The I in ID

As a long time lurker I feel it is time to throw my hat in the ring.What is the I in ID? Yes it is for intelligence. It is not for any level of intelligence, rather for every level. What does that mean? All the I in ID means is that whatever the event/ object/ phenomenon under question is not the product of natural processes. IOW some entity or entities were responsible. The I is also used, according to Bill Dembski, to show it is different from two other modes of design- apparent (Darwin, Dawkins, Crick, et al.) and optimal. ID does not mean optimal design. The design could be optimal but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I am sure the people here can point out many designs that are not optimal. Apparent design is used when objects give the appearance of having been designed but were not.So there it is in a nutshell. The I just signifies that nature did not produce X (that is the inference anyway).In biology the same stands. I does not mean some level of intelligence, although many would argue that apparently whatever intelligence designed life is a higher intelligence than ours due to the fact that we cannot do that. Religious fanatics will harp on that to promote their brand of religion. ID says nothing about a designer. ID says nothing about how to worship or give service to that designer (or designers). Therefore ID is not religious. IDists may or may not be religious. That has no bearing on ID. Evolutionists may or may not be religious also.Intelligence in ID need not be defined any more than an entity or agent acting in nature, doing things nature alone couldn’t or wouldn’t do. Could nature produce the figures observed on Mt. Rushmore? Highly unlikely. Therefore we conclude the figures are the result of some entity other than nature acting by itself. The same goes for any artifact.If you really want to learn about ID you have to visit more than one website and reading books on the topic will be required. Most, maybe even all, arguments I have read could be answered if the people making those arguments would just take the time to read a little bit about the subject- from IDists, not anti-IDists whose main purpose appears to be misrepresentation (I can give plenty of examples but that would not add to this discussion). Point being is that it took more than 10 minutes to learn the theory of evolution, and plenty of reading is required to keep up, so before anyone dismisses something they should at least open up the hood and take a look inside. I will recommend some literature if you are seriously interested.To Loudmouth- the intelligence (or even lack of) is inferred from the evidence. It is not assumed without evidence, as you put it.There you have it.This message has been edited by ID man, 08-21-2004 10:35 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"

Life is such evidence. From what we do know only life gives rise to life. Nature is not life. Life exists in nature but that does not mean nature produced life.
Biological organisms contain DNA & RNA. We have never observed either molecule forming in nature. We have observed humans synthesize these molecules. Biological organisms also contain structures that are irreducibly complex. These structures cannot be explained by nature acting alone. From what we do know about irreducibly complex structures is that it takes more than nature to design and contruct IC systems.
Then there is evidence from the laws of nature. Newton understood that we were part of some grand design. Why is it hundreds of years later some people want to turn their back on the obvious?This message has been edited by ID man, 08-21-2004 10:34 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:

---

crashfrog:
Actually, from what we know, intelligence has never given rise to life.

---

Really? We know that? Any citations for that??

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Life is, by definition, natural.

---

That doesn't mean that nature produced life. It does mean that life exists in nature. There is a difference.

---

"...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:

---

In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent.

---

No, we can explain it and that explanation is a designer was involved. How do you explain nature alone producing life from inert matter and what is the evidence to support such an explanation? What options do you think we have when we ask the question (as scientists tend to do) how did it (life) get here?

quote:

---

The problem is that X exists with or without the assumption of intelligence or even of our awareness of X. If you assume natural causes, then an inability to explain the natural derivation of X is not sufficient cause to look for other derivation methods, for nature has already solved the problem of making X. If you assume intelligent causes, then there is no need to look for any further natural derivations: that ultimately is a limited approach to science and the pursuit of new knowledge. Once you stop looking the ID explanation becomes self fulfilling assumptions. This attitude is very obvious in all the examples that have been proposed for ID.

---

Then don't start with an assumption and allow the evidence to lead you to a logical conclusion. Also your assumptions are unfounded. No IDist says any research has to stop. True we do feel as though looking for a natural origin to life is as fruitful as looking for a natural origin to styrofoam, but if someone wants to keep looking we won't stop them. We feel that there is enough to doMe:
Religious fanatics will harp on that to promote their brand of religion. ID says nothing about a designer. ID says nothing about how to worship or give service to that designer (or designers). Therefore ID is not religious.Religious fanatics will gloss over the many basic and irreconcilable contradictions between ID and their particular faith (How many gods? Old earth? Etc.). Personally I think that ID will contribute to a greater awareness of real science (by encouraging it's use) in those of the more fanatic beliefs and thus accomplish a different end result than is anticipated.

quote:

---

ID very carefully says nothing about the designer, and yet the actions of that designer must be accomplished by supernatural means.

---

If that is where the evidence leads and becomes the logical and reasonable conclusion, I am OK with that.

quote:

---

These actions are no different in concept than that a pantheon of gods controlled the world (universe) and threw lightning bolts from the clouds.

---

Just because you can post those words means what, exactly?

quote:

---

Replace ID with Deism in your statements and they are just as valid until you get to the last one: Deism is religious, and it makes fewer assumptions about "the designer(s)" and it(s) activities than ID does. Because Deism is on the other "side" of ID from the other established religions, that boxes ID in. Sorry, but saying it is not religious does not make it so. See Deism - Wikipedia for more information on Deism. See http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? for more on my critique of ID.

---

The fact remains that ID doesn't say anything about worship, who or what to worship or how to worship. ID doesn't say anything about giving service to, who to give service to or how to give that service. Now if you want to redifine relion to suit your needs, that is OK. I am having none of it. If you want to stifle ID you should concentrate on supporting materialistic naturalism. IOW display for us how life come to be by nature alone- then tell us how nature came to be and where the matter and energy came from. I guess it all "turtles down",doesn't it.To clarify- ID is falsifiable. Philosophical rantings are not the answer to falsifying ID. ID is based on what we observe. ID extends beyond biology as exampled by the writings of Walter Bradley, PhD and the book The Privileged Planet.

---

"...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:

---

Show me a recorded or observed act of intelligence creating life.

---

Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

quote:

---

Even if life was created by intelligence, that intelligence must have been natural.

---

Define how you are using natural- and yes it makes a difference.

quote:

---

Since there's no difference between life processes and natural processes, we know that life is natural.

---

Again it all depends on how you are using the word natural. If you are saying nature created life than produce the citation. If you are saying life is natural because it exists in nature well that doesn't explain how life came to be. That is what is being discussed- how life came to be.If I don't answer in a timely manner it is due to my ISP having issues with this and other URLs. I do not know what is the problem but mostly I can't read or visit these pages.

---

"...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"

From what we do know only life gives rise to life. [I][b]crashfrog:
Actually, from what we know, intelligence has never given rise to life.[/I][/b]

quote:

---

NosyNed:
CF is saying it never happened. You don't get a paper reporting something that has never been seen. You are claiming that it is what happens. That is the positive statement so you can easily show him to be wrong by reference the case(s) where it has been reported. Until you show otherwise his statement is true. That may change since we (intelligent?) are trying to produce life.

---

I was trying to find out how we know intelligence has never given rise to life, in the face of the fact that only life has been observed to give rise to life. Is crashfrog saying his parents weren’t intelligent? As for papers on events that have never been seen, are you saying there aren’t any papers on the big bang? On the other hand if you or crashfrog shows us a paper on how nature alone gave rise to life I wouldn’t have any reason to infer a designer did.That doesn't mean that nature produced life. It does mean that life exists in nature. There is a difference.

quote:

---

NosyNed:
That is true. However, again, you have no reason for thinking that nature didn't produce life. You (and we) just don't know how it did (yet?).

---

Not so. I have plenty of reason for thinking nature didn’t act alone. If I didn’t I would be a material and philosophical naturalist or even worse, a Bright. I see the reason for ID in almost everything I observe. Until you can show me that nature acted alone and tell us how nature came to be, you have no right to tell me that the design inference is invalid. There are still plenty of questions that remain unanswered. But the reasoning behind the design inference has been valid since before Aristotle and Socrates. They just reinforced the notion. Many great scientists understood what you would have me deny. Sorry but I need more than your say-so.
What is your reason for thinking that nature produced life? What are our options to the question- how did life arise?

---

"...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"

Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
I'm fairly sure that neither of my parents designed me, and nobody else was there (I hope...)

---

Care to answer the question? Maybe you just don’t understand your parents role in designing you. After all you wouldn’t be here without them.Define how you are using natural

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Of or subject to the laws of physics.

---

That is very ambiguous. I do understand why you want to be that way.Again it all depends on how you are using the word natural.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Of or subject to the laws of physics.

---

Care to tell how those laws of physics came to be? Great scientists understood the laws of nature (which include the laws of physics) to be a product of a Creator.If you are saying life is natural because it exists in nature well that doesn't explain how life came to be.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
I don't think you'll find anyone here - except the creationists - who claims to know how life came to be.

---

ID is also about life’s origins. Creationists may think they know who but they don’t know how. And even if we identify the designer or creator there would still be much scientific work to do. Acknowledging the Creator didn’t stop Sir Isaac Newton.If you don’t know how life came to be than how can you be against ID? Why limit yourself to materialistic naturalism? What is your justification for dismissing design?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Unfortunately the precursors of life may have left little evidence except that contained in every one of us.

---

Yup, right. Get that published and someone may listen to you.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
But ignorance is not a reason to conclude ID.

---

If ID was based on ignorance you would have a point. However ID is based on observation. Is ignorance the reason you conclude nature did it?

---

"...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"

ID man requests:
quote:Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
I have two kids. Nobody considers an egg or a sperm "alive," but together these contain the genetic material necessary to begin the process of cell division that leads to the development and birth of a living baby. Does this process require a designer at any step? Did I or my wife design our children?

---

You miss the point completely. ID doesn’t say that a designer had to be involved with every instance of life. Also without life there wouldn’t be any sperm or egg to discuss. And sex cells are alive. Dead sex cells do not allow the species to propagate. I do find it strange that you would bring up sexual reproduction as the theory of evolution didn’t predict it and evolutionists can’t explain it.
Do you always paint yourself into a corner?

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
An acorn is not "alive" either, but under the right conditions it begins the same process of development that leads to the growth of an oak tree. Did the tree design its offspring? Was an intelligence necessary for this process to unfold?

---

Again you miss the point completely. Show us an acorn arising without the oak tree. Living cells make up the acorn. Do you understand what ID is? That corner is becoming smaller

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Intelligent-design creationists usually answer that the DNA process itself requires a designer, but that's not the question.

---

Hold it right there. What is an Intelligent-design creationist? I am aware of IDists and I am aware of Creationists. I also know the two are distinct and different. I also know why anti-IDists attempt to conflate the two.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Non-life is truly producing life, and the basis of the process is biochemistry, not intelligence.

---

If it is so you have been unable to show it.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Darwinism explicitly denies the distinction between the design and the process that gave rise to it. The above examples are instances where life emerges through a natural process.

---

I have shown that in both of your examples that it takes life to make life. Sperm, eggs and acorns didn’t arise by nature acting alone. At least there isn’t any evidence that it could or did.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
If there is intelligence involved, please point out where it is in the hereditary mechanism.

---

Now it is obvious you don’t understand ID. What you ask is akin to asking where is the intelligence in my computer’s operating system?. IDists say it took intelligence to write the genetic code and program the genomes of the original populations. What we now observe is the result that some evolutionary process had on those populations (or population).

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
IDC'ers also counter the life-is-natural claim by saying that the origin of life itself had to require intelligence.

---

What is an IDC’er? Please support your claim. Falsify ID if you can, but please stop misrepresenting it.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
However, this claim assumes what it's supposed to be demonstrating. We're never told why intelligence is necessary for the emergence of life, and since intelligence seems unnecessary elsewhere in biology, the claim is meaningless.

---

Right and the intelligence that wrote my computer’s OS is no longer necessary however that doesn’t mean my OS arose by natural processes. ID doesn’t say the designer needs to tinker with the design. Why is a designer necessary? You mean besides the fact that nature acting alone is a one-way dead-end street? We are never told how nature acting alone could give rise to life. Even if self-replicating molecules are granted that does not explain the emergence of a cell. BTW IDists infer an outside agency/ entity was involved. We don’t assume it.I take it you are just upset because not only do you have nothing to sell, no one is listening anyway. That must be why over 90% of the USA say that it is either a Creationist, IDist or theistic evolutionist. Only those supporters of materialistic and philosophic naturalism cling to the doctrine that nature acting alone produced life. They are the very small minority.

---

"...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"

Well, talk about a gang-bang.My apologies for not responding sooner. When I click on the reply buttons I am getting a page cannot be displayed message 95% of the time. Most times I browse and read, but not respond- frustrating.I feel I can answer most concerns in this post.First, this is a discussion board. In order to have a discussion there needs to be a reference point, some common knowledge that can be discussed or used as a starting point of the discussion. As it stands the only thing we have in common is that I understand ID and you (all anti-IDists posting in this thread) can spell ID.Let me ask you this:
If someone wanted to learn about the theory of evolution and asked you to recommend some literature, would you:A. Have them read pamphlets on the topic from Answers in Genesis and the Institute of Creation Research.B. Have them read Darwin’s Origins of Species, Jones’ Darwin’s Ghost and Mayr’s What is Evolution?.If you chose B then you have at least a basic understanding of my point. What is my point? If you are going to learn about ID you have to read the literature written by IDists.
Here is a starter’s list:
1) Nature, Design & Science by Del Ratzsch
2) Darwin’s Black Box by Mike Behe
3) The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez & Richards
4) Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design by various authors.The first book answers the philosophical issues with detecting design and shows how science, even though it can’t say anything about it, can detect the supernatural. Or that supernatural activity took place. The second book has been misrepresented for years. It is an easy read and does show why the evidence observed in living cells is used to infer a designer (ID). The third book provides the evidence for ID that is not biological and the forth provides more examples of the evidence used to infer ID.Moving along.Many concerns are quasi-philosophical in nature. Many are also strawman arguments. The who designed the designer nonsense is such an example. In science we do things in steps. IOW before we first have to study the design in hopes of deducing something about the designer. Archeologists do this. They study a find to ascertain something of the population who lived there. So when asking who designed the designer?, although an interesting question, is a number of steps away. Also we are talking about life on Earth. That is what we now observe.PRATT 1
The IDC fallacyIntelligent Design Is Not Creationism | Discovery InstituteandIntelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same | Discovery Institute The Intelligent Design Movement | Answers in Genesis These make it clear that although there are similarities, only a creationist could be an IDCist. Why bother adding the ID on at all except to attempt to (in their minds) smear ID?PRATT 2
Identifying the designer fallacy: (answer also explains PRATTs 3,4 & 5- How and where does intelligence exist? Where does that intelligence originate? What intelligence designed that intelligence?) Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.comID doesn’t have to say anything about a designer. By studying the design we may be able to ascertain something about the designer(s). Is knowing Einstein a pre-requisite for understanding that gravity bends light? I can understand airplanes without having to know the Wright brothers.ID and mechanisms:Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.comand Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.comI would like to thank NosyNed for answering Mr. Hambre on sex cells. I would have disliked the absurd tangent he would have taken us on had you not intervened. [b]To Mr. Hambre:

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
No, Pasteur and Newton didn't use anything different than materialist, naturalistic science when they were revolutionizing biology and physics.

---

And yet they both understood that which they were observing was part of God’s special creation. They both either inferred that or came to that conclusion using the same methodology still used today. No one is saying the methodology has to change.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
They never postulated any outside agents or mystical forces, just the same verifiable, measurable, and detectable variables that scientists use today.

---

That is false. Both were creationists. They both postulated outside agents. They both postulated that which they observe was part of God’s special creation. That is evident by reading about both of them. [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.So what is your plea now Mr. 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:

---

Mr. Hambre:
How very presumptuous of you to claim that any opposition to ID creationism is based on ignorance. I'm not alone here at EvC in having read works of various Discovery Institute fellows, especially Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. I have a sincere interest in reading criticisms of Darwinism, and perhaps you would benefit from discovering first hand the scope and breadth of anti-ID sentiment among scientists.

---

No presumption necessary. The evidence made it obvious you know little about ID.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Look, Newton and Pasteur were believers, but so was a hardcore evolutionist like Dobzhanski, and so is Behe-basher Kenneth R. Miller. Newton's mechanics and Pasteur's germ theory did not postulate mystical entities to explain their conclusions, but were equally intelligible, verifiable and repeatable by believers and atheists alike. It seems you need a lesson in scientific methodology, and you won't get it at creationist websites.

---

I have my doubts about Miller. Newton and Pasteur postulated a Creator. That much is obvious. That was their conclusion- that what we observe is part and parcel of God's special creation. You need a lesson in honesty.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
Intelligent design is mere creationism for the very reason you and Mike Gene say it's not: it concludes the reality of an intelligent designer without either producing independent evidence of such an entity, or defining what the capabilities or motives are that such a designer would have.

---

The evidence is there. Newton saw it. Pasteur saw it. Behe sees it. It has been presented by Behe, Gonzalez & Richards, Bradley, et al.We don't know the motives or capabilities. However by studying the design we may be able to ascertain some aspects og the designer. But understanding the design is the amin priority.

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
In other words, you have no right to draw an inference from irreducible complexity to intelligent design without first telling us why this unverifiable intelligent designer is a more likely explanation than any verifiable materialistic mechanism for the biological structure in question.

---

That's the problem. You don't have any verifiable materialistic mechanism to offer. ID is a more likely explanation because of what we observe. IOW every time we observe an IC system an intelligent agency is ALWAYS the cause.Here 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 BehePeer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing under the magnifying glass. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence?

quote:

---

Mr. Hambre:
The ID camp refuses to answer questions about the designer for the same reason garden-variety creationists do:

---

Leave it to you to not understand logic and reasoning. Why am I not surprised? I can't post what you look and smell like.The facts show that ID and Creation are not the same. If you are going to continue to say they are the same it will only show you willfullness to remain agenda driven- the agenda of blatant misrepresentation.

---

"...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:

---

Ooook!:
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.

---

There are differences between the two (ID and Creation). Those differences were presented in the links given in my post on page 4 of this thread.
We don't start with a conclusion. The evidence points us to the design inference. Materialistic naturalism starts with the conclusion that nature is all there is (but where did nature come from?) and therefore any expalnation must be based on nature acting alone. So I guess science can't tell me about cars...

quote:

---

Ooook!:
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.

---

Let's stop right here. We observe life. We observe non-living matter. We observe there is a difference.
Science askes how did life get here/ where did life come from?What are are options Ooook!? Either life got here by nature acting alone or nature didn't act alone. Was nature skirted altogether? How can it be scientific if only one option is pursued, IF science is about finding the truth to our existence? How objective is it to pre-emptively forbid one explanation because it doesn't fit your world-view? Why is it that Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pateur, Aristotle et al., saw the overwhelming evidence for design and inteligence in the universe?Where's the dividing line? How can we answer that question if you won't let us? Give us the tools you have. Scientific research should yield the answers you seek. If we already knew than we would state is aas law. Just because we infer ID that doesn't mean all work and research has to stop. Quite the opposite. Now we have to understand the design. Decode genomes so we know them as computer programmers can decode C++.And as for natural processes- does my computer run on natural processes? There isn't any real intelligence in the operating system or applications but it took intelligence to design and create them. If genomes are analogous to computer programs, as some IDists (& Bill Gates) say, we would have to figure out the language before speculating on your questions.Del Ratzsch calls what you seek as a natrifact- "Phenomena that are in this sense intuitively part of nature, but that have a component of (supernatural) agent intervention within the existing flow of history and are not products of unaided nature, I will call "natural artifacts" or "natrifacts"."

---

"...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"

Newton and Pasteur postulated a Creator.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
In which part of their theories?

---

As their conclusion to their observations.However by studying the design we may be able to ascertain some aspects og the designer.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
In what way?

---

In a similar way archeologists ascertain aspects of the population that lived at the find they are studying. I never said we would be able to, I said we may. I know, and have posted, that it isn't necessary to know anything about the designer.IOW every time we observe an IC system an intelligent agency is ALWAYS the cause.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Except, obviously, for biological systems, for which the cause is not definatively known.

---

Then why are people so adamant that ID is out?

---

"...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:
Talking about the sun and earth distance as proof of design is a conclusion after the fact...

---

What are you saying? That we were supposed to come to that conclusion BEFORE there was a Sun or Earth? Was the theory of evolution written BEFORE or after life came to its present status? Do scientists observe a phenomenon before or after said phenomenon occurs?That said if you really want to know what IDists say on the obvious design of the cosmos. I suggest you read The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discoveryYou could even go to the ISCID:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
and discuss it.Is Discover magizine a peer-reviewed pub?

---

"...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:

---

Darwin Storm:
We do? Funny, I am sure that all matter is made from the same type of atoms, following the same physical rules. The only difference is in their arrangement. Just because we deem life to be an important result (and branch) of chemistry (ie biochemistry), it still is just chemistry. There is no supernatural force that makes living creatures move, live, breath and reproduce. Major advancements have been made in biology and medicine for the very reason that life is just a form of chemistry and thus can be understood.

---

Who deems that life is an important result of chemistry? Who says that life is just chemistry? What major advances in biology have been made under that premise?
Please support your claims.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Science is about finding supported and logical explanations for observable phenomena. It has nothing to do with "truth", as that implies we have discovered incontravertible rules by which nature operates.

---

Science has everything to do with truth (no scare quotes needed). Science deals with reality.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Of course your computer runs on "natural" processes.

---

Now we are getting into semantics. Please show us one instance of nature acting alone creating a computer program. Or a computer.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
First, computers are not able to reproduce, change, etc as biological systems are.

---

Computer programs can. And guess what happens if a program gets altered during replication? It doesn't compile- ie it dies.BTW theories of evolution have been around for milenia. IOW Newton heard of them, as did Galileo, Aristotle et al. Charles didn't have the evidence to support his BS so I doubt he would have persuaded the great scientists I mentioned.

quote:

---

Darwin Storm:
Remember, personal belief in a diety doesn't automatically equate to overwhelming belief in a personal god that tampers directly with reality.

---

Now that is nonsense. Who says that God or a designer has to tamper directly with reality?

---

"...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:
In which scientific theories did Newton and Pasteur include the supernatural, specifically?

---

Look if you are not going to read what they wrote than I can't help you. Pasteurt said he saw the Creator when he observed nature. Newton goes into more detail. It was clear to both that what they observed was part of God's creation.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
But archeologists don't acertain aspects of the populations that lived in the areas they study;

---

Yes, they do.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The only known intelligence is human, and human intelligence can't be responsible for life, because how could we be there before we were created?

---

The arrogance of that statement aside, that is how IDists deduce that the designer may be supernatural. Again I suggest you read Nature, Design and Science by Del Ratzsch. Your issues are resolved in it.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The only way you can assert that "all IC systems are caused by intelligence" is if you assume what you're trying to prove; that is, biological IC systems are caused by intelligence.

---

Not so. We can assert that all IC systems are caused by intelligence because of the fact that is what we observe. Period, end of story.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Simply because intelligence can cause IC systems doesn't mean that intelligence is always the cause of IC systems.

---

There is your falsification. Just start by showing us that IC can come about by nature acting alone. If you can't do this than yours is a theory based on faith.

---

"...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"