Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

If you're so determined to make out that Joe is a Deist then I suspect he won't want to talk to you. I must admit that I had no idea that you were so in love with the idea that you would get angry just because it was shot down. Are you sure that you are't Jonathan Sarfati ?

quote:

---

MrHambre:
You're asserting that life on Earth and the laws of physics were designed by an intelligence, without giving us positive evidence that any intelligent agent has ever existed which can be credited with such creative capabilities.

---

The evidence has been given. You just choose to ignore it. Huge difference.The evidence is in what we observe. The IC of the bac flag, cilia, blood clotting cascade and the vision system (plus many other such biological structures) are the evidence in biology. We base the design of these structures on this criteria: As well as homology in biology: Designing agents can anticipate functional requirements. Therefore we conclude that homology in biology is based on design archetypes.Outside of biology we have the laws of nature. We also have too many coincidences, including, but not limited to, the folowing: Those were based on observations of the physical evidence.YOU are asserting that life on Earth and the laws of physics were the result of nature acting alone without giving us positive evidence that nature acting alone could do such things. Double-standards Hambre.

---

"...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:

---

PaulK:
We already know that your "some natural process did this for some reason" is a straw man.

---

How do we know that is a straw man? Assertion is meaningless.

quote:

---

PaulK:
Either "setting up the initial conditions" manipulates the genome directly or indirectly or you have some explaing to do.

---

More double-standards, plus another fallacy. The initial conditions do not manipulate the genome any more than the programmer manupulates the program once it is released.Evos have a ton of explaining to do. For example:Please explain homology in biology in light of the fact that homologous structures are not determined by the same genes or developmental pathways.

---

"...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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasoning is that in order for NS to have something to act on is that, the bac flag, has to be there. NS does not have a plan. It cannot build something the organism may use in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

MrHambre:
The reasoning, such as it is, ignores the fact that plenty of biological structures serve purposes quite different from the ones they once served. Loudmouth himself started a thread to show that jawbones we inherited from our reptilian ancestors are now the three little bones in the mammalian middle ear.

---

How do we know that random mutations and NS were responsible? The reality is that we don't know we inherited the jaw bone from any reptiles.

quote:

---

MrHambre:
In that case, aren't hands and antennae and small ear bones all impressive testimony to the design capability of the Darwinian mechanism?

---

Please provide the evidence that shows RM & NS were responsible for these structures. I will bet you that you cannot.Can you even provide the evidence that the different sizes of the beaks of the finch are the result of random mutations?This message has been edited by ID man, 09-30-2004 10:13 AMThis message has been edited by ID man, 09-30-2004 10:15 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"

Hi all,This thread is drifting pretty far from the original topic. I've released the topic The Argument from Design: Design for who?. Please resume the off-topic part of the discussion there, or propose a new thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

Mammuthus:
Oh really? You should probably look before you post....here is a small subset of the evidence that you claim does not exist...

---

Really? Let's take a look at what you provided:(I always wonder why evos don't post the link or the full article. It is as if they are hiding something)Type II protein secretion and its relationship to bacterial type IV pili and archaeal flagella.Just bthe title tells me this is not what you are making it out to be- that being how the bac flag evolved, which is what I am looking for. And there is nothing in the abstract to suggest otherwise.On to the second:Decoding cilia function: defining specialized genes required for compartmentalized cilia biogenesis.Again the title suggests this doesn't cover the evolution of the bac flag. The abstract starts with complexity that needs to be explained in the first place.So far neither the first or the second offer any insight to random mutations and NS being the mechanism. That is the debate.The third article is more promising. However it does not say anything about random mutations and NS being the mechanism.Dr. Behe (as well as other IDists) are questioning the mechanism, not that these structures could not have come about. You would have known this if you followed ID.

---

"...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"

We know that your "some natural processes did this for some reason" is a straw man because we know that nobody regards such as a valid model. And I have shown that in a particular case loved by the ID movement we have FAR more than that.Of course if you reall wanted to dispute that claim you could have backed it up when you had the chance - instead of producing a clear example of the double standards of the ID movement as you did.Moreover the argument that you call a "double standard" is nothing of the sort and in fact is prefectly valid. The information needed for a bacterium to build a flagellum IS encoded in the genome - ergo if the flagellum is to be held to be "designed" at all this must be the intent of the designer. How the designer arranged for the information to get there does not change the fact that the designer must have done so somehow.As for your comments on homology, please identify the structures you are referring to and explain the roles of the genes involved in each case - in a different thread, since such a large subject deserves a thread of its own. I certainly don't intend to do heavy work on developmental biology and genetics to answer such a vague request especially as even if I were to do so for a single example (which would be a lot of work in itself) you'd probably find some excuse to dismiss it.

The full articles aren't generally avaliable online; you usually have to go to the library (you know, where books are kept) to dig it up.Since we always give full bibliographical citations, however, it should be trivial for you to look up the article yourself. You can hardly claim we're "hiding" something.

quote:

---

PaulK:
We know that your "some natural processes did this for some reason" is a straw man because we know that nobody regards such as a valid model.

---

Tell that to the materialistic naturalists- like Dawkins.

quote:

---

PaulK:
And I have shown that in a particular case loved by the ID movement we have FAR more than that.

---

What particular case?

quote:

---

PaulK:
As for your comments on homology, please identify the structures you are referring to and explain the roles of the genes involved in each case - in a different thread, since such a large subject deserves a thread of its own.

---

The work has already been done. I don't need to rehash it for you. You can do as you always do and ignore the evidence. You are the one that cannot explain homology via naturalistic explanations. Just read de Beers, Monod, and Embryos, Genes, and Evolution by Raff & Kauffman. There are other papers and books too.

---

"...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:

---

crashfrog:
Since we always give full bibliographical citations, however, it should be trivial for you to look up the article yourself. You can hardly claim we're "hiding" something.

---

And every time I take the time to look up the article I am always disappointed to find that what what was being argued was not resolved by the article. 100%. That is why I make the claim that something is being hidden.

---

"...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"

Please resume discussion of the off-topic issues in The Argument from Design: Design for who?, or in another thread more appropriate to them. I'll reopen this thread when I see that the discussion has moved.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Please stay on-topic.This message has been edited by Percy, 09-30-2004 01:44 PM

I'll readily concede that ID is not part of Creationism, as long as Creationism is defined as the belief that God created life and the universe according to the account in Genesis.But that isn't the only definition of Creationism. If we can't agree on this, then I'm flexible and will willingly use another term, but I have a different definition of Creationism in mind. It's the same one I used when I designed this discussion board, and it's the same one you used when you came to this board that has a "Creation versus Evolution" logo knowing ID was a valid topic here, as it is at all such boards.Here's my definition:' Under this definition, ID is just the latest tactic of the evangelical movement to get their religious views represented in science classrooms.Now, as I said, I'm not married to the term Creationism and will gladly choose another if you wish. The important issue isn't the actual name, but the motive and goals. ID shares the same motives and goals as all the other forms of Creationism, and that's what to me makes ID Creationism. But if for the sake of this discussion you prefer that I use another word, fine, no problem.--Percy

quote:

---

Percy:
Here's my definition:'

​

Creationism is a movement that promotes the teaching of conservative Christian religious views in public school science classrooms.

​

Under this definition, ID is just the latest tactic of the evangelical movement to get their religious views represented in science classrooms.

---

That is ONLY your opini and basically it is a lie. IDists do not want any religious views in a science classroom.

quote:

---

Percy:
Now, as I said, I'm not married to the term Creationism and will gladly choose another if you wish.

---

Call ID, ID, Call YEC, YEC and OEC, OEC and theistic evolution as theistic evolution.

quote:

---

Percy:
ID shares the same motives and goals as all the other forms of Creationism, and that's what to me makes ID Creationism.

---

The motives and goals of ID are to find out the reality of what we observe. Your view is what happens when people learn about ID from ID critics and not IDists.I wouldn't tell people to learn about the theory of evolution from reading AiG or ICR.

---

"...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"

I'm going to stay focused on the topic.There's a movement that promotes the teaching of conservative Christian religious views in public school science classrooms. Usually they're referred to as Creationists. And it is conservative Christian groups, the same ones that first advocated the teaching of YEC, and then later of scientific creationism, that are now promoting the teaching of ID in the classroom, most recently in Ohio.It is certainly valid to argue that the attraction ID holds for conservative Christians does not bear on the scientific validity of ID, but this then makes ID's scientific foundation key to resolving the issue of whether ID is just part of Creationism. As one board member in Ohio said, "Somebody's dreamed up another way of expressing creationism, for heaven's sake." If this view isn't true, then someone should be able to describe ID's scientific foundation.Perhaps we should adjourn this thread until we complete other discussions of ID. If ID cannot produce a scientific foundation, then the motivations can only be theological and religious, and ID is part of Creationism. But if ID is scientifically valid, then ID stands apart from Creationism.So shall we adjourn to the other threads for now?--Percy