Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

This is a topic that has to be addressed and then put to bed. ID was never intenended to take the place of Creation. Creation can stand or fall on its own merits. As can ID. As will be shown IDists understand the difference between the two and Creationists understand the difference. Even some or even most critics understand the difference. The question must then be asked, "why do some critics insist on conflating the two?".

quote:

---

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT CREATIONISM
RESPONSE TO "NOT (JUST) IN KANSAS ANYMORE" BY EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SCIENCE (MAY 2000)
By: Michael J. Behe
Science online
July 7, 2000

​

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism | Discovery Institute

​

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? (emphasis added)

​

Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others--abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing] conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.

---

The logic would be that IF ID = Creation then all IDists would be Creationists.
1) Dr. Behe makes it clear he is not a Creationist.
2) Creationist very much doubt common descent.
3) He also makes it clear that he is an IDist.
4) Therefore one can be an IDist without being a Creationist.
5) Conclusion is that ID is not Creation.

quote:

---

INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM JUST AREN'T THE SAME
By: John G. West
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
December 1, 2002

​

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same | Discovery Institute

​

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. (emphasis added)

​

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:

​

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

​

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

​

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

​

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

​

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

​

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

​

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

​

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolutionhas, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

​

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

​

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

​

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------AIG on ID:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.aspYoung* Earth Creation:
1) There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from God.
2) Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
3) Changes in the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur within fixed limits.
4) There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes.
5) The earth’s geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
6) The earth and all living kinds had a relatively recent origin (on the order of 10,000 years ago).(* There are creationists who believe in an old earth. They argue over the length of a day in Genesis. Are the first few days in Genesis actually eras?)ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.Do the two have similarities? Yes they do. Both also have similarities with parts of the theory of evolution as both agree with parts 1-3 and 4 with additional mechanisms, below. Some IDists don’t have an issue with #5 but say the mechanism is more than NS acting on RM. #6 is out and is only the belief of a small minority anyway. So what label is next IDC evolutionism?Principal meanings of evolution: pg. 136/7
1) Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2) Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3) Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4) The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5) Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6) Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.All parts with page numbers were taken from Darwinism, Design and Public Education.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Percy:
No one is confusing ID with young earth Creationism. But ID has always been a part of Creationism. It's the form of Creationism Behe has in mind when he describes those who think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." This is theistic evolution.

---

The reality shows that if anything Creation is a part of ID. IOW it may be shown that Creation is a subset of ID at the most. Are you saying that Ken Miller and Joe Meert (and others) are actually Creationists?

quote:

---

Percy:
IDists have little credibility within science because they are copying the previous dishonesty of young earth Creationists who removed mention of God from Genesis and claimed it was science. IDists are merely removing God from theistic evolution. It isn't fooling anyone.

---

As if materialistic naturalists have any credibility. ID is based on observation. What is materialistic naturalism based on?

quote:

---

Percy:
Dembski has provided theistic evolution a mathematical facade and called it intelligent design, but this can't hide the fact that they have no mechanism, no method, no observed event, and worst of all, no candidate for the intelligent designer.

---

Dembski is not the only IDist. Design is a mechanism, however it is not important to know how something was designed in order to detect and understand that design. IOW you have set up a strawman. No method- see previous. No observed event? And you observed nature acting alone bringing forth life from non-life? Have you observed nature acting alone bringing forth the bacterial flagellum? We don't need a candidate for the designer. I don't have to know who designed the jet-airliners to know they were designed.Percy's second paragraph is nothing more than one starwman after another.

quote:

---

Percy:
IDists need to find evidence of what they claim has happened.

---

We have and it has been presented:

quote:

---

Percy:
That biological processes are insufficient to produce the variety and complexity of life is an unsupported assertion, yet it is the very foundation of ID.

---

The unsupported assertion is that biological processes are sufficient. Where did those processes come from?Where is your positive evidence Percy? The double-standards are obvious.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-18-2004 09:10 AM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
You have said that you doubt common descent.

---

I will clarify- I doubt common descent by nature acting alone. I also don't see the alleged evidence as being very compelling for a LUCA (LUCA meaning only one starting population).Thw way I see it there are two options on how the universe and life got here. Either by nature acting alone (in which where did nature come from has to be addressed) or by something other than nature acting alone. I see the evidence pointing to the latter. Therefore I am not driven by faith but by evidence. I have an open-mind that allows me to let the evidence lead me. I will not tell the evidence it must fit into a materialitic naturalism framework.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Percy:
ID asserts that biological organisms possess specified complexity in a contingent manner that could only be the product of an intelligence. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any!

---

By Percy's logic the theory of evolution is pseudo-science. Where is the experimental data that shows that nature acting alone can account for the bacterial flagellum? How about the human vision system? Even in Theobald's [alleged] 29 evidences he states nothing about the alleged mechanism involved.OK Mr. Double-Standard, time to step up with the positive evidence that nature acting alone brought about life from non-life and the subsequent diversity from that population.ID is receiving attention because the appearance of design in living organisms is obvious. All people like Percy can do is the typical hand-wave and assert that nature acting alone can bring about the appearance of design. This assertion has never been substantiated.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

MrHambre:
And they both deny the legitimacy of the basis of scientific endeavor.

---

Care to support that assertion? Newton was a Creationist, as was Pasteur. Kepler was a Creationist, as was Mendel. Many scientists were and are Creationists and IDists. Again we see reality refute MrHambre.As for misrepresentations, well that is all MrHambre knows. ID is all about the evidence. IDists seek the real answer to the question "how did we get here?" We don't try to force the evidence to conclude materialistic naturalism. That is where MrHambre and his ilk have the issue. They can't let the evidence lead. They have to lead the evidence. And that is NOT how to conduct science.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

MrHambre:
Empirical evidential inquiry is predicated on the assumption that the universe is self-sufficient.

---

Do you have a citation for that assertion? Even if the universe is self-sufficient now doesn't mean it always was.

quote:

---

MrHambre:
The reason ID is a form of creationism, and that creationism is faith and not science, is because both denigrate methodological naturalism as some sort of atheistic loophole instead of recognizing that it's the very basis of scientific endeavor itself.

---

Again reality refutes MrHambre: The evidence for ID:We can detect design by the coming together of separate parts or components in an ordered way in such a functional system is formed that is dependent upon the order and those individual parts or components. With the bacterial flagellum not only is a functioning system formed but the energy to drive it is supplied as is the ability (or even knowledge how) to use it, which requires a communication link. So far the only alleged pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, the type III secretory system, has been shown to be if anything an offshoot of the BF. Yet here we have all these proteins that come together as if they were instructed to do so, just like we see parts come together to form a product in automated factories, and the vocal minority won’t allow science to infer ID. It is only a matter of time before that minority gets put in its place.

​

IDists say there are actual instructions that [1] tell the proteins to form; [2] direct them to an assembly area; [3] direct them to form the bac flag; [4] give the organism the ability to use the new part [5] connect the new part to the organism’s power and communication grid.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Percy:
Ken Miller and Joe Meert do not believe evolution was guided by God.

---

Then I would question their alleged christianity. Also you have moved the goalposts. IDists don't believe evolution was guided by God. However that is not why you put IDists in with Creationists.

quote:

---

Percy:
The many successes of the sciences based upon materialistic naturalism is one of the stunning achievements of the modern age.

---

Name such alleged successes.

quote:

---

Percy:
This assertion of ID is unsupported by any experimental or observational data.

---

That is a lie. ID is supported by observation. That is why ID exists- because of what we observe. Newton saw it, as did Pasteur.

quote:

---

Percy:
The passage merely describes a biological process. We already know you're claiming the process is designed, and a layman's level description of that process is not evidence of design.

---

The unnamed source is me, myself and I. My assertion is falsifiable. Don't blame me if you can't falsify it.

quote:

---

Percy:
They evolved following the same processes we've observed and analyzed in the lab.

---

That is a logical fallacy. Biological processes evolved from biological processes? Please give us a break. Perhaps you can show us prokaryotes evolving into eukaryotes in a lab.

quote:

---

Percy:
Antithesis toward methodological naturalism will only cement your attitude that evidence is unnecessary and guarantee continued failure to achieve scientific status.

---

There is a differeence between methodological naturalism and materialistic naturalism. Also you fail to realixe this : Same methodology, different inferences. Literature is available that shows how we can detect design. I suggest you read it- Nature, Design and Science by Del Ratzsch.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Percy:
Since you reject methodological naturalism, naturally you're willing to consider perspectives for which you have no evidence from the natural world.

---

Stop with the lies. I reject materialistic naturalism. I use methodological naturalism as part of my profession.

quote:

---

Percy:
This is in stark contrast to ID, which in spite of the almost total lack of evidence is nonetheless certain the bacterial flagellum was designed.

---

Your are so full of it. The evidence for design has been presented. All you can do is to hand-wave it away. Your agenda is obvious- materialitic naturalism or nothing.

quote:

---

Percy:
They don't how it was designed, they don't know how the design was implemented, they don't know who or what designed it, they have no observational or experimental evidence of any of these things ever happening, but they're sure nonetheless that it was designed. That's why ID isn't science.

---

We don't have to know how a design was implemented to infer design. We don't have to know who designed it to infer design. However we can turn the table on you- you have no idea how the bac flag evolved. You don't know what caused it to evolve. You have no observational or experimental evidence of any of these things ever happeneing, yet you are sure nontheless that it evolved via purely natural processes. That is why the theory of evolution isn't science.

quote:

---

Percy:
ID ignores methodological naturalism to create an interpretive framework based upon processes which are not natural and for which there is no evidence.

---

That is a lie. IDist can and do use methodological naturalism. What processes are not natural? Do IDists or ID say the designer used non-natural processes? Was my computer designed and manufactured by non-natural processes?

quote:

---

Percy:
The foundation of ID is built upon the shifting sands of a denial of the sufficiency of natural processes to produce the complexity of life we observe today, but a science cannot be built upon simple denial, as traditional Creationism's denial of evolution has already amply demonstration.

---

Sorry but we can't deny what doesn't exist. All you have is baseless assertion that nature acting alone brought about the diversity of life and life itself from non-life.

quote:

---

Percy:
Yeah, I guess that pretty much sums up the science of ID, it's all just appearances. You need some objective evidence.

---

You have yet to provide any objective evidence that shows life can arise from non-life by nature acting alone. You have failed to provide any objective evidence to support any of the alleged transformations (single-cell to metazoan; prok. to euk.; fish to amphib.; amphib. to reptile; etc.I made my case that ID is not Creation in my opening post. Now I am getting cooled off from all the hand-waving that has been going on since that message was posted. You on the other hand have made no case that ID = Creation.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Percy:
Don't both traditional Creationism and ID object to methodological naturalism as an approach to explaining the universe?

---

No. Same methodology, different inference. [qyote]Percy:
I think it is time to call your attention to rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines:Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."[/quote]I suggest you and your ilk should read and follow those rules.

quote:

---

Percy:
Tentativity is one of the requirements of science, and science tentatively concludes the natural world is all there is.

---

I would say that materialistic naturalists conclude the natural world is all there is. Science makes no such conclusion.

quote:

---

Percy:
There is as yet no evidence of the supernatural.

---

That is what you say because you refuse to look at the evidence. However there isn't any evidence that nature acting alone could have brought this all about (where did nature come from?) So by your logic we aren't here.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Coragyps
Then why do its proponents present only incredulity, never evidence?

---

A quick review of ID literature refutes your assertion. The evidence has been provided. Hardware and software. Not only do the parts have to be constructed but those parts have to be brought together in the correct sequence. Then the organism has to provide that part with power and the organism has to have the ability to use it. The part is the hardware and the ability is te software.Why do the proponents of the theory of evolution present only credulity and not evidence?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

Percy,You have yet to show that ID = Creation. ICR and AiG make it clear the two are not the same. The AiG link I provided in the thread opening post. ICR's Henry Morris on IDTo further my point that the two are different is the fact that ID does not disallow for common descent and Creation does.ID is based on observation. As Behe so clearly points out "the black box is now open". We now can observe the inticate complexity and parallels to our designed and connected world. Biologists do not make comparisons between what they observe and machines, they make it clear that they are observing machines at work inside (& on the outside) of cells. THAT is the observational basis for Intelligent Design. We observe macromolecular machines carrying out processes that are also complex.There you have it. Two of your points are falsified.Now all you have is to keep back-peddling to the origins of everything. However despite your desperate attempts to do so ID is only concerned with life on Earth. ID does not care IF it has metaphysical implications. ID lets the evidence lead it.In light of the evidence that shows IDists know there is a difference, Creationists know there is a difference, there is a difference, and rational opponents know the difference, what is Percy's reasoning behind his refusal to accept ID is not Creation?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
Many chemists in history were also alchemists and astrologers.

---

Brave and curious enough to attempt new things.

quote:

---

holmes:
Their work that rejected methodological naturalism (MN) turned out to be shit (just like Newton etc etc above).

---

Your assholeness aside, their deeds paved the way. We now know that just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it is possible.My point is one can be a Creationist and a great or even good scientist.

quote:

---

holmes:
Whoa whoa whoaaaaaaaa. What are you talking about?

---

I am talking about one of the questions IDists, NOT ID, ask. How is that a "clear departure"? Assertion does not make it so. Are you saying that no scientist is allowed to ask that question? And try to find an answer for it? Pure hogwash. If an artifact is found (an object later determined through investigation to be an artifact) does it go against scientific endeavour regarding design to ask and try to answer the question "how did that object come to be?"?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

RAZD:
and yet none is provided, again. just a bald assertion, again.

---

The evidence:
The fundamental laws of nature- Newton, Galileo, Kepler & Copernicus saw the universe was orderly and thus described by mathematics because it was fashioned that way.the bacterial flagellum
We can detect design by the coming together of separate parts or components in an ordered way in such a functional system is formed that is dependent upon the order and those individual parts or components. With the bacterial flagellum not only is a functioning system formed but the energy to drive it is supplied as is the ability (or even knowledge how) to use it, which requires a communication link. So far the only alleged pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, the type III secretory system, has been shown to be if anything an offshoot of the BF. Yet here we have all these proteins that come together as if they were instructed to do so, just like we see parts come together to form a product in automated factories, and the vocal minority won’t allow science to infer ID. It is only a matter of time before that minority gets put in its place.IDists say there are actual instructions that [1] tell the proteins to form; [2] direct them to an assembly area; [3] direct them to form the bac flag; [4] give the organism the ability to use the new part [5] connect the new part to the organism’s power and communication grid.RAZD keeps saying that IC systems have been shown to evolve naturally but has not given us the evidence.See also: ID FAQID as religion:
I can no longer waste my time in that thread. I will live by the court ruling I have posted. If you can't that is tough luck for you.who designed the designer?:
That was a thread that tried to show ID was a faith. No matter how YOU try to spin it ID is based on observation. Observations like the following: [b][I] 'I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily'. He also wrote, 'Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance'.[/b][/I] Sir Isaac Newton from Isaac Newton -- Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. [b][I] ‘The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator’.[/b][/I] Louis Pasteur from Louis PasteurFounder of Modern Medicine.There’s a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years, the Moon will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view or solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. Page 18 paragraph 4; The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery by G. Gonzalez Ph. D. astronomy & J. Richards Ph. D. philosophy & theology.The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

​

This is because the medium in which we live is, on the one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and to prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block any view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime. Hans BlumebergThere is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe The impression of design is overwhelming. Paul DaviesHere I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BeheYes those are all based on observation.BTW, don't wait any longer. We have been laughing at you all along.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
If we can trace back to either a tree or a hedge then it is still common descent. Are you on board with this or not?

---

Where do we draw the line? How many hedges? How many trees? Soon you will be talking numbers like Creationists talk Kinds (100s or 1000s).How do we empirically test a concept like common descent?

quote:

---

holmes:
You have seen NO evidence for it, or at least you have shown no such evidence.

---

Yes I have to both. You just refuse to accept it as evidence.

quote:

---

holmes:
You have shown sets of criteria which have not been tested at all, yielding a result. Having not been tested the results are meaningless.

---

The double-standard is obvious. Go play your game on the great debate forum.

quote:

---

holmes:
This clearly exhibits the lack of an open mind. Methodological naturalism, which you have often referred to as materialistic naturalism, is a procedure for scientific investigation.

​

It limits in order to avoid allowing into "scientific knowledge" absurd and patently untestable claims.

---

Most events that happened in the past are patently untestable. [qs] In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the teach the controversy model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy.[/b] John Angus Campbell, pg. xxv 3rd paragraph of Darwinism, Design and Public Education[qs].There you have it. If the rule is in question, and it just may be, then that rule can't be used to prevent critical & open-minded thinking.

quote:

---

holmes:
Empiricism and methodological naturalism beat out rationalism as scientific tools 100+ years ago. That is simply a fact.

---

The ONLY fact is methodological naturalism was put in over 100+ years ago. It never beat out anything. It also came in when we were ignorant of what lay beyond the cellular wall. Now we know better.None of the above have to do with the topic. Do you believe that ID is Creation[ism] or not?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
Actually no one will find what you are promising in that book.

---

I didn't make any promises. I read the book. I came away with a better understanding of design.

quote:

---

holmes:
You can look at reviews of the book to see that it does not contain what you suggest.

---

Only a fool would judge anything by reviews.

quote:

---

holmes:
Uhoh, IDman. I gotta start wondering if you read his book.

---

Yes I have. The book discusses how to detect design. The next step is to start the frutation process. Del has an appendix in his book for Dembski. So what if the two don't agree 100% of everything?

quote:

---

holmes:
Body blow, definitely a body blow. You feeling this?

---

No. It was a clean miss. Of course there are people convinced design offers nothing. Just look at the threads in this forum. And I agree it is a mistake to mix the two. ID makes no claim on final causes.As for predictions and experiments- what do evolutionists do? What can evolution predict? We know we can't predict what would be selected for at any point in time, so what good is the theory of evolution?Fruitfulness:
I say ID will be helpful to breeders especially. ID will help us better understand genetic information, therefore helping the breeder's understand the limits they have to work with. ID will help us better understand genetic information by the simple fact IDists look at it as a functional intelligentlly designed code, similar to computer codes. For cryptographers this is key to decoding a message. They know there is a message that requires decoding.
Also ID should lead to more projects like: Approaching Biology from a Diffeent AngleWhich are designed to help us better understand living organisms.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"