Help me understand Intelligent Design

Would it be too much to ask for actual physical examples? Ones that show all the processes of design?See
EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
for a discussion of those processes. In other words, adding a designer does nothing to improve the understanding of the science? This totally contradicts your previous statement quoted above. It cannot be the same mechanism and the antithesis of that mechanism.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

you may be interested in: {Is ID properly pursued?}
http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

These are just a list of easily evolved systems.This does not answer "Ones that show all the processes of design?" I agree that blatant examples like these show how a designer can use the process of evolution to realize designs, one just has to wonder what is the {purpose\ability} of that designer as revealed by those designs. Sorry to strain your resources. It is really simple to follow: there are a number of features that would be evident if design were truly employed in an intelligent and directed manner.For instance bats would have better wings, the ones they have are adequate, but innefficient compared to other designs. Why don't bats have feathers? Show me where ID specifically states this "Him" as a source? Is this where the little green aliens operating from cygnus prime come in and take off their costumes? Your contradictions of yourself. Understandable. Another contradiction. If it has discover and unpacked creation via learned and academic methodologies (presumably you mean the scientific process and not occult naval gazing), then how has it plagarized the process?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Of course you are asking a YEC who is confused by ID and doesn't understand that ID is more contraction to YEC than evolution.

You forgot the Silly Design Theory.
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...Why can't we teach both sides of the design controversy and let people decide?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is, of course, assuming that eyesight is important to life in general. But we also have animals that have no sight organs or ones where the eyes have atrophied from disuse or end up buried under layers of skin because they are no longer needed by the organisms (typically cave dwellers). Why would a designer design an eye, and then bury it under layers of skin for an organism that lives in the dark? The eye is no more complex than other organs, it is composed of cell, some of which recieve input and some of which transmit it and some of which are just there for the shape of the organ. The ear is not much different. Nor smell. Why should a person look at one science different from any other? They are all employed in the process of understanding "life, the universe, and everything" (D. Adams) -- which amounts to all of creation (if that is your belief). No, ID is a (weakened) form of Deism. Deism is more inclusive, and older (prior claim). William Paley (1743-1805) presented the first argument for the existence of God based on perceived design in the world in his book Natural Theology (1802), while Deism was the faith of many Founding Fathers. Modern ID takes the Paley concept and deducts mention of god, so that makes "neo-paleyanism" even younger. When we are talking about alternatives to the (validated scientific) theory of evolution, then they have to be scientific ... or they are not alternatives. Strictly speaking you have an untested hypothesis. You are having trouble here conflating two different things into ID, and it is a common mistake. Strictly speaking ID (neo-Paleyanism) intentionally denies it is biblical creationism, and you are confusing this with the belief in a god creator (that must necessarily then have designed the creation ... or did he? perhaps that was jobbed out to angels?).You need to face facts that ID is not about Biblical Creationism, and in fact holds basic concepts that are contradictions of typical creationist thinking: that "god" could be an alien from a distant planet and that there could be thousands of them.This is a "we don't know what, who or how many {god(s)} are out there" belief. Last time I checked that was not standard literally fundamental biblical based creationism.This is the difference between what you want ID to be and what it is. Most people accept what it is, based on what it says about itself and what it does in practice.FROM: Intelligent design Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Logically this means that there or two circles that intersect in a small area, in ID where it could be one god that did all the heavy lifting, and in biblical creo where we exclude everything else the god did. However, Dawkins doesn't write American textbooks and there are a lot of evolutionists that are people of faith and don't need ID between their science and their faith. Properly speaking evolution does not say there is no god, it just says that: based on the natural laws observed in the universe (whether those laws are the result of god or some other effect is immaterial), this is the process that happens over time -- mutations cause changes in populations of species, sometimes helping individuals survive and sometimes not. Heh. another logical fallacy. Let's parse that:Some of IDs proponents are anti-evolution
Some of IDs critics are anti-evolutionHow does this say that ID is not anti-evolution? There are critics of ID because it contradicts their faith (see above) and they are also (surprise) agains evolution.some {A} are {B} and some {A} are {C} therefore {A} is {D}. Does it serve an useful role in understanding your faith? The ID movement is driven by the leaders, they make the statements (verbal and action) about what it is and what it does. Communism by itself does not mean a totalitarian state, I could name other political entities. I agree, religious leaders should be told to stop portraying evolution as some {hedonistic\atheistic\evil} plot and let the science get on with understanding the evidence.Only an unhindered understanding of the evidence can lead to clarity of hypothesis and the formation of new theories to validate.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And this is the root of the problem here: you are broadening the definition until it doesn't mean anything useful. If there is no difference between your usage of ID and theism, then this means that using the term in a discussion leads to misunderstanding because you are using a different definition than the audience. and this is the result of mixing meanings of terms ... eh? Thanks, it's a new innovation, part of my Silly Design Theory position to teach both sides of the design controversy. But you don't find it contradictory it seems, when the basic premise is, at heart, a expressed implicit denial of christianity.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Bat hearing is no different than other hearing, and there are only two things that make it remarkable: ultrahigh frequencies, both made and heard (just out of normal people range, but they aren't the only ones) and formed ears to determine directionality (common in many animals, but not all), taking advantage of fact that ultrahigh frequence tend to bounce off things (which is what makes the "sonar" work).IC systems have been explained in evolutionary step for every model that has been proposed. More than that, one has been observed to evolve, thus invalidating the concept entirely.See http://EvC Forum: Typical ID response to rebuttals?
(note that this is another forum where the points are discussed without pulling this one off topic, so take your issues with this fact there).Migratory birds can sense the magnetic field of the earth, a fact established by experimentation with putting birds in magnetic fields and seeing altered orientations. That is all that is needed to explain the long distance flights. It also appears that several dinosaurs migrated, but that is a different issue. What I posted was a link to another thread on the forum where the issue could be discussed without pulling this one off topic. You obviously did not even check it out, or this is the weakest dodge of weak dodges. Oops, looks like you did "read" it ... at least until the evidence portray maxed out your personal {that can't be right} meter (because it contradicts your pet perspectives) so you the fall into the next logical fallacy: attack the messanger instead of the message.here it is again:
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
The forum topic is about teaching both sides of the design debate and showing that there is better evidence for Silly Design, the post linked is specifically related to what good design results would be versus what is observed.Now you have yet to provide any evidence (at all) that there are design elements visible, and I repeat my request (that predates yours)Would it be too much to ask for actual physical examples? Ones that show all the processes of design?All you have done is list things that your personal incredulity (and lack of ability) see as being wonderous beyond (your) ability to understand without involking a {magician\designer}, you haven't given any reason why these meet the criteria in the linked post for what would be real evidence of design. I have provided much more than you, however we can go over this in more detail after you have fulfilled your half of the bargain first.Denial of evidence is not refutation of it. Attacking the messanger is not refutation of the message.Deal with it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

See http://EvC Forum: Typical ID response to rebuttals? Haven't seen it at that level, but for all the others, I am aware of current existing intermediate stages in other species being used as evidence that such intermedtiate stages are viable (or they wouldn't be living)-- they arent' just hypothetical intermediate forms, whether it is eyes of flagella or whatevers.Thanks

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

pure argument from ignorance and incredulity, there is not one thing here that is not achievable, ascribing wonder to it's function is just a measure of the inability of the observer (regardless of IQ -- I have known several members of mensa and I am not impressed). How is this a problem? There are likely a lot of behaviors that are inherited even when the parents are around but that can't be measured.The ability of deaf children to make their own language even though they had not been taught one by their parents or any other adults and could not know that sound was used for communication. We likely inherit a lot of our basic preferences and abilities regardless of upbringing: studies of twins separated at birth but having the same behavior patterns as adults. And were talking humans, a species that humans like to think is less driven by "instincts" than other animals. Hyperbole and overstatement. Where is the proof that they actually {contact\meet\interact} with the parents rather than just fly to some geographical location? The geographical location is unique to the magnetic field of the earth and the solar orientation, it is very easy to develop a coordinate system that could be imprinted into instinct driven behavior.And you still have not answered my question about how this demonstrates the elements of good design? This is just behavior that you find incredible, so what?The biggest problem that neo-paleyanism has is that it cannot escape the fact that there is no evidence of good design practices, and lots of evidence of bad designs.Creationsists can explain bad designs by corruption and sin etcetera, but the concepts of "intelligent design" do not have this luxury: if neo-paleyanism has any validity then there is no excuse for bad designs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

butwithout the elevator and the restaurant the tourist function of the tower would not operate and they couldn't be built without the tower there to support them ...

Welcome to the fray "ausar_maat" Egyptology? I'd say the IDer's are implying purpose at best. Why is purpose necessary to evolution? No purpose need apply. Was it the purpose of the Borrato response to address "fundamental aspects of the question of design"?What is the evidence of purpose in the life around us? Synchronous behavior is not purpose but behavior. It may suit the purpose of the individual, but that doesn't get us to an ID concept.If we want to evaluate the validity of design concepts we can address purpose: what is the purpose of a retina that faces away from the light it is designed to sense? What is the purpose of a virus?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This could be quote mining rather than valid quoting of the authors position.From Amazon.com Review by Stephen A. Haines (click and scroll down): (bold mine for emPHASis)Looks like an interesting book, have you finished it?{removed doubled pasting ... curious - a bug?}This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*09*2005 08:58 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

If you haven't read the book then how do you know this? A book? Aren't you assuming an awful lot here? Yes the intolerance of scientists for people who just call something scientific instead of doing the science is just horrid. People who want to take over classrooms before they have contributed something to teach is terrible.FROM: One Nation, Under the Designer (click)
Think that might be a clue? Pure argument from emotion and incredulity with no logical validity.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What improbability? Give us the number. Show us the calculations and the basis for any assumptions made. Demonstrate that all the possible pathways are dealt with.If you don't have these calculations and cannot explain how they fully and completely model every contingency possible, then all you have is an argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy (and just a failure of imagination).It seems you say an awful lot of things that have no evidentiary basis but you pretend that they are facts. This is a chance to prove yourself.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*11*2005 10:38 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.