What will ID evolve into?

"You are aware, aren't you, that life, at it's most basic, is just chemical reactions, right?"How would I be aware if I was just a chemical reaction?
Name me any group of chemicals mixed together that has awareness?As far as simple reactions go your 'knowledge' seems to be no more than a collection of simple reactions as if you simply parrot what you are told by a high school teacher devoid of any critical thought on your part."Perhaps, if you lost your condescension and "holier than thou" attitude and gave your responses even a modicum of thought, you'd be much more welcomed on this thread."You might want to follow your own advise with this."Unless you're a troll, in which case, go back under your bridge."This is coming from the very same nut who is preaching decorum? Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

While I am not an admin, I think it would be wise for everyone to cool down and avoid insults before the discussion goes out of hand and admins feel the need to intervene.

"Cars don't reproduce and evolve through natural selection. It is therefore out of the question that very simple molecular components could have given rise to cars without a designer. With life it is different. Your comparison is irrelevant."Of course it's different biological systems are far more complex than a car will ever be.
So as ridiculous as it would be for plastics and metal to design and produce a car, it is far more inconceivable for a pool of chemicals to bring forth life.But if you disagree, which apparently you do, show the world the evidence that this fairy tale can happen to you.
You'll never work another day in your life if you can demonstrate it.My advice:
Don't quit your day job Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Worms are alive, yet I don't think they're very aware. The chemical reactions that make up you and worms are very similar. So similar in fact, that most scientists believe we are related to them. If you claim to be more than chemical reactions, then you've moved beyond the realm of science and into the realm of faith. Which is where ID is waiting for you.

The topic is in which direction ID will evolve now that it has been determined by the courts to be religion in disguise (which everyone knew was the case).The "missing link" was cdesign proponentsists -- that sloppy cut-and-paste job in a creationist textbook after the Edwards decision by the U.S. Supreme Court certainly gave the whole sordid scheme away.The topic is where will ID go?We've seen the "teach the controversy" (there is no controversy within science) and "its only fair" (if teaching extremes was needed to be "fair," then you would see devil worship being taught in churches as "balance"). We've also seen "its just a theory" (which is an attempt to destroy peoples' trust in the scientific method through misrepresentation. We've also seen the "good science/bad science" dichotomy proposed, with bad science being anything that supports evolution, an old earth, or in some cases even heliocentrism.I think the direction ID will go will be trying to destroy those sciences that contradict creationists' religious beliefs. We've seen the roots of that in the Wedge Document that says:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

They'll probably have to change the name, but the goal will be the same -- destroy real science and replace it with "Christian and theistic" science.It'll take a theocracy to do that, but they wouldn't mind that one bit -- as long as their favorite sect was the one in charge. Otherwise they'd hate it!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are very good at missing the point, my friend. I think I'm just wasting my breath, but I'll clarify my statement once just in case you really didn't get it.Since cars can not reproduce and therefore have zero chance of evolving, they must have been created with their current level of complexity. Ergo, they must have been designed.Since life has the demonstrable ability to mutate, it is conceivable that the earliest life was far simpler than life is today. Simpler even than cars. Simple enough in fact to form out of chemical compounds.That is why your analogy doesn't workKind regards
Meldinoor

"Worms are alive, yet I don't think they're very aware."
You or I don't know what their level of awareness is."The chemical reactions that make up you and worms are very similar. So similar in fact, that most scientists believe we are related to them."
No they believe that you are related to worms.
I'm not."If you claim to be more than chemical reactions, then you've moved beyond the realm of science and into the realm of faith."So this post you just made is a chemical reaction?
That would imply that you're devoid of intelligence.
Hmmmm."Which is where ID is waiting for you."Oh yeah all sides of this question engage in faith.
Faith in Darwin, faith in chemicals to create life, faith in an intelligent designer.

TheWhale,Just because someone else is willing to join you in going off-topic does not make it okay. I'm singling you out because you were just cautioned about going off-topic in the Does intelligent design have creationist roots? thread.Moderators don't have infinite free time. If for no other reason than to just reduce the workload, persistent off-topic participation eventually draws suspensions, initially short, but growing longer and longer until they become permanent.You are not being censored. The topics you wish to discuss are perfectly valid topics, but they are not the topics of the threads in which you've chosen to participate. New threads for what you actually want to discuss can be proposed over at [forum=-25].Please, no responses to this message in this thread. Problems with discussion should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

"You are very good at missing the point, my friend. I think I'm just wasting my breath, but I'll clarify my statement once just in case you really didn't get it.Since cars can not reproduce and therefore have zero chance of evolving, they must have been created with their current level of complexity. Ergo, they must have been designed."My friend I hate to say this but I think you lack comprehension.
So I'll take another stab by bring it down a few levels.If chemicals are incapable of producing life without intelligent intervention they certainly will not be engaging in any natural selection, until there is life.Chemical are components of living beings but no one has ever witnessed chemicals bring forth life.
If you have please let me know."Since life has the demonstrable ability to mutate, it is conceivable that the earliest life was far simpler than life is today.
Simpler even than cars."You are very ill informed and certainly not scientifically educated to any meaningful degree with that comment.
What is the this earliest form of life that you claim is simpler than a car?"Simple enough in fact to form out of chemical compounds."
Well with something so simple you ought to be able to demonstrate it taking place."That is why your analogy doesn't work"
No what doesn't work is your theory on chemicals bring forth 'simple' life.
If it was possible you whoever it was that convinced you that it happened would have demonstrated it by now.But I'm still waiting.
Because I want to make some observations on how fast this simple life form of yours replicates and I want to watch the process of natural selection getting underway.My advice:
Don't quit your day job.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

ok

Read what I said, TheWhale. "The existence of chemical reactions and their ability to create chemical phenomena is not anecdotal. The existence of fairies, djinns and angels is."Now look at your reply. Look at what I said again, and think about it. Do you really disagree with what I said?What direction are you trying to take I.D. in? Should science put magic on an equal par with things that really happen?Chemical reactions creating chemical phenomena is something that can be easily observed in nature, both outside life, and within the life system. This includes creating completely new phenomena that have never existed before. It happens all the time.Do you disagree with me?And life is a chemical phenomenon. It's not made of angel dust, is it?As for the topic, do you think that the I.D. movement should take the direction of denying such things? Should the movement pretend that chemistry can't do chemistry?As for your demands that I should be able to easily describe the details of chemical processes that happened 4 billion years ago when the planet was very different, what makes you think that should be easy? Is it a tenet of I.D. that scientists should have invented time machines? Do you believe that, if historians don't know many of the details of an historical event, like the voyage of the Mayflower, that that means the event didn't happen?What exactly is this thing called I.D., and where is it going?

You know, I'd love to continue this "conversation" but since it is way off topic, please open a new thread.The topic is "Where is ID going." If you feel you have already answered this question, then you don't need to post in this thread again. If you have more to say on this topic, then by all means, hang around.

Hahaha, you answered your own question. You're misunderstanding people's point. In this case, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.Take a house, for example. We have a pile of bricks and wood. Is a house a pile of bricks and wood? In a sense, yes. In a sense, no. The house is more than the sum of its parts. It's arranged in a certain way.Another example is the car. Is the car just a pile of metal and rubber? Well, in a sense yes and in a sense no. They are arranged in a particular way to make this particular pile of metal and rubber a car.Is a human being a combination of chemical reactions? Yes and no. A human being is composed of a combination of chemical reactions, but the chemical reactions are arranged in a particular way to make a person a person.I don't know whether you're just playing dumb or you are dumb. I realize I could get suspended for that statement, but frankly I am tired of people making ridiculous arguments without even first attempting to see the weakneses in their argument. Any dumbass would understand the concept of a thing being more than the sum of its parts. This leaves me puzzled as to why you tried to lie to us that we were telling you a person is just "chemical reactions". Are you seriously that dumb or you're just playing it?

This is my last off-topic reminder in this thread. Off-topic posts subsequent to this one will draw short suspensions.Edited by Admin, : Change author.

The evolution of the creationist movement, as I see it, goes as follows.Fixity of species to Fixity of kinds to Common Ancestry with Divine Input (a la Behe). The only bastion of historic creationism left is that mutations are not truly random. I think this is perhaps the next step. As NosyNed suggested earlier, the next focus may be on a fuzzy, misrepresented view of quantum mechanics that is tied into a teleological or anthropic view of nature.Creationism has lost so much ground in biology that I expect them to cede that arena before long. Quantum mechanics and theoretical physics is better suited for their epistemological arguments, IMHO.