Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[wanstronian]

Nice reference.

Would have a lot more credibility if it was from a secular website rather than a religiously biased one.

The first few slides make it clear that the end goal is to promote a religious answer, rather than a scientific one.

Should be disregarded as a source of information.

 

[wanstronian]

The chemistry is the physical means that the information is transmitted.

The God of IDvolution “breathed” information into the super language of DNA that runs the show. As a result of sin the “system” is now broken. His original intention was not a fallen world. However, it is fallen and perhaps God does need to do some fix up work.

Food for thought - could man in his arrogance muck it up so bad God would have to intervene? If so, one has to wonder how bad.

I’ve asked you this question before, and you’ve never answered it. How did God “breathe” information into DNA? Please explain the mechanism. Provide any evidence. Anything at all.

Given that this statement is in your sig, and you seem to have gone to all the trouble of creating a website to propagate your hypothesis, presumably you are able to explain it?

I wait with bated breath…

 

[buffalo]

Hang on - I thought you believed in ID? Now you’re saying that God did it? How can you reconcile the two? If ID is a scientific theory, then it must provide convincing evidence that the designer is God. Given that ID can’t even prove the existence of Intelligent Design, how can it possibly make a claim as to the identity of the designer?

Do you even understand how contradictory your beliefs are?

Uhh hellooooo… Follow the posts…

Yes God did do it; See What is IDvolution

ID the science is not required to say who the designer is. That is for philosophers.

Design exists, of that there is no question. ID the science is looking to formulize it.

 

[buffalo]

Would have a lot more credibility if it was from a secular website rather than a religiously biased one.

The first few slides make it clear that the end goal is to promote a religious answer, rather than a scientific one.

Should be disregarded as a source of information.

Ohhh - give me a break. Sure the NCSE site will have it. Talk origins? Yeah right. :nope:

The truth stands on its own merits no matter the site it is posted on. Geeshhhhh.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve asked you this question before, and you’ve never answered it. How did God “breathe” information into DNA? Please explain the mechanism. Provide any evidence. Anything at all.

Given that this statement is in your sig, and you seem to have gone to all the trouble of creating a website to propagate your hypothesis, presumably you are able to explain it?

I wait with bated breath…

How does a software programmer “breath” the program into the hardware?

 

[vz71]

ID makes no predictions;

Actually, I ave read a number of predictions made by ID.
Some were even within this thread.
Either you failed to read the thread before posting or you are simply being dishonest with us.

provides no falsification criteria;

Wrong again.
Proving evolution would falsify ID.

ID is not science - this is the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Assuming any poll has actually been done to determine what exactly the majority of scientists believe concerning ID, we then have to address the idea that science is dictated by the majority.
And you think the ID proponents are unscientific…

 

[rossum]

How does a software programmer “breath” the program into the hardware?

I once met an old programmer, back when I was just starting. He programmed his first computer by putting metal pins into holes in a bakelite board: pin = 1, no-pin = 0. The whole board was then directly plugged into the computer. He told me that he was always very careful placing the last few pins. Push one in too hard and the board would crack and you had to start again. Years later I realised that he was probably talking about Colossus or one of the other Bletchley Park computers. He was the right age to have served there.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I have already posted the predictions many times.

And you have failed to answer my question as to how your prediction of “No useless DNA” arises from ID. What property of the Designer renders it impossible for her to design an organism with lots of useless DNA, such as, say, exons?

How is the prediction actually derived from ID theory?

rossum

 

[wanstronian]

I have already posted the predictions many times.

I apologise, I must have missed them. This is incredible news! Can you post the link?

 

[wanstronian]

Uhh hellooooo… Follow the posts…

Yes God did do it; See What is IDvolution

ID the science is not required to say who the designer is. That is for philosophers.

Design exists, of that there is no question. ID the science is looking to formulize it.

Looking to formulize it? It hasn’t yet done so? Then how is it able to make the predictions you claim it makes? If it hasn’t even come up with the formula for identifying design, on what basis does it make predictions? How will we know whether these predictions are fulfilled? How would we know what would falsify the predictions?

Has ID answered any pertinent questions yet? Who did the designing? When? How? Why?

If you support ID “the science,” by what rationale do you then extend this “science” to claim that God did it? Or do you just leave “science” behind when it comes to making such decisions?

I followed your link - it doesn’t provide any explanation at all, just states what you speculate might have happened, coloured as you are by your superstition. You seem so keen to embrace science, how about putting some into your explanations?

 

[wanstronian]

The truth stands on its own merits no matter the site it is posted on. Geeshhhhh.

It’s statements like this that expose the flimsiness of the claims being made.

Do you think that proper scientific theories are defended by such ridiculous statements as, “The truth stands on its own merits… blah blah?”

This is easy - if that site is making true claims, then the “science” in it will be echoed by established scientific documentation on secular science-based websites. Simply provide a link to a non-religiously biased site that reinforces the one you previously linked to, then we can eliminate the possibility that you’re being disingenuous.

 

[wanstronian]

How does a software programmer “breath” the program into the hardware?

Is this your answer? God did it using a QWERTY keyboard?

Well, I must admit that’s taken me by surprise.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems an artificial distinction given that all scientific explanation presupposes the order and regularity in the universe and the power of reason.

I pointed out at the outset that it is a false trilemma because God designed and created the laws of nature which enabled life to evolve.

Doesn’t the opponent of ID predict that all the complexity in biological

systems will be explained by natural processes?

Yes, what’s the point?

The point is that his prediction is based on the metaphysical assumption that natural processes are sufficient to explain all the complexity in biological systems.

Reason depends on complexity in biological systems only insofar as the brain is an integral part of the mind, but the mind is not identical with the brain, as we agree. So reason stands above the ID issue.

Many scientists do not agree. So for them reason does not stand above the ID issue because neuroscientists seek to explain the mind in terms of brain activity.

Natural processes are designed as well, if we believe that God created the world. But natural processes are just that, processes in nature. Neither are they “godless” processes, nor do they not exist because “God steers everything anyway”.

If that is the case natural processes are divinely directed - which contradicts the scientific view that no other explanation is necessary. The distinction between ID and Design is arbitrary because they are interdependent. You cannot have either without the other!

 

[tonyrey]

Is this your answer? God did it using a QWERTY keyboard?

Well, I must admit that’s taken me by surprise.

It always astonishes me how matter did it without having to use anything but itself. Now that must be the most powerful force that exists - even though it doesn’t know what it’s doing! So it **is **possible to get not only blood but sense out of a stone…

 

[buffalo]

And you have failed to answer my question as to how your prediction of “No useless DNA” arises from ID. What property of the Designer renders it impossible for her to design an organism with lots of useless DNA, such as, say, exons?

How is the prediction actually derived from ID theory?

rossum

As in a computer not all memory is used all the time. But it is ready and waiting should it be needed.

The claims of useless DNA are no longer sustainable. I believe the prototypes were more pristine.

 

[buffalo]

I apologise, I must have missed them. This is incredible news! Can you post the link?

The search feature is easy to use.

 

[wanstronian]

Actually, I ave read a number of predictions made by ID.
Some were even within this thread.
Either you failed to read the thread before posting or you are simply being dishonest with us.

I may have missed some of the thread, I don’t get much time to post these days.

So what where these predictions, and have they been fulfilled?

Wrong again.
Proving evolution would falsify ID.

Then ID should be considered falsified, because if ever a theory could be “proved”, evolution has been. You only have to actually read the literature, instead of rejecting it out of sight, and you’d see for yourself. But of course, I suppose that will never happen, will it?

Assuming any poll has actually been done to determine what exactly the majority of scientists believe concerning ID, we then have to address the idea that science is dictated by the majority.
And you think the ID proponents are unscientific…

Yes. Because they are, at least when they’re propounding ID.

You’re basically accusing me of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. I can see why this is tempting for you, but the fact is that science is dictated by methodology, not by opinion. The methodology, grounded as it is in years and years of successful objective results, provides a very straightforward set of criteria. And ID doesn’t meet 'em.

 

[wanstronian]

The search feature is easy to use.

What search term should I use?

 

[buffalo]

Looking to formulize it? It hasn’t yet done so? Then how is it able to make the predictions you claim it makes? If it hasn’t even come up with the formula for identifying design, on what basis does it make predictions? How will we know whether these predictions are fulfilled? How would we know what would falsify the predictions?

Has ID answered any pertinent questions yet? Who did the designing? When? How? Why?

If you support ID “the science,” by what rationale do you then extend this “science” to claim that God did it? Or do you just leave “science” behind when it comes to making such decisions?

I followed your link - it doesn’t provide any explanation at all, just states what you speculate might have happened, coloured as you are by your superstition. You seem so keen to embrace science, how about putting some into your explanations?

IDvolution is philosophy based on modern science. Learn to distinguish between IDvolution and ID the science.

 

[buffalo]

Is this your answer? God did it using a QWERTY keyboard?

Well, I must admit that’s taken me by surprise.

Do you think God would need a keyboard?