The I in ID

Totally agree with you. ID is nothing but creationism that has been repackaged to look like science. As a PR exercise, its' been quite impressive, as a scientific theory its a bit of a damp squib of a firework - it sounds and looks impressive :"Look - it says it goes BANG loads of times, in all sorts of colours, and lasts for ever!"but does not deliver what it promises:fzzzzzpt! - "oh that was crap!"I personally think that the vain attempts of IDCers to distance themselves from creationism are quite funny. They declare that the existence of an intelligent designer does not necessarily mean a creator exists. It always beggars the question of what the Intelligent Designer did after designing life - I'm guessing he probably would have created it. Maybe not, maybe he then passed his design on to the Intelligent Production department, followed by the Intelligent Quality Control area (which judging by the evidence is a department that needs a bit of work ). See what I mean - dead silly!Ooops, sorry I seem to have ranted incoherantly at you (probably with umpteen spilling mustooks as well). {stay off the caffeine, stay of the caffeine!!}What was I meant to say, oh yes:Good point!

I think this is quite an important statement. If IDers propose that, at one point, design stops and natural processes take over then it should be possible to draw a line. If the hallmarks of design are so obvious, and ID is indeed based on observation then a definite stage of evolution should be able to be highlighted and a statement such as:"Right, everything up until this point was designed, from then on life was on its' own"should be possible.What I suspect is that this will not happen, and that the debate would dissolve into something similar to the 'define a kind' situation that YECs seem to get themselves into.

Hi ID-man,I'd like you to answer a couple points, if you can. I sort of made them earlier to other posters, so you might not have seen them (I also realise this was probably a bit rude - I do apologise, it was a caffeine fueled moment.)1) If ID is not creationism, then why does it absolutely require a creator? If you are saying that a desiner exists/existed, then what did he do after he designed life? Would he not have created it? Although you (and other ID proponents) insist that it is based on scientific observation it is creation 'science' in all but name: Start with a conclusion, find evidence, restate conclusion, pretend this is scientific.2) Although I might not be so widely read in the ID literature as you are, I (and others) do have a pretty good idea what science smells like. I've read quite a few ID websites, transcripts of official debates, and forums such as this one and ID stinks to high heaven, although not of science . If it was a science then you should be able to state a hypothesis, and test it. For example, as evidence of a designer is everywhere and apparently obvious, and because you argue (I think) that ID only goes so far and from then on natural processes (evolution) took over: Where's the dividing line? At what point in the suggested tree-of-life can all the changes be attributed to natural selction and mutation?

OK, if you insist that ID is a science and totally unrelated to creationism; let me describe what I see in ID arguments and what I would expect to see from a properly constructed scientific theoryThis is what I see every time ID get's explained to me:

• Hypothesis: I believe a creator existed so I will look for evidence (says this bit very quietly because he wants ID to be taught as science)
• Evidence: Aha! IC complex systems look to me like they were designed!
• Conclusion: Life was designed, IOW created
• What more do you want?

Now, you could argue quite convincingly that the first point is one mother of an assumption, but I've based it on what I would expect to see if it was a proper scientific theory unbiased by a belief in God:

• Hypothesis based on observation: Some biochemical systems (and maybe some gross anatomical ones too - depending on which IDer you ask), are quite complex, they appear to be designed
  ​
• Testing the theory with evidence: How can we properly define this theory? What is the nature and mechanism of this design? Can IC systems really not come about by any other way? As there are aspects of life that could have arisen by natural selection, where did a designer get involved?

ID creationists never get to the last part, they sidestep all these uncomfortable questions and are happy to rest on their laurels having 'successfully proved' that life was created. Arguments tend to run in circles because of this:-"Life was Designed!"-"Why?"-"Cos it just looks designed?"-"Why?"-"Because it's like [insert manmade object]"-"Eh? But [manmade object] is nothing like what I'm on about...Oh never mind! How can you be sure that these IC systems couldn't have come about by natural selection, there's a lot of gaps in our knowledge?"-"Well, until those gaps are filled we must assume it was designed!"-"But wh...Oh forget it"You can prove me wrong by showing me a piece of evidence that is not based on analogy or a lack of knowledge. I've never seen this before, so I'll be very surprised if you can. You'll probably keep on avoiding those awkward questions.Which brings me to this wonderful piece of avoidance: Wow! Beautiful dummy followed by a deft sidestep. Unfortunately you then get steam-rollered by the prop forward of reality. Exactly what tools have you been denied? What kind of experiment would you do to test ID 'theory' if the evil forces of science allowed you to? Many genomes have been sequenced and freely published, so what is stopping you showing us the design within them?Let me put the question another way:Which aspects of the 'tree' of evolution do you think can be explained by mutation and natural selection? Start at humans and trace it back. At what point is the magic finger of a creat...sorry designer absolutely required?This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-30-2004 06:55 AM

ID man,Your reply to me appears to be quite substantial, yet doesn’t actually tackle any of the issues. And you have the gall to accuse me of practicing ‘spin’!?! Really? Do I have to put my hand in my pocket and shell out cash to the peddlers of pseudoscience to earn the right to criticize the ‘theory’ of ID? I’ve taken part in a number of on-line debates with ID proponents like yourself, and been directed to umpteen different websites which try to tell me the ‘truth’ about ID and not once have I come across even the whiff of proper scientific method. Why do I have to read a book to tell me that the entire concept has holes in it large enough to drive a double decker bus through?I did actually pick up Darwin’s Black Box fairly recently in a book shop and had a quick flick through. I was so disgusted at how misleading and downright wrong whole sections of the text were that I had to fight the urge to write SYMBIOSIS across a paragraph on organelles.So I am familiar with the arguments made by ID, they just don’t make sense as a scientific theory.Let me reiterate what I was saying about how a scientific theory should work:

1. Make an observation
2. Construct a hypothesis based on the observation
3. Test the hypothesis
4. Rinse and repeat

The ToE has gone through this process many times, which is why it is such a well established theory. ID, to my knowledge has never got passed point 2. For example:

1. There is complexity in life
2. Life was therefore designed
3. Errrrr

If you know otherwise please provide me with an example from your vast bank of ID knowledge, if not button it! This is a blatant assertion, please provide a proposal for a way to test the ID hypothesis. Otherwise, don’t repeat it. And please don’t whine about lack of resources:

quote:

---

What tools have we been denied? Public schools, universities, grants, etc.

---

Are you really trying to tell me that the various ‘institutes’ that are trying to promote ID as science are penniless? Do me a favour! Besides, if you haven’t been able to put together a decent test of ID, then why the hell should you expect it to be taught in schools?So onto the questions that I would still like you to answer: For the second time:I think your cut-and-paste quotes were an attempt at this, but they all were based on a lack of knowledge. For example, please provide evidence that life could not have arose in any other solar system in the galaxy (you even used one with an analogy for crying out loud). You don’t have to carry out the experiment, just suggest one. And for the third time:There must be a reason why you are not answering this question.

Again: Do I really have to know Behe (and the like) off by heart in order to criticise the concept on which they base their work. I don’t expect you to have read Origin of Species etc (or the excellent update ‘Almost like a Whale’) to be able to criticise the ToE. All I would ask is for you to be up to date with current evolutionary theory (ie via pubmed) and to have a vague understanding of the arguments put forward on talkorigins (for example). I’ll repeat: I have seen many different arguments on the web (many of which are torn straight from Behe’s work), I’ve even read the laughable attempt at science by Meyer and none of what I have seen bares any resemblance to the science that I understand and carry out on a day to day basis. Save your petty little insults:

quote:

---

This proves to me that you don't understand ID OR science

---

and actually put your money where your mouth is. Show me that ID can follow scientific method and has been tested, or demonstrate why my blueprint for science is wrong. Which brings me to how the ToE stands up to testing: Right here goes:

1. Observation: There is a variety of species and complex structures in life
2. Hypothesis: Life evolved by a process of mutation and natural selection
3. Tests: Every time a new fossil is found. Every time a species has parts of its’ genome sequenced. Every time a developmental process is examined at the molecular level.
4. So far ToE stands up to testing

This is what I am talking about when I ask for a test to falsify a theory. If the cladograms made by comparing the DNA sequences from different species didn’t ape those made by looking at morphology, or if the same biochemical pathways didn’t control processes in bugs, worms, flies, frogs and mice the ToE would be up a brown high-sided river without a rowing implement. If the best that you, a self proclaimed ID reference library, can do is this:

quote:

---

ID would be falsified if it could be shown that life can arise from non-life by nature acting alone. Another falsification would be to show the bacterial flagellum arose by step-by-step processes or any way nature acted alone.

---

then my conclusion is that ID has never been tested. Why then should it be treated as equal with the ToE? Don’t try to wriggle out of this again. ID has declared based on current evidence that there are things in life that are definitely designed, and yet you accept (I hope) that there are aspects of life tht can be well explained by mutation and natural selection. So: based on current evidence where is the design/selection line? OK, explain to me why Behe finds organelles a problem for evolution and why a professor of biochemistry feels the need to ignore (or gloss over) the very strong and persuasive evidence of their non-designed origins. Edited to correct spelling (again)This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-11-2004 04:22 AM

Oooh oooh *waves hand in the air* - I know this one.Wasn't it in one of his laws of motion:Every action has an equal and opposite (Godlike) reaction