Dissecting ID

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, it isn’t my job or anyone else’s to MAKE you believe or start you believing. That choice is yours and yours alone. If you had the slightest thought in your head that you, or “we” as humans, are not the epitome of being, you would understand what I meant. Regardless of what religion you look into, they are all based on the concept of believing…believing that something greater than us brought us into being. That doesn’t come from anyone else but you.[/quote]

I’m not asking to be made a believer, I believe, as I said, that evolution is not THE answer. Look at my posts, I do have the notion that we as humans, are not the epitome of being in this universe or any other. And I’m asking, once again, where do I look to find out more about this intelligence? Also, it’s interesting that all religions, as you postulate, are based on believing, which distinctly juxtaposes itself from science as both ignorant and agnostic. Also,[quote]Dude, it isn’t my job or anyone else’s to MAKE you believe or start you believing.[/quote]would seem to make ID less empirically provable, but also totally unteachable (not that I asked to be MADE a believer). Thanks, once again, for your (lack of) help.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
And I’m asking, once again, where do I look to find out more about this intelligence? [/quote]

What planet are you from? You are asking someone who claims to be a Christian where to look to find out more about a superior being that helped create life on this planet? What do you think the answer will be?

[quote]
Also, it’s interesting that all religions, as you postulate, are based on believing, which distinctly juxtaposes itself from science as both ignorant and agnostic.[/quote]

How could belief in God be “agnostic”? Why do you believe that faith makes one “ignorant”? What are you smoking…and do you have extra?

[quote]
Also,Dude, it isn’t my job or anyone else’s to MAKE you believe or start you believing.would seem to make ID less empirically provable, but also totally unteachable (not that I asked to be MADE a believer). Thanks, once again, for your (lack of) help.[/quote]

You’ve been helped. You just don’t want to go to a source of what you ask for and open your mind to it.

If you even have a response to this post and it is the same as what you just posted, this is my last response.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It implies the belief that we may never understand everything there is to know about the universe and requires faith that there is a greater being.[/quote]
If you believe that we may never know everything in the universe is it conceivable we will never actually know if there is an intelligence?

[quote]
(even though science confirms for me what I already believe the more I learn).[/quote]

After reading that, I’m confused. Were you telling me I have too much pride, or not enough? I started off assuming I didn’t have all the answers.

You assume I don’t believe, you further assume that I am motivated to further my “anti-belief” on others.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
where do I look to find out more about this intelligence? Also, it’s interesting that all religions, as you postulate, are based on believing[/quote]

Consider that all religions where made by men, who knew no more and no less than you do about the existence of a higher being.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
My faith isn’t based on scientific studies alone (even though science confirms for me what I already believe the more I learn). [/quote]

This is a hilarious sentence. What scientific studies are you referring to exactly? I think belief would have been a better choice of words.

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
My faith isn’t based on scientific studies alone (even though science confirms for me what I already believe the more I learn).

This is a hilarious sentence. What scientific studies are you referring to exactly? I think belief would have been a better choice of words.[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t. I have one of my basic degrees in biology. The more I learn about biology, the more I am convinced that is too complex to be by chance. I am not sure why that had to be explained to you. I have written it before.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What planet are you from? You are asking someone who claims to be a Christian where to look to find out more about a superior being that helped create life on this planet? What do you think the answer will be?
[/quote]
According to your posts on this thread, you’ve given no indication as to your specific religion and yet I am to assume it’s Christian. Even then, when I asked the question where do I look? You said neither the Church nor the Bible.

You misunderstand what I’m saying. Empirical science and science at large doesn’t know nor care about there being a god, religion is (if I understand you) juxtaposed to this as you MUST believe.

As I said above, I actually received no help in either A) finding where to look for the answers. or B) creating a method of determining my own answers. In this post, I have inferred what I believe you would recommend, but you still have not definitively stated as much. I have not on this forum nor anywhere else, said that there is no intelligent designer. I’ve not asked for proof or evidence, all I’ve asked for is where I can learn more about said intelligence and how it has influenced and/or created various species. I believe the reason you won’t tell me is because as you said, the choice is mine and mine alone (except that I MUST believe). And because it’s mine and mine alone, it is, presumably, completely arbitrary?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
My faith isn’t based on scientific studies alone (even though science confirms for me what I already believe the more I learn).

This is a hilarious sentence. What scientific studies are you referring to exactly? I think belief would have been a better choice of words.

No, it wouldn’t. I have one of my basic degrees in biology. The more I learn about biology, the more I am convinced that is too complex to be by chance. I am not sure why that had to be explained to you. I have written it before.[/quote]

Sorry, not too many religious people I know base their FAITH on scientific studies.

And good God man, please tell me that is not a reference to the creationist desperado theory of ‘irreducible complexity’.

Prof,

These atheists/macroevolutionists exercise their religion with such a fervor that they are blind. Flat out, imperceptively blind.

Reminds me of a particularly pertinent section of Scripture from Romans 1 (this oughta really send ‘em ballistic, quotin’ Scripture and all, LOL):

“…men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles…25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised.”

Great article from The Washington Post, on the same topic I posted on before on the Dover trial. Here’s a few excerpts:

"When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans’ closest cousins.

But decoding chimpanzees’ DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population sizes.

?That’s a very specific prediction,? said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could – through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection – give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

Evolution’s repeated power to predict the unexpected goes a long way toward explaining why so many scientists and others are practically apoplectic over the recent decision by a Pennsylvania school board to treat evolution as an unproven hypothesis, on par with ?alternative? explanations such as Intelligent Design (ID), the proposition that life as we know it could not have arisen without the helping hand of some mysterious intelligent force."

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
My faith isn’t based on scientific studies alone (even though science confirms for me what I already believe the more I learn).

This is a hilarious sentence. What scientific studies are you referring to exactly? I think belief would have been a better choice of words.

No, it wouldn’t. I have one of my basic degrees in biology. The more I learn about biology, the more I am convinced that is too complex to be by chance. I am not sure why that had to be explained to you. I have written it before.

Sorry, not too many religious people I know base their FAITH on scientific studies.

And good God man, please tell me that is not a reference to the creationist desperado theory of ‘irreducible complexity’.[/quote]

You can’t be this dense. I didn’t write that I base my faith on scientific studies. I didn’t imply that I base my faith on scientific studies. I wrote that I have faith and that the more I learn about the complexities of the human body, the more I am convinced that there was a guiding order to it all. Don’t respond if you can’t follow the concept.

Why do you folks keep putting atheists and evolutionists on one side of the equation and theists and ID’ers on the other? Darwin was a Christian who saw absolutely no conflict between his theory and his religion. In fact, most people in the US at least, are Christians who know evolution happens and don’t have any problems reconciling that fact with their religion.

As far as I can tell it’s only the small minded, fanatic bigots like throttle who actually see any real conflict. BTW, I call throttle a bigot because demonstrated his hatred and bigotry towards Islam repeatedly in the early stages of this thread.

Evolution Theory does not preclude a God that could be guiding the process. Evolution does not seek to explain why things happen, it’s all about HOW things happen. Evolution Theory doesn’t speculate as to the origin of the universe nor does it rule out external guidance along evolutionary paths. Placing the science of evolution in the atheist camp is a red herring that keeps that being perpetuated by people who seem to lack any real understanding of what this discussion is even about.

If you want to debate atheism vs. theism that’s grand, there are threads for that that usually end with both sides agreeing to disagree. That is not the topic of discussion here though. What we are discussing here is the merits of Intellegent Design as a scientific theory. I, and any scientist you ever speak to, will tell you there is no scientific basis for ID theory at the moment. Ignorance is not proof of anything but itself. Not being able to understand or explain something you read about in a biology class is not evidence to support Intelligent Design it’s simply being unable to explain or understand what you’re reading.

Pointing out the gaps that do exist in current evolutionary theory is also not proof of ID. It is simple what the description inplies, a gap in evolutionary theory. With the current knowledge that we have some form of evolution is the best thing going for an explanation and the more we learn the more we find that our new discoveries fit into the over arching concept of Evolutionary Theory. If the same could be said for ID I’d be all for encorporating into the science curriculum, in fact, if the same could be said for ID I’d probably cease to be an atheist, after all the Designer would have to be a God right? The problem is, while Evolutionary Theory has some gaps that need filling, ID theory has absolutely nothing, no foundation, no walls, no bricks, thus not even any gaps that could be filled, it’s nothing. Intelligent Design should be provable and indepentantly verifiable and measureable, it’s none of the above.

You’ve been invited to a dinner party and you’re told to dress formal. You’re choices for an outfit are, your old tux, that’s missing a couple of buttons and a cufflink… or a rubber band-peanut shell jockstrap contraption. Which do you wear to the party?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IagoMB wrote:

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Only problem with harmful mutations is…they’re harmful.

They have not been shown to increase order or complexity or even to propagate the species. They are a negative effect and one would think they would serve to hurt the theory of macroevolution not help it.[/quote]

This is very common misconception. Evolution is about survival. It’s not a ladder. Also, as stated before, The theory of evolution is not dependent of macroevoltuion.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You can’t be this dense. I didn’t write that I base my faith on scientific studies. I didn’t imply that I base my faith on scientific studies.[/quote]

Ok, you definitely wrote:

I guess you’re interpreting your posts the way you interpret the bible now? Of course by saying you ‘don’t base your faith on scientific studies alone’ you meant you ‘don’t base them on scientific studies at all’. Right?

Buddy, I’m not the one who can’t even remember my own posts. So do you believe in the desperate creationist concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ or not?

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
So do you believe in the desperate creationist concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ or not?[/quote]

The definition of which is:
" a concept which considers that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete or flawed, and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life."

How does evolution describe ORIGIN? I agree with the concept of evolution. I do not agree that this explains how life came into existence. The theory of Irreducible complexity implies a guiding hand in the final stage of life. Yes, I agree with that concept. That doesn’t have anything to do with following science and learning our own biology.

What exactly is your point?

Further, you misunderstood what I wrote before. I explained it for you again. I study science. My faith is not based on scientific study, but scientific study reinforces my faith. Understand now?

Prof,

Let me say it this way,in cryptanalysis there are specific ways of detecting information in what appears to be noise. “Design detection” does and should work along similar tenets. This is a very direct and inelegant example, but I’ll use it anyway; Say you draw the history of the Earth out as a straight line on a map with a pencil. Then you take out the fossile record and a black felt tip marker and you black out on that line everywhere the holes are, and (because “it’s so riddled with holes”) you notice a lot of single dots on that line, oddly enough in morse code that represent the letter “e” which is the most commonly used letter in the English language. As a result you translate out the entire ciphertext according to morse code and miraculously you get the book of Genesis (or the ten commandments, take your pick).

Now, as I said this example is very simplistic and direct, and you can probably see the same problems and different problems than I see. First of all, this still isn’t proof, it’s only evidence of an intelligence acting on a scope that we cannot. Second, it would require very little faith as the statistics, linguistics, and codes involved all have very clear and direct derivations and applications. Third, it could just as easily convey the Talmud or the Qur’an, in which case, Christianity would probably flip on the whole ID issue, or the cleartext could be some nice sections of Descartes’ Principia Philosophie or something even less religiously or creationistically meaningful, either way, the underlying problem is still present, the information isn’t there unless it’s detected and it elicits a response, and what that response is something no religion (or science) can reasonably forsee. Third, this constitutes evidence of an intelligence but still leaves us without an explanation for a creator or validation of faith (unless it happens to be as direct as I stated).

Say, we figure all of this out and then a spaceship crashes to earth with all of the missing fossils in it, then where are we? If you think your Lord and Maker is generating new species out of the ether and that’s what’s behind ID, your understanding of him may be great, but in my estimation, your scope is narrow and your vision is clouded. When man capable of creating entire universes in a single breath, then, I believe, we will be capable of understanding our maker until then, our suppostions are premature and arguably blasphemic. While you may believe my example to be fantastic, it isn’t nearly the only way something like this could occur and, this is scientific skepticism (extreme claims need extreme evidence).

Throttle,
Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Psalms 33:10,11
The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I resent YOU using YOUR INTERPRETATION of OUR Bible to label ME and others atheists when I am at the very least agnostic. Also, isn’t it interesting that you quote the New Testament when evolution, in my estimation, most conflicts with Genesis and the Old Testament. Should ID prove to be true and THE CREATOR, there’s still the issue of the death, burial, and ressurection that would need scientific evidence in order for Christianity to be largely true (that’s not to say I don’t believe in JC, it’s just to say I have no evidence or proof he existed outside the Bible (or the Qur’an) which can be subject to bias).

[quote]lucasa wrote:
I resent YOU using YOUR INTERPRETATION of OUR Bible to label ME and others atheists when I am at the very least agnostic. Also, isn’t it interesting that you quote the New Testament when evolution, in my estimation, most conflicts with Genesis and the Old Testament. Should ID prove to be true and THE CREATOR, there’s still the issue of the death, burial, and ressurection that would need scientific evidence in order for Christianity to be largely true (that’s not to say I don’t believe in JC, it’s just to say I have no evidence or proof he existed outside the Bible (or the Qur’an) which can be subject to bias).[/quote]

I said I believe in evolution. I didn’t say I believe that we all came from one cell. Evolution within species is what I believe in. I have never written anything more. In fact, were you truly in the dark on this issue? At the point that I start having to repeat myself endlessly, I choose to quit responding. You want to argue. That is all you want to do.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I resent YOU using YOUR INTERPRETATION of OUR Bible to label ME and others atheists when I am at the very least agnostic. Also, isn’t it interesting that you quote the New Testament when evolution, in my estimation, most conflicts with Genesis and the Old Testament. Should ID prove to be true and THE CREATOR, there’s still the issue of the death, burial, and ressurection that would need scientific evidence in order for Christianity to be largely true (that’s not to say I don’t believe in JC, it’s just to say I have no evidence or proof he existed outside the Bible (or the Qur’an) which can be subject to bias).

I said I believe in evolution. I didn’t say I believe that we all came from one cell. Evolution within species is what I believe in. I have never written anything more. In fact, were you truly in the dark on this issue? At the point that I start having to repeat myself endlessly, I choose to quit responding. You want to argue. That is all you want to do. [/quote]

Sorry Prof., I meant the second part of that post to be adressed to throttle 132 who quoted Romans as an argument against evolution and implied that anyone who disagrees with ID is both anti-Christian and atheist. You, as I recall, have never directly said anything of the sort and though the Bible verses I quoted fit with what I told you, the commentary was explicitly intended for throttle, I should’ve separated it into two posts.

To attempt to correct my mistake (again, sorry Prof.);

throttle 132,
Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Psalms 33:10,11
The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I resent YOU using YOUR INTERPRETATION of OUR Bible to label ME and others atheists when I am at the very least agnostic. Also, isn’t it interesting that you quote the New Testament when evolution, in my estimation, most conflicts with Genesis and the Old Testament. Should ID prove to be true and THE CREATOR, there’s still the issue of the death, burial, and ressurection that would need scientific evidence in order for Christianity to be largely true (that’s not to say I don’t believe in JC, it’s just to say I have no evidence or proof he existed outside the Bible (or the Qur’an and maybe the Shroud of Turin) which can be subject to bias).