Intelligent Design is not Science

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
That much is true.
Mayan, please comment?

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. Not only has he not demonstrated a scientific theory of ID, he knows it doesn't exist. He knows we know it doesn't exist. He's had to lie and misrepresent scientists and their findings, and even various posters here. He has successfully demonstrated that he has the ability to find religious apologetics on the web and take scientific concepts and statements out of context from scientific papers and Wikipedia. I still haven't decided though which is more idiotic, him holding a position he knows is BS, or him lying about it so much getting caught is inevitable.
<quoted text>
Oh, he's smarter than your average fundie sure, hence semantics IS his game. He knows how propaganda works which is why he knows his rhetoric is still good enough for the average dumb as a bun creationist.
<quoted text>
Yup.
<quoted text>
Actually he's made lots of claims. He HAS refused to pin himself down to any particular position, which is why we still don't know if he's a YEC or OEC, and why he's avoided asking all my direct questions on what exactly the scientific theory of ID is. This enables him to constantly shift the goalposts and ignore rebuttals.
Unfortunately in the long run, he only exposes himself as a scam artist, as his usage of YEC and OEC sources only shows that ID is contradictory and internally inconsistent on pretty much everything except for evolution is a no-no no matter what. His approach will also get him into trouble as he continues the charade that was exposed in Dover 2005, which the IDCers themselves don't bother to hide anymore.
<quoted text>
I've got no science background, but I graduated my science class and have a layman's interest in it. I've also been on various forums like this for near 10 years maybe, and have learned a little from the various posters with actual science creds. That also means I know the ins and outs of the evolution v creationism 'debate' pretty well.
<quoted text>
Argentina or Brazil FOR THE WIN!
;-p

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
So your saying that the concept of purposeful intelligently designed systems theory, as in top down design theory, has nothing to do with the purposeful design top down theory that is used on intelligently engineered systems (as clearly state), and which is currently being used as a tool to help us better understand systems biology? Ted if you don't understand the definition of the word "design," then thats not my fault. You cant even respond with a point by point cohesive argument. Again if you cant see or admit that design theory is useful tool, then you have ignored the meaning of the word design. To try to convey the notion that something is unintelligently designed is much more BS than anything I've said.
Tell me. How is providing you with an example of how design theory is helping us better understand systems biology a word game? or being an example of being deceitful? A top down design paradigm is a concept that has been heavily criticized by neo Darwinist for many years. It has been called foolish by many evolutionary thinkers. Yet the Parker Systems for Complex Design and MIT is one of the few to go against orthodox thinking and they are showing results.
These are not the only ones who are learning that it requires more than just the neo Darwinian view of physics and chemistry alone, and that a a perspective of intelligently designed complex systems are extremely useful and is producing results. In fact the courses summary notes speaks of doing away with old preconceived notions when using this method based on the design of complex systems. Ted your a poser. You and I both know that you have a very limited understanding of the dynamics of this subject. I call it the five minute google search syndrome.
I have debated a lot of people and I know the M.O. Unless you can provide me with a coherent detailed response instead of the DUDE like responses, then I afraid I have no time for further discussion with you.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Sigh. You are not into sports?
:(

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry. My favourite sport is hammock testing.
:-p

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
My responses ARE coherent and detailed. You're trying to blag us by saying systems engineers at MIT say the word "design" therefore that proves Goddidit with magic.
And AGAIN I ask you - HOW?
What's the "scientific theory" of ID, May?

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You call that coherent? And why do you use the word us and we? Cant you speak for yourself?
I gave you a practical and useful example of how top down design theory is helping to better understand system biology. In other words I am showing how design theory can be applied to real biological science. Thats all, and ID makes no claim to be able to prove who the designer is but you can seem to get that through your head.
Dude you are one of the least sophisticated people on this forum and you have no businesses even trying to pretend that you have a grasp on this subject.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You worry about us using words showing a group solidarity, yet you depend on information from very unreliable and contradictory sources which are not your own either. Just by posting your references you are inferring the use of a plural, you are in essence claiming "us" and "we" when posting sources that agree with you.
Can you not stand on your own two feet?

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
I can do both. I can back up my statement with references and also stand on my own two feet and debate ten people at one time as I have been doing. Can you? I thought free thought meant something else. I didn't know it meant a collective thought. I have never claimed that all these sources agree with me on every front. For example Penrose is an atheist yet he is also a scientist and his calculations our based on the observable evidence not on extrapolations based on assumptions. If you think my sources are unreliable or contradictory, then your going to have to go into greater details. If you cant, then what you're basically doing by making these accusations is flipping someone off from a moving car.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You call that coherent? And why do you use the word us and we? Cant you speak for yourself?
I gave you a practical and useful example of how top down design theory is helping to better understand system biology. In other words I am showing how design theory can be applied to real biological science. Thats all, and ID makes no claim to be able to prove who the designer is but you can seem to get that through your head.
Dude you are one of the least sophisticated people on this forum and you have no businesses even trying to pretend that you have a grasp on this subject.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
I can do both. I can back up my statement with references and also stand on my own two feet and debate ten people at one time as I have been doing. Can you? I thought free thought meant something else. I didn't know it meant a collective thought. I have never claimed that all these sources agree with me on every front. For example Penrose is an atheist yet he is also a scientist and his calculations our based on the observable evidence not on extrapolations based on assumptions. If you think my sources are unreliable or contradictory, then your going to have to go into greater details. If you cant, then what you're basically doing by making these accusations is flipping someone off from a moving car.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You must first learn the difference between assumption and inference, then you can proceed to comprehend why intelligent design is not science.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You have completely ignored my asking you to go into specific details as to why you think my sources are faulty.
As for your other stament concerning assumptions. Yes I agree, and for this reason urge you to look up the term the "assumptions of the modern synthesis" I also posted video clarifying these assumptions in an unofficial vote taken by biology majors in a university entitled "Do we need a new theory of evolution" According to your logic the neo modern synthesis cannot be regraded as science either since much of it is based on assumption. Again as in the "assumptions of the modern synthesis" which is a term that can be found within the science literature itself.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
So your saying that the concept of purposeful intelligently designed systems theory, as in top down design theory, has nothing to do with the purposeful design top down theory that is used on intelligently engineered systems (as clearly state), and which is currently being used as a tool to help us better understand systems biology? Ted if you don't understand the definition of the word "design," then thats not my fault. You cant even respond with a point by point cohesive argument. Again if you cant see or admit that design theory is useful tool, then you have ignored the meaning of the word design. To try to convey the notion that something is unintelligently designed is much more BS than anything I've said.
Tell me. How is providing you with an example of how design theory is helping us better understand systems biology a word game? or being an example of being deceitful? A top down design paradigm is a concept that has been heavily criticized by neo Darwinist for many years. It has been called foolish by many evolutionary thinkers. Yet the Parker Systems for Complex Design and MIT is one of the few to go against orthodox thinking and they are showing results.
These are not the only ones who are learning that it requires more than just the neo Darwinian view of physics and chemistry alone, and that a a perspective of intelligently designed complex systems are extremely useful and is producing results. In fact the courses summary notes speaks of doing away with old preconceived notions when using this method based on the design of complex systems. Ted your a poser. You and I both know that you have a very limited understanding of the dynamics of this subject. I call it the five minute google search syndrome.
I have debated a lot of people and I know the M.O. Unless you can provide me with a coherent detailed response instead of the DUDE like responses, then I afraid I have no time for further discussion with you.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You have completely ignored my asking you to go into specific details as to why you think my sources are faulty.
As for your other stament concerning assumptions. Yes I agree, and for this reason urge you to look up the term the "assumptions of the modern synthesis" I also posted video clarifying these assumptions in an unofficial vote taken by biology majors in a university entitled "Do we need a new theory of evolution" According to your logic the neo modern synthesis cannot be regraded as science either since much of it is based on assumption. Again as in the "assumptions of the modern synthesis" which is a term that can be found within the science literature itself.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You have completely ignored my asking you to go into specific details as to why you think my sources are faulty.

Gillette wrote:

We've met THEMAYAN before here on Topix, under another name, and blasted him for a month for so.
Just changed his name and came back for more, apparently.

THEMAYAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You call that coherent? And why do you use the word us and we? Cant you speak for yourself?
I gave you a practical and useful example of how top down design theory is helping to better understand system biology. In other words I am showing how design theory can be applied to real biological science. Thats all, and ID makes no claim to be able to prove who the designer is but you can seem to get that through your head.
Dude you are one of the least sophisticated people on this forum and you have no businesses even trying to pretend that you have a grasp on this subject.