What exactly is ID?

If you wish to understand Intelligent Design, I would suggest starting with getting rid of any sterotypes you have of what a creationist is because if we were creationists, then we should call ourselves that. I think this sentence will elict laughs from my Darwinist friends on this forum.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.From wikipedia:Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]I completely agree with the first part of this definition but what comes after the comma, I do not completely agree with. I think they might be confusing 'natural selection' with 'common descent'. From my point of view, natural selection can be described as a part of chaos. Natural selection is an undirected process but order can be hidden within chaos. Chaos theory is an emerging branch of science. I believe in natural selection and I also believe in common descent as formed by a process I call assemblism.So where do proponents of ID draw their beliefs from? Very briefly:1. Molecular machinery inside of the cell. An example would be irreducibly complex systems.2. Patterns of appearance of organisms in the fossil record.3. The fine-tuned physics of the universe. Robin Collins is an expert in this.4. The fine-tuning of our terrestrial environment and our solar system along with the specific "galactic habitable zone" in our galaxy which is also the right type of galaxy that supports life. If any of you doubt me on this, read the book "Rare Earth" which is divorced from any sort of theological framework. The science we have now is different from the era of Carl Sagan.5. The complex specified information within DNA providing specific functions that helps build organisms. Abiogenesis models typically do not attempt to explain the origin of this information. They also don't account for other crucial details.I will be investigating a new area next week I could list as a possible #6. I have a strong lead came from a one on one interview I had personally with a biologist who was a secular Darwinist. I never heard of it being advanced by any proponent of ID so I find the propects exciting.What is important for you to understand is that most of these things were relatively or virtually unknown 20 years ago!!! The trend for ID is up and the gaps in secular evolution are growing. I think we will win.Don't take what we all say at face value."Beware of one one hand clapping."What is ID to me?Not only is it a learning process, it is a way of perception. It is a way of seeing through the irrational debate of secular evolutionists with critical analysis. I might make a good philosopher of science.By the way, if you are impressed with the eruditeness of my post, don't let me fool you. I am an amateur and I have no official crucial scientific training. However, I have a brain and I have a background in other things formed by self-education through some experiences I have had in life. I think this gives me a unique perspective.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry about that. I will not do it again here. I was thinking of taking their posts and pasteing them in a thread below where we could have a big fight, but then again...Apparently the "complex specified information" that I post on this forum isn't always specific. If it was repesented as an analogue in DNA it would probably fail to communicate the information.

I would have to think about this if you would want an explanation that is a bit longer than the one I modified off wikipedia below. I am leaving town for a little while.Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by the involvement of (at least one) intelligence. I think some people reject it because of its religious implications and/or they are not thinking rationally about their demarcation argument. I think the first reason would explain the second. I believe it has the same scale as the evidence of the fossil record would tell us. There are periods in the fossil record that show us some patterns that suggest design. Such as the hypothesis of an infusion of information into organisms during the Cambrian era. An example might be the introduction of lysyl oxidase into organisms. (If I didn't post this last sentence, you would see someone who would attempt to equivocate my last comment or spin off of it with an off topic post.)Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I do not understand the basis of your question. I was referring mainly to the Cambrian explosion. Even some evolutionists such as Sean Carroll seem to refer to that particular era as remarkable. Read his book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful". Other evolutionists seem to be offended by the characterization of that era as an explosion.

I understand where you are coming from but obviously you didn't follow the thread back. PaulK and I have had this debate about CSI before. I have asked him, "If the information in DNA isn't CSI then, what is it then?" It certainly seems to be specified. Complex is a relative term but I would also say it is complex since the information forms proteins and these proteins also bind together. Proteins bind together in specific ways. (specific shapes, positive and negative bonds and lipid bonds)I have been very busy lately and I would rather not get into another lengthy debate. I would rather debate Wounded King because he is the best of the best around here and he also seems to have a certain level of self-honesty.The thinking of atheistic evolutionists seems to go something like this - "The creator would never have created life this way or let things run the way they are therefore, life must have evolved through a Darwinian process and either the Creationists are correct or Darwin was."I think the above quote is naive.Some others on this forum seem to have some sort of obligation to correct the double digit percentage of the American public who believe in Creation. Well I will tell you something, I am not a Creationist, I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and any body who refers to us as Creationists is disingenuous.Intelligent Design is a new paradigm and I get it. It involves the thinking processes. An example of using my thinking to refute the Darwinists is the following Darwinist argument against irreducible complexity.The flagellum first evolved from point A. A to B to C to D and so on. A turned into B and once B became C then there was no more need for B and so on.If this is true then tell me what purposes and functions B and C served? What forms of locomotion (if any) were the precursors of the flagellum? Some such as Kenneth Miller use the TTSS as an example of a precursor but apparently recent developments and evidence from science seems to refute him.Do you see how simple Darwinian conjecture can be and how it can fool the mind that wishes to believe in it?

So therefore intelligent design couldn't possibly be conceptually applied as anything else since it was derived from Creationism? In other words, once the intention was established, the term must never be modified or used in another way? Your argument sounds like a strawman argument to me.I stated it before and I state it again here. Creationism attempts to shoehorn the evidence into a Biblical framework. Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence.