.