Does ID predict genetic similarity?

I don't think an intelligent first cause necessitates "order" or "principles".Thus I fail to see how "principles" or "order" can qualify as predictions derived from ID.Can you explain why you think a world created by an intelligent designer would invariably and necessarily be a world with "principles"...?

So - Just to be clear - The answer "something-supernatural-did-it" you reject as valid in all cases (e.g. the death of buckthorn) except when it comes to the question of origins? You can propose whatever you like. But without any positive evidence in favour of that conclusion/hypothesis you are simply expressing the same old same old "God of the gaps" + "you can't prove me wrong" thinking that has been so discredited before.

Are you suggesting that whatever science is at any point unable to explain demands a supernatural explanation.....

Apologies for the belated response. I thought this thread had died, only to find that you had responded to my posts. Although I am an ID proponent, I do not consider myself part of the ID "movement" - that is, the movement that is associated with the Discovery Institute etc. One of the reasons for this is that the present ID movement is more concerned with disproving Darwinian evolution than with presenting testable ID hypotheses. Another reason is that the ID movement has undeniable religious underpinnings. We often see Evolution News and Views discussing religious topics. But if this is supposed to be about biology, then I'd expect all discussion to revolve around biology. Fortunately, there are subtle signs of this changing within the ID movement. Recently, Sal Cordova over at Uncommon Descent wrote an article that heavily criticized YEC folks like Kent Hovind. And Cordova also wrote an article at UD that critiqued the argument that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution (interestingly, in both of these articles, he was heavily criticized by numerous commentators).Still, the changes within the ID movement are slow. Thus, I encourage anyone who has an interest in developing ID as a rigorous biological hypothesis to be an independent thinker, and not tied down to the ID movement. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

I don't think that ID necessarily leads back to some type of supernatural entity, as I attempted to explain to Tangle.Here's why:1. That certain biological features on earth could not have plausibly evolved says nothing of whether an intelligence existing elsewhere in the universe could evolve. In the first place, there are a whole bunch of possible forms of intelligence that could, in theory, evolve. And once you grant that this is possible then there is no basis for arguing that ID must invoke a supernatural being at some point.2. The argument that ID leads back to a supernatural being only works if the ID position is that biological feature X could not have plausibly evolved. Although this is admittedly the position of the vast majority of ID proponents, if the ID position is that biological feature X could have evolved but was in fact intelligently designed, ID does not necessarily trace back to a supernatural entity.3. Finally, in response to the question "Who or what designed the designer," there is a very simple, but reasonable, answer: I don't know.

Quite right, but if we find evidence of intelligent design (through front-loading), wouldn't that, by definition, imply purpose?

If you're right that you avoid the requirement for a supernatural designer by not claiming that certain biological features couldn't evolve naturally, then without that claim and in the absence of any evidence what drives your belief in front-loading? If you claim unlikelihood of natural evolution (as opposed to impossibility) then that's just the Dembski position, which is part of the ID mainstream you supposedly eschew.--Percy

The key phrase here is "in the absence of any evidence." The problem though is that I think that there are some clues in favor of front-loading. I do question the efficacy of Darwinian evolution to produce certain biological features, but that's not my main focus. Nevertheless, the presence of a discontinuity in the biological universe is one hallmark of intelligent design, and thus a suspicion in favor of ID. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Is this discontinuity related to genetic similarity, or am I drifting off topic by exploring this further?The main requirement of front-loading is the preservation of inactive genetic regions that are intended for future use, but inactive genetic regions are where the greatest rates of genetic change are seen.--Percy

It did sort of taper off, mainly because I have been busy and have not been active. School is starting and I will only be on sporadically. So no problem on the delay. Unfortunately, even a hint of an intelligent designer almost automatically puts someone in that category and makes it difficult for many to even consider your hypotheses. It would almost be better to coin an entirely new term. But I agree completely with your point about needing to present testable hypotheses rather than attempt to disprove Darwinian evolution. Don't you consider the issue to be more than just about biology? Front-loading deals specifically with biological origins , as does biological evolution, but what about the other issues related to the topic of origins. An ID model would need to address those issues too (specific hypotheses may not though).HBD

I understand what you are getting at, but I guess unless you postulate an infinite universe, the issue is merely pushed back a step. Personally, I feel the search for an intelligent designer is rather superfluous without the search for the supernatural. If an intelligence evolved from a non-biological source and then front-loaded life here on earth, and there was a naturalistic explanation behind this non-biological intelligence, it pretty much changes nothing here on earth.On the other hand, such a non-biological intelligence would pretty much be "supernatural" to us whether there was a naturalistic explanation or not.HBD

I reject philosophical naturalism not methodical naturalism.HBD

No. I am suggesting that:1. I have a philosophical ideology that accepts that there is a higher power that is responsible for the existence of all that exists.2. I have been unable to convert that philosophical ideology into a viable scientific hypothesis.3. If anyone else has been able to do this, I would like to know how they did it and what those hypotheses are.4. Assertions that no such supernatural entities can exist is not a logic assumption. Therefore, I am justified in asking questions 1,2 and 3.HBD

Maybe discussion on the specifics of front-loading would be better off at Deep Homology and Front-loading, but I think the issue of discontinuities is worthwhile to explore.I would think that any ID hypothesis would necessitate a discontinuity. Genomicus stated that:

quote:

---

the presence of a discontinuity in the biological universe is one hallmark of intelligent design,

---

He stopped short of saying that an ID hypothesis predicts discontinuities, but if an intelligent designer intervened in any way at some point, wouldn't that result in a discontinuity of some kind? In fact, an ID hypothesis without a recognizable discontinuity would be rather pointless, for sure.I know you are not an ID proponent, but since you are "not an atheist", I figured you at least acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer.HBD

My scientific opinion is that the amount of evidence necessary to conclude the impossibility of anything, including an intelligent designer, is unattainable, and that anyone who lets their religious beliefs in some way inform their scientific judgment is being unscientific. And in Message 156 he mentions front-loading, which I was assuming requires a discontinuity no different than normal mutation, since front-loading is superfluous if it requires the same kind of periodic intercessions by the designer as non-front-loading possibilities.--Percy