Why are WE here?

[wanstronian]

Design detection certainly is a science.

Perhaps. But ID has proven to be a barren area in this regard.

Evo’s have their own - the anti-wedge document. So?

So? Well, I guess it’s all about honesty and morality. The Anti-wedge document has a clear mission statement to prevent the miseducation of children by religious liars who want to pretend that ID is valid science. Indisputably a far more noble and open endeavour.

Can you find a quote in it that encourages fooling people into thinking what you want them to think? A quote equivalent, in other words, to Phillip E. Johnson’s revealing statement that I quote above?

Definition of Intelligent Design

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia 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.

All this proves is that there are no limits to the depths to which creationists will sink to try and authenticise their nonsense - including, in this case, setting up a respectable-sounding website that peddles pro-religious twaddle. I googled the first three names in the “Foundation Leadership” part of NWE’s “About” page. Guess what? They’re all leaders of religious groups (maybe even the same group, the Unification Church appears to change its name quite frequently).

Calling it an “Encyclopedia” is disingenuous in the extreme, as it conveys a sense of scientific credibility, when in fact the NWE has none.

Sorry, but citing this pro-religion website does nothing to further your argument. All it does is call out Irreducible Complexity (of which no examples have been shown to exist) and CSI, which has been demonstrated to be a completely arbitrary indicator. In particular, the sentence, “When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed” is hilarious, because irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated. So the outcome must be that “ID researchers” have been unable to conclude the existence of any designed structures!

ID is not science, and a bunch of pro-religious wingnuts setting up a website full of lies does not change that fact.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps. But ID has proven to be a barren area in this regard.

So? Well, I guess it’s all about honesty and morality. The Anti-wedge document has a clear mission statement to prevent the miseducation of children by religious liars who want to pretend that ID is valid science. Indisputably a far more noble and open endeavour.

Can you find a quote in it that encourages fooling people into thinking what you want them to think? A quote equivalent, in other words, to Phillip E. Johnson’s revealing statement that I quote above?

All this proves is that there are no limits to the depths to which creationists will sink to try and authenticise their nonsense - including, in this case, setting up a respectable-sounding website that peddles pro-religious twaddle. I googled the first three names in the “Foundation Leadership” part of NWE’s “About” page. Guess what? They’re all leaders of religious groups (maybe even the same group, the Unification Church appears to change its name quite frequently).

Calling it an “Encyclopedia” is disingenuous in the extreme, as it conveys a sense of scientific credibility, when in fact the NWE has none.

Sorry, but citing this pro-religion website does nothing to further your argument. All it does is call out Irreducible Complexity (of which no examples have been shown to exist) and CSI, which has been demonstrated to be a completely arbitrary indicator. In particular, the sentence, “When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed” is hilarious, because irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated. So the outcome must be that “ID researchers” have been unable to conclude the existence of any designed structures!

ID is not science, and a bunch of pro-religious wingnuts setting up a website full of lies does not change that fact.

What is truth?

Still unanswered - Do you believe there exists a value threshold that moves an event from chance to design?

It might do you some good to read some of these:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

 

[PJM]

=wanstronian;8481181]Well, you’re just resorting to the theist’s common fallacy-argument here - the argument from ignorance.

And science doesn’t teach anything of the sort. What with this and the “sun and moon alternating” thing (still waiting for you to explain that, btw), you’re exposing your ignorance

***My dear friend, We can and do expose you to the truth If you choose not to respond or ignore it; it STILL remains then truth. Go figure

If my point is so ignorant I presume you have an explaination for it:shrug:

GB you,
Pat***

 

[tonyrey]

wanstronian;8466995:

The difference is that I have science on my side, whereas you have only guesswork and a wish for your belief to be true.

Ah, science! The universal panacea and panorama of every single aspect of reality - including the creators of science… Ever heard of the incompleteness theorem?

No response!

It is an indubitable fact that you don’t rely on blind and irrational processes to make your decisions for you…

 No response!

Nor have I ever suggested otherwise. But, as has been pointed out to you many times - if only you’d man up enough actually think about it - this has no demonstrated dependency on an intelligent creator.

Ever heard of the principle of **adequate **explanation?

No response!

 

[tonyrey]

What is truth?

Still unanswered - Do you believe there exists a value threshold that moves an event from chance to design?

It might do you some good to read some of these:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

It would be interesting to see one or two rebuttals from a dogmatic proponent of the superstition which endows matter with the magical power to create** absolutely everything in the entire universe **- without having the foggiest idea of what it is doing!

 

[buffalo]

It would be interesting to see one or two rebuttals from a dogmatic proponent of the superstition which endows matter with the magical power to create** absolutely everything in the entire universe **- without having the foggiest idea of what it is doing!

I am waiting. Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster will be invoked.

 

[Neildown]

My view is that for now our purpose is to know, love, and serve God here on earth in addition to whatever else we want to add to our purpose. We, being mortal, do not fully understand what we are truly here for other than that, so it might as well be left to ponder on until we’re capable of fully understanding it, which I believe will happen when we die and assume a spiritual life in full capacity.

But since I’m sure some don’t want to end it that way, here’s another theory:

Think of God [analogically] as a person with the ultimate version of Minecraft. In Minecraft you can build practically anything you want, and no matter how many things you build, you never run out of room or really the desire to continue building either. But if you spend your lifetime on Minecraft, you may come to a point where you realize something is missing. There is no-one else like you there! You have all these beautiful creations to enjoy but no-one to share them with. So, you decide to make beings with a lot of the same basic characteristics as yourself [this would be akin to God making an everlasting soul for each of us, in the fact that He Himself is everlasting]. Since God dictates reason, and He is all-powerful, He has the ability to make other beings like Him. Though they are inferior to Himself they still serve a true purpose because God is the arbiter of that purpose and He is at the top of everything.

 

[jmcrae]

It would be interesting to see one or two rebuttals from a dogmatic proponent of the superstition which endows matter with the magical power to create** absolutely everything in the entire universe **- without having the foggiest idea of what it is doing!

And in an orderly manner that takes advantage of accidents in order to improve itself.

 

[wanstronian]

What is truth?

Good question. I think it’s open to interpretation, actually. I suppose “absolute truth” is self-explanatory, but I also fail to see how we could ever be completely sure of knowing what this is. Having said that, I don’t think it’s relevant to our discussion.

Still unanswered - Do you believe there exists a value threshold that moves an event from chance to design?

Unanswered because you didn’t ask me that question. Now that you have, my answer is no - I don’t believe there’s any scientific foundation for a universal threshold that would result in this transition. I don’t believe it’s that simple, which is ironically why ID can’t be proved wrong, even though there’s zero evidence to suggest it might be right.

It might do you some good to read some of these:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

I’ll have a look through. It’s interesting though, that the Discovery Institute is still clinging to the Meyer piece in the PBSW, given that this was subsequently rejected by that same periodical, with an apology for the fact that it wasn’t properly peer reviewed.
Council of the Biological Society of Washington:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”, in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Browsing further, it seems that the first of the articles listed on the site you link, “DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation,” were not peer-reviewed with any particular stringency, and indeed were reviewed by ID protagonists, not scientists.

In the second, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” the phrase “Intelligent Design” does not appear at all, other than in Dembski’s biography. He subsequently claimed, on Uncommon Descent, that that’s what it was all about, but this smacks of post-hoc justification. “It got through? Great, I’ll say it was all about ID, that makes it a peer-reviewed ID paper.” Somewhat disingenuous.

The third is the Meyer piece discussed above. Nuff said.

Then I came across this, which says it all, really. It seems that what the DI calls “peer reviewed,” is rarely the same as what real scientists call “peer reviewed.”

So you still haven’t provided anything to show that ID is scientific.

 

[wanstronian]

My dear friend, We can and do expose you to the truth If you choose not to respond or ignore it; it STILL remains then truth. Go figure

You’re doing yourself no favours by just claiming that the truth is what you think it is, with no substantiation whatsoever.

I’d really like to know what you meant by “the sun and moon alternating,” but you seem reluctant to explain. Given that this was one of your rationales for what you believe to be “the truth,” I’m surprised you’re not more enthusiastic to share.

---

**
If my point is so ignorant I presume you have an explaination for it:shrug:
*

It’s not my place to guess at the reasons for your ignorance. But usually ignorance is just a result of not bothering to learn anything about what you’re talking about. That is what I suspect, but until you expand upon your “sun and moon” comment, there remains the possibility that they do, in some way, “alternate.” So please share. If you don’t, I’ll assume it’s because you can’t, as I’ve given you several opportunities now.

 

[wanstronian]

It would be interesting to see one or two rebuttals from a dogmatic proponent of the superstition which endows matter with the magical power to create** absolutely everything in the entire universe **- without having the foggiest idea of what it is doing!

It must be horrible to be aware that your whole argumentation arsenal is an endless repetition of the Argument from Ignorance.

How do you think the universe came to be as it is now?

 

[buffalo]

Good question. I think it’s open to interpretation, actually. I suppose “absolute truth” is self-explanatory, but I also fail to see how we could ever be completely sure of knowing what this is. Having said that, I don’t think it’s relevant to our discussion.

Unanswered because you didn’t ask me that question. Now that you have, my answer is no - I don’t believe there’s any scientific foundation for a universal threshold that would result in this transition. I don’t believe it’s that simple, which is ironically why ID can’t be proved wrong, even though there’s zero evidence to suggest it might be right.

I’ll have a look through. It’s interesting though, that the Discovery Institute is still clinging to the Meyer piece in the PBSW, given that this was subsequently rejected by that same periodical, with an apology for the fact that it wasn’t properly peer reviewed.

Browsing further, it seems that the first of the articles listed on the site you link, “DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation,” were not peer-reviewed with any particular stringency, and indeed were reviewed by ID protagonists, not scientists.

In the second, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” the phrase “Intelligent Design” does not appear at all, other than in Dembski’s biography. He subsequently claimed, on Uncommon Descent, that that’s what it was all about, but this smacks of post-hoc justification. “It got through? Great, I’ll say it was all about ID, that makes it a peer-reviewed ID paper.” Somewhat disingenuous.

The third is the Meyer piece discussed above. Nuff said.

Then I came across this, which says it all, really. It seems that what the DI calls “peer reviewed,” is rarely the same as what real scientists call “peer reviewed.”

So you still haven’t provided anything to show that ID is scientific.

I listed the peer-reviewed stuff because that is what doubters most often ask for. However, the peer review process itself has issues. If you want to go into that we can. But then that will apply to both sides. Care to explore?

So you won’t even put odds on your belief that everything came form nothing? It just did? You need to change your signature to “I am superstitious”. (you definitely fit the definition, especially #4 )

I guess you are not familiar with target and search. The words Intelligent Design need not appear.

su·per·sti·tion

sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif 
noun 1.a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2.a system or collection of such beliefs.

3.a custom or act based on such a belief.

4.irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

5.any blindly accepted belief or notion.

 

[wanstronian]

I listed the peer-reviewed stuff because that is what doubters most often ask for. However, the peer review process itself has issues. If you want to go into that we can. But then that will apply to both sides. Care to explore?

Leaving aside the probability that when dealing with questions of science, peer-review by theologians is less valuable than peer-review by scientists, the peer-review process itself is only half the story. Good science suggests experiments, defines expected results and falsification criteria, and tells us something useful about the world. ID does none if this, it simply dresses up “God did it” in the appearance of scientific credibility.

So you won’t even put odds on your belief that everything came form nothing? It just did?

I’m not saying, “it just did” - that sort of unwarranted confidence is the preserve of the religious. What I say is that there’s no reason, no evidence, and no necessity, for any kind of intelligent intervention. The real scientific theories we have offer far better explanations, albeit partial in some cases, of how come things are the way they are. IDC is not only unscientific, it’s unnecessary and uninformative.

You need to change your signature to “I am superstitious”. (you definitely fit the definition, especially #4 )

I guess you are not familiar with target and search. The words Intelligent Design need not appear.

su·per·sti·tion

sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif 
noun 1.a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2.a system or collection of such beliefs.

3.a custom or act based on such a belief.

4.irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

5.any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Well, this is just ad hominem on your part. You’re saying I’m afraid of what I don’t understand, a claim which you are in no better position to make than that you could ever know the will of your alleged deity. Well, firstly I do understand religion, and I even understand the probabilistically most likely reason for people to subscribe to such an unintelligent, unevidenced, contradictory, incoherent and dangerous set of beliefs… but I’m certainly not afraid of it. Not in the superstitious sense, anyway. I am concerned that lies and dogma are being propagated in place of facts and science, and I worry about the effect that those lies and dogma have on our society. But that’s the sole extent of my “fear.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Does humaity have a precise reason for existence?

Our plight here in this world is the result of an experiment gone astray (Adam and Eve’s fall). Our purpose in this life is to save our souls from eternal damnation! That’s it! We were never meant to enjoy this life.

 

[wanstronian]

Our plight here in this world is the result of an experiment gone astray (Adam and Eve’s fall). Our purpose in this life is to save our souls from eternal damnation! That’s it! We were never meant to enjoy this life.

I think it’s desperately sad that anyone is indoctrinated to this way of thinking. There’s no reason at all to believe this, or to belittle yourself and the human race in such a way. This just goes to show how much unnecessary damage religion causes.

 

[Lui]

We were never meant to enjoy this life.

Kind of a sad view of life.

 

[buffalo]

Kind of a sad view of life.

Not really. This life is a trial and preparation to experience the next.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not saying, “it just did” - that sort of unwarranted confidence is the preserve of the religious. What I say is that there’s no reason, no evidence, and no necessity, for any kind of intelligent intervention. The real scientific theories we have offer far better explanations, albeit partial in some cases, of how come things are the way they are. IDC is not only unscientific, it’s unnecessary and uninformative.

Do you accept the universal probability bound?

 

[Neildown]

I think it’s desperately sad that anyone is indoctrinated to this way of thinking. There’s no reason at all to believe this, or to belittle yourself and the human race in such a way. This just goes to show how much unnecessary damage religion causes.

That’s why people should read my post on the previous page. Though I as well must disagree largely with Mr. Sock, I find your statement a bit too generalized [forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you] - do you really think this represents ALL of Christianity or religion in general? Personally, but respectively, I think the viewpoint you’ve illustrated is hypocritical. If there is no such thing as God, and if we are the complete arbiters of our own purpose, “unnecessary damage” means nothing unless one wants it to - thus rendering your argument completely irrelevant.

If I kill someone for the fun of it, it may be considered unnecessary, barbaric damage by someone else, but according to this line of thinking - as far as I can currently see - other people’s opinions don’t really matter if I’m convinced that it is purposeful to kill people for fun. Thus, it would almost seem unlawful to subdue someone with that mindset, despite the fact that most people nowadays hold murder as bad. Essentially it seems like it makes the individual a god unto himself - and I’d hate to see the results of that on a global scale.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Kind of a sad view of life.

Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!

“Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”
–John 12:25