ID the science has no authority to speak of a necessary being. That is the domain of philosophy.But ID deliberately doesn’t talk of a necessary being, it talks on its intelligent agent since it has to pretend to be secular, and that is the deceit at its heart.
But no alcohol! On weekend! You might as well ask us to sing the national anthem (the Marcha Real is fairly unique in having no lyrics).
I’ve quoted 1 Cor 1:18-31 before, but many Catholics seem not to understand, perhaps you will. We preach Christ crucified has nothing to do with “proofs”, it says proofs are pointless foolishness, it has completely different apologetics and basis for faith. Maybe that’s a Baptist thing.
Why? (Seriously, why is there a need?).
But that fails on two counts: 1. It puts God in our back pocket, since it subjectively depends on what we recognize (whether immediately or later). 2. By focusing on “observable signs of intelligence”, adherents do not see God everywhere, and you can see that happening on any ID thread.
I was referring to ID, nothing to do with science.
I’m shocked to discover that a good Protestant would drink alcohol. I’m afraid you may have been corrupted by Catholic practices somehow.
Maybe you could try to prove that point to me.
That’s an excellent point. But instead of abolishing a study of the real, observable signs of intelligence for that very good reason you mention – we should take the “both and” approach. So, don’t only focus on one thing. Make sure to proclaim that design is everywhere and it can be observed in a special way in some places.
You could be fully correct here. If so, then that is a great warning. If many or even some ID fans believe that design is **only **in certain things and not others, then that is a problem. But it’s a problem that can be solved with a broader understanding – not by abolishing ID thinking.
I guess it is once again time for definitions:I was referring to ID, nothing to do with science.
But granted, ID is a slippery little critter, there’s always a get-out clause.
What is intelligent design? See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
**Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
**Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.Toally unscientific.
one entry from wikipedia.Care to be more specific?
The wikipedia entry cites the study: talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
Interesting. Apparently, it’s perfectly good science for the off-topic theory to make claims about the chance occurrence of something that cannot even be studied probabilistically.
This is from 2003. To be fair Wikipedia should show the refutations. It seems Shallitt has given up criticizing Dembski’s work.
The problem is, even after twenty-five years “Intelligent Design” as “research program” has a track record neither more nor less convincing than that of research programs looking for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Even bigtime funders like the John Templeton Foundation – no strangers to religious belief – regard ID as a bankrupt notion not worthy of funding.
Woke up this AM with the thought that natural causes may work just fine, but they are not consistent. Check out Queen Victoria and Huntington Disease and its evidence. Check out probability statistics regarding one in four chances of being born with red hair. Actually, isn’t the the probability statistics for that higher?
?No.
Correct. What it means is that since ID is a fruitless “research program” after twenty five years – despite the fact that the Discovery Institute invested in some test tubes and lab coats! – the JTF will not fund it. Scientific funding is very competitive, and many programs that have not produced results in just a few years are defunded. ID has had 25 years to put up or shut up, and to date has produced nada, zero, zilch. Not surprisingly, it attracts few significant investors. It relies mainly on pious, naive, elderly folk living in trailers, who don’t understand the complexity of a scientific research program.
Huh?Moritz
**I know you’re desperate for a direct supernatural intervention by God for the origin of life. Well, I’m not. The natural causes that God created work just fine, thank you. **
tonyrey is right!
The natural causes are directed by God from the beginning of time. Are you saying it’s possible that God created the universe without intending human beings to exist? They just randomly appeared on this planet according to natural laws that God did not direct to produce the human race??
You must not have followed my arguments at all.Believe it or not, the ID website used to post an article which at the very end refered to the fact that anything could be chosen as the intelligent designer. I often posted the link, but I doubt if anyone bothered to check it out. Recently, I tried to get back to the article which apparently moved from the home page. Methinks that someone involved with the website read the bottom of the article…
I don’t quite understand your question.
I completely agree with you.
Since I cannot keep up with the speed of these posts, I am in the midst of a PM to you.I don’t quite understand your question.
One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.
I completely agree with you.