The I in ID

Except if I was imitating Neitzche, I would have have had to preceed the statement with a few lines about how great I am and that nobody recognizes it because they are dumb ...and write it in German.

Personally, I think you're giving creationism way too much credit. I only lump ID in with creationism by recognizing creationist dogma in its anti-scientific rhetoric and First-Cause irrationalism. You seem to be trying to construct some creo family tree and identifying the subtle differences in the beliefs of each weird sect. Mammuthus would probably agree with me that it's like trying to differentiate between shit and garbage.It all boils down to how much design power one can ascribe to a blind, purposeless process. If someone's guilt, indoctrination, or incredulity is such that he retains his a priori need to see intelligence behind any design, then we shouldn't be surprised that he subscribes to some brand of creationism regardless of his avowed religious affiliation or lack thereof.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-27-2004 06:10 AM

I would agree but would add that the difference between the two is that creationists equate hypotheses based on personal experience or belief, without any evidence in nature nor any way to obtain evidence in the first place i.e. faith, with scientific evidence based on testable and falsifiable hypotheses constructed to describe natural phenomenon. ID (in all its forms) does exactly the same thing but claims, without ever supporting it, that it is applying methodological naturalism and not just that it is equating itself with science.

I would never claim that IDC has formulated its own alternative methodology for scientific inquiry, but they're just as loud in criticizing the scientific establishment as dogmatically biased against teleology. Even Behe attempts to portray science's "commitment to naturalism" as some sort of blind spot. The IDC advocates we meet here are taking this criticism to its logical (i.e. preposterous) conclusion by rejecting all naturalistic explanations out of hand.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Ah but is this faulting the base concept of ID or the common practice of it?At the base concept it says {something} was involved, and technically it doesn't say when that was in the course of the universe or even if it is currently occurring.A lot of people that come to ID come from the creationist side, and thus are predisposed to creationist type arguments (not knowing any better?). Especially when it comes to evolution, but it gets cloudy when you start talking about the age of the earth and geology and astronomy. I think YEC's have to give up the young earth concept in order to fully entertain ID before moving away from strict literalism altogether if they are not going to delude themselves about it: it could easily become a transition, evolution of faith process that we may want to encourage in america .... perhaps dissillusionment with YEC compared to ID is the first step?Of course that "something" must have acted in a supernatural manner (or the whole process defaults to a natural process), and thus it is necessarily of a godly character by definition (and ID defaults to a religious argument of "he did it" when you talk about what the "something" did), but that does not mean that arguments for ID must necessarily be pseudoscientific, just that it hasn't been seen yet.One possible legitimate pursuit of ID that I see would be to understand the workings enough to be able to eliminate supernatural action from the process under review, and once that is done move on to the next process. In this manner an honest proponent of ID would behave no different than a conventional scientist, because the working methodology is "let's find out how it really works" -- the only difference may be in which processes they are interested in, a divergence of study that could be of benefit?This type of study would not add anything to the way science is conducted, and hence would not need to impact school other than what is said in the previous paragraph. But, of course, ID being a faith based on supernatural action, it doesn't pass the {separation test} anyway.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Of course that "something" must have acted in a supernatural manner (or the whole process defaults to a natural process), and thus it is necessarily of a godly character by definition (and ID defaults to a religious argument of "he did it" when you talk about what the "something" did), but that does not mean that arguments for ID must necessarily be pseudoscientific, just that it hasn't been seen yet.

​

One possible legitimate pursuit of ID that I see would be to understand the workings enough to be able to eliminate supernatural action from the process under review, and once that is done move on to the next process. In this manner an honest proponent of ID would behave no different than a conventional scientist, because the working methodology is "let's find out how it really works" -- the only difference may be in which processes they are interested in, a divergence of study that could be of benefit?

---

That would be great except until ID can propose a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design it is by definition pseudoscience. You cannot even begin to conceive of experiements or gather evidence for a hypothesis that you cannot even falsify much less test. Anytime ID is confronted with a natural explanation for an IC system they claim that some other system must then be IC. They are in constant retreat or denial. Thus far I have actually yet to see any scientific hypothesis of ID. They claim that there is intelligence involved yet fail to show how one would detect it or rule it out. The most common explanation is that if it is complex it must be ID (or that it is self-evident). They spend virtually all their time critiquing natural explanations of observed phenomenon like creationists as it is easier to critique than it is to actually engage in scientific investigation. However, to date, biological sciences have successfully produced everything from medicine to explanations of how heredity works whereas ID has made absolutely no advancement and remains a loose affiliation of anti-science protesters.

quote:

---

They spend virtually all their time critiquing natural explanations of observed phenomenon like creationists as it is easier to critique than it is to actually engage in scientific investigation.

---

And thus enters the fallacy of false dichotomy. They somehow think that if they are able to construct ANY theory, supported or not, that is opposed to evolutionary mechanisms, then all they have to do to prove their theory right is to knock the legs out from underneath the opposition. Evolution being false does not make ID true, as many have said here and elsewhere.

That is why I said the one possible legitimate pursuit is to attempt to falsify ID process by process, eliminating them as you go. Think what a tool ID can be with a little assistance to lead people into science, scientific methods and practices, and the rigors of rational and logical thought. You can't lead someone out of the swamp by transporting them to the edge, you have to provide a path. Exposing charletans and showing the difference between their side-shows and real science is one thing, getting involved in the side-show and subverting it to educate people is another.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and ID being true does not make evolution false either: the popular misuse of the basic concept against evolution is not based on any legitimate conclusion from the basic precepts. consider the statement: Evolution is 100% true because it was designed that way.If the process is designed rather than the output then there is no contradiction.this of course is god-of-the-gaps ID style, but it demonstrates that attacking any one part of valid science instead of using it in pursuit of your concept is necessarily narrow minded and self defeating - facts cannot be negated.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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:

---

What is my point? If you are going to learn about ID you have to read the literature written by IDists.

---

Our point is that if you want to learn about constructing good science then you shouldn't look at ID literature. If you want to learn about constructing pseudoscientific theories that are not testable or falsifiable, then yes, read ID literature. Our argument is that ID is not science and is at the very least a circular argument and at most christian apologetics. ID is not and can not be used to further our knowledge. It's only use is to further religious evangelism. Such is the goal of the ID proponents who want to see materialism removed from science in a move to include the Christian God in science classes. This is why you don't see non-christians or the non-religious pushing ID theory with any enthusiasm whatsoever.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because IDers and creationists use the same tactic, making their claims as circular as possible. Why is the earth and life created? Because it looks created. Why are things intelligently designed? Because they look designed. The same logical fallacy is used by both camps towards the same goal, trying to prove that God created life.

quote:

---

ID 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.

---

You are making a huge mistake. Einstein did not INVENT or DESIGN relativity. He discovered it. The Wright brothers did not invent aerodynamics, they discovered it. By analogy, you are saying that the designer discovered that life had design but had nothing to do with it's construction.Next, before you are able to infer what the designer was like you first have to rule out all other possible non-designer causes of design. This has not been done. Evolution is still able to construct IC systems and Evolution is able to create information in genetic systems. Therefore inferring a designer is superfluous and uncalled for without first demonstrating the presence of a designer outside of the design. For instance, we don't look for a cloud designer when we see faces in clouds because we know that natural mechanisms are sufficient. The same with evolution, natural mechanisms are sufficient to create the living systems we see today. We rule out natural mechanisms when looking at Mt. Rushmore because natural mechanisms are insufficient AND we know of the designer outside of the design.

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet if a designer was absent Newton's laws would not be falsified. In the absence of a designer, Pasteur's theories would not be falsified. So my question to you is why are you changing the methodology so that it relies on the presence of a designer?

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet their creationist views did not enter their theories. Can you please show me where in their theories that they insert a creator or a designer. Could you please show me how their theories rely on the presence of a designer or creator. If Newton professed that he was an athiest would that mean his theories are wrong? Would an athiest be incapable of coming to the same conclusions as Newton?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-27-2004 03:37 PM

ID Man,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.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.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. 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. The ID camp refuses to answer questions about the designer for the same reason garden-variety creationists do: the designer is assumed to be self-evident and all-powerful, so why couldn't he create irreducibly complex organs? If it looks, sounds, and smells like creationism, I call it creationism.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-27-2004 03:56 PM

The issue of "who designed the designer" is not an issue with the hypothesis of ID, but with the claim that it is not a faith.The reason you and all other IDist insist that this question is not relevant is because you desperately want to keep it out of the faith arena.The problem of "who designed the designer" has four possible answers: Now I don't have any problem with it being another faith, and having people pursuing studies based on these concepts for their own edification, but there is no place for faith in public school science class.In fact I think that ID can add a lot to a person of faiths understanding of science. IF pursued properly ... haven't seen your comments on that topic yet:
http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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?

The reason would be that HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY are being worked against each other as to EXPLORATION by LIFE. Again this only shows that life is, not that nature knows no design. A detailed discussion of adaptation would have to preceed however.Inference of the LACK and people who lack inferences are not the same somas.I DO TRY to figure out how science could "make" the organic organization but I DO think that contra Provine we might indeed be in posssesion of ideas on the LIMITS TO SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE that might COINCIDENTALLY PERMIT a technology to arise able to form make some organism functionality. But unless it clearly makes anything imagined biologically (future of DNA computers say) then it will continue to be possible to infer from man's made adapatation to nature's resigniation of dominion,,,,, a GOD beyond. I hope to give to some discussion of Hidden Markov CHAINS relative to the Hardy-Weinberg CONTINUM in this future passage through our known understandings in science so as to allow for ID Man's clear thought to come through once more.Perhaps it is not time toMaterials & MethodsWe may derive hierarchical structure from our array of basic qualities, primary activites, and theoretical concepts. We already have the concept of structure, and this is only a particular example. But, being so, it requires further specification to derive it. It's basic content is scale being embodied by entities, some including others as parts. I feel that a very important other ingredient in this concept, however, is aesthetic judgement, another of our ways of interacting with the world. We can take hierarchical structure to be an example of significant form, of what Gruber (1979) calls an "image of wide scope." We are fascinated by its general applicability, by the number of transformations of it that we are confronted with with (for example, the tree of life or phylogeny, the chain of command, complex fugal structure in music, cascading phenomena in all realms - all topologically similar). It has power and excerts facination.""Evolving Hierarchical Systems" p11 Stanley N. Salthe"By passing to the first derivative of the function, relating the genetically controlled phenotypic quantity to the indpendent external variable, new and interesting relations emerge, which are of importance in the analysis of genic action. The present paper presents data on the effects of temperature upon wing size, and includes an analysis of genic effects in terms of the first derivatives of wing size with repsect to temperature. In this paper it is proposed to use the term thermophene for such derivatives, in accoracne with an earlier suggestion (Hersh, '30a)." The Journal of Experimental Zoology Vol. 61, No.2 February , 1932 p223So while Georgi had clearly established phenomenologically the existence of sequences of heterogeneous durations biologically he stated both
"As a matter of fact, the series (1) is an expression of the regularity that hierarchic structures have essentially different lifetimes. However, these structural types arenot general for all bio-systems."so We now attempt to scale the macrokinetics of genic action in description of the fly's character.
Driver, "For obtaining some understanding f the heterosis-like effect, it would be seem that a knoweldge of the temperature realtions is a necessary condition. The study of the changes in the size of the wing over the temperature range allows for the respecpetive contribuition of the partental types to be analyzed and related to each other. As indicated above, the general character of the reaction, both as to magnitude and as to relation to temperaturem, is more like that of the long-winged than the vestigial-winged type, but the relation to temperature as give by r is reduced in the heterozygotes as compared to the homozygotes- a consequence of participation of the recessive gene in the wing-producing reaction when in heterozygous condition. The method employed bgrings out very forcibly that the critical point to attend to in a study of genic action is not merely the magnitude of some measureable character, but thge changes in such phenotypic quantities studied in relation to a controllable varibale."p234Quote of Monod-"consequence""A living system is constanly fighting against, rather than relying upon, thermodynamic equilibration. The thermodynamic significance of specific cellular control systems preciesely is that they successfully circumvent thermodynamic equilibration (until the organism dies, at least)...Still, the arbitrariness, chemically speaking, of certain allosteric effects appears almost shocking at first sight, but it is this very arbitrariness which confers upon them a unique physiological significance, and the biological interpretation of the apparent paradox is obvious. The specific strucutre of any enzyme-protein is of course a pure product of selection, necessarily limited, however, by the structure and chemical properties of the actual reactants. No selective pressure, however strong, could build an enzyme able to activate a chemically impossible reaction. In the construction of an allosteric protein this limitation is abolished, since the effector does not react or interact directly with the substrates or products of the reaction but only with the protein itself...By using certain proteins not only as catalysts or transporters but as molecular reveivers and transducers of chemical signals, freedom is gained from otherwise insuperable chemical constraints, allowing selection to develop and interconnect the immensely complex circiutry of living organisms."8th day book p 554.