Debate over design

Intelligent design is not a conclusion based on mere intuision, nor is it an argument based on ignorance. It certainly is not creationism.

The media frequently states that "Intelligent design teaches that live is too complex to have arrisen through evolution". That is not entirely correct. Intelligent design teaches that live contains IRREDUCIBLY complex systems. An irreducible complex structure consist of several interlocking parts, which works in harmony with each other to perform a certain task. When a single part is removed from the system, it looses its ability to perform its function. In other words, the whole system must be assembled before it can serve its purpose. Natural selection can not create such systems, as natural selection can only select for current advantage. To create an irreducibly complex system, you need a mechanism that can select for future advantage. There is only one mechanism in the universe we know of that can select for future advantage: that mechanism is design. ID is therefore not based on what we don't know, but on what we do know. However, this is as far as ID can go as a science. Recognising that something was designed does not tell you who the designer was or even how it was designed.

This is the main arguement for ID, but there is many more: we know that natural processes can not create information, yet DNA contains information. Then there is the Cambruim explosion. The very existance of "Punctual equilibrium" is proof that there is no evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil records.

Darwinists like to say ID is religion, it is creationism, it is not science, etc. Most of these arguements are based on false representations of what ID really is. ID does not proof God, it only proof that live was designed.

Some darwinists are honnest enough to admit that ID is not creationism, but their refutation of ID is inaddequate. Kenneth Miller, for example, failed to demonstrate how a type 3 secretion system can gradually evolve to a bacterial flaggelum. The problem is that each step towards the BF must provide an advantage for the organism.

The objection against ID is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. Darwinists assume a priori that the universe had a mechanical origin. This is far from being a proven fact, it is a philosofical worldview. In this worldview, darwinism is a fact, because there is no alternative available. However, if you disallow this assumption, the darwinian case against ID becomes very weak indeed. Few darwinists even attempt to defend darwinism against ID, and rather use vague accusations, misrepresentations and other dishonnest mechanisms to discredit ID.

They also point to their hero, judge Jones III. Well, as it happens, ID has a judge too: Phillip E Johnson.

They like to point at the alledged moral motives of ID proponents, but fail to recognise that people like Dawkins and Dennett are very open about their non-scientific motives for defending Darwinism.

Einstein said: condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

Good grief. I do apologise for my rotten grammer. English is my second language.

Hanno wrote:

Intelligent design is not a conclusion based on mere intuision, nor is it an argument based on ignorance. It certainly is not creationism.
The media frequently states that "Intelligent design teaches that live is too complex to have arrisen through evolution". That is not entirely correct. Intelligent design teaches that live contains IRREDUCIBLY complex systems. An irreducible complex structure consist of several interlocking parts, which works in harmony with each other to perform a certain task. When a single part is removed from the system, it looses its ability to perform its function. In other words, the whole system must be assembled before it can serve its purpose. Natural selection can not create such systems, as natural selection can only select for current advantage. To create an irreducibly complex system, you need a mechanism that can select for future advantage. There is only one mechanism in the universe we know of that can select for future advantage: that mechanism is design. ID is therefore not based on what we don't know, but on what we do know. However, this is as far as ID can go as a science. Recognising that something was designed does not tell you who the designer was or even how it was designed.
This is the main arguement for ID, but there is many more: we know that natural processes can not create information, yet DNA contains information. Then there is the Cambruim explosion. The very existance of "Punctual equilibrium" is proof that there is no evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil records.
Darwinists like to say ID is religion, it is creationism, it is not science, etc. Most of these arguements are based on false representations of what ID really is. ID does not proof God, it only proof that live was designed.
Some darwinists are honnest enough to admit that ID is not creationism, but their refutation of ID is inaddequate. Kenneth Miller, for example, failed to demonstrate how a type 3 secretion system can gradually evolve to a bacterial flaggelum. The problem is that each step towards the BF must provide an advantage for the organism.
The objection against ID is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. Darwinists assume a priori that the universe had a mechanical origin. This is far from being a proven fact, it is a philosofical worldview. In this worldview, darwinism is a fact, because there is no alternative available. However, if you disallow this assumption, the darwinian case against ID becomes very weak indeed. Few darwinists even attempt to defend darwinism against ID, and rather use vague accusations, misrepresentations and other dishonnest mechanisms to discredit ID.
They also point to their hero, judge Jones III. Well, as it happens, ID has a judge too: Phillip E Johnson.
They like to point at the alledged moral motives of ID proponents, but fail to recognise that people like Dawkins and Dennett are very open about their non-scientific motives for defending Darwinism.
Einstein said: condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

ID is nothing but conjecture based on wishful thinking. If you believe otherwise it is up to you to show the "science" behind ID. Scince that people that are pushing ID are doing no science, you're going to have a bit of work ahead of you. BTW, the "irreducible complexity" thing has been torn apart with every "example" given. As an aside... ID "arguments" discredit themselves when said to be "science" even though there is no science involved

Hanno wrote:

Good grief. I do apologise for my rotten grammer. English is my second language.

You should apologize for your extreme ignorance about the topic you choose to take issue with, while not even having a rudimentary knowledge of it.

Madame/Mr. Hanno, if I may offer two words.

"cdesign proponentists"

The transitional fossil between "creationist" and "design proponent". The ID people themselves basically admitted that ID IS "creationism" by releasing, under subpoena, two drafts of the"creationism"/ID text book "Of Pandas and People" straddling the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision.

The decision to begin calling the movement "intelligent design" was based upon politics (the US government got a whole lot less friendly towards "creationism" in 1987) than it was on science.

IF it WERE a scientific "revolution", THEN you should be able to point to a whole slew of scientific breakthroughs around 1987 that would SCIENTIFICALLY necessitate the sloppy cut and paste job producing "cdesign proponentists".

You may wish to review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

On a side note, you write very well for someone whose second language is English.

"In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a law in June enabling educators to put religious beliefs into the teaching of issues like evolution."

Get your story straight, because academic freedom isn't ID, and the wording of the law, which works in conjunction with the science standards, strictly prohibits the teaching of religion, creationism, "creation science", "creation facts", and ID, so your false assertions make you look like an ignorant fool. Not to mention the separation laws, any teacher who attempts any of the above will do so in contempt of the law, and will be subject to disciplinary action.

It's NOT about Intelligent Design OR Evolution. It is about Intelligent Design AND Micro-Evolution. They are both compatible! Life was created intelligently, and then it micro-evolved. There is ZERO evidence for Macro-Evolution (between species), however.
From my new book: "A Guide to Universal Truths."

Hanno wrote:

Intelligent design is not a conclusion based on mere intuision, nor is it an argument based on ignorance. It certainly is not creationism.
The media frequently states that "Intelligent design teaches that live is too complex to have arrisen through evolution". That is not entirely correct. Intelligent design teaches that live contains IRREDUCIBLY complex systems. An irreducible complex structure consist of several interlocking parts, which works in harmony with each other to perform a certain task. When a single part is removed from the system, it looses its ability to perform its function. In other words, the whole system must be assembled before it can serve its purpose. Natural selection can not create such systems, as natural selection can only select for current advantage. To create an irreducibly complex system, you need a mechanism that can select for future advantage. There is only one mechanism in the universe we know of that can select for future advantage: that mechanism is design. ID is therefore not based on what we don't know, but on what we do know. However, this is as far as ID can go as a science. Recognising that something was designed does not tell you who the designer was or even how it was designed.
This is the main arguement for ID, but there is many more: we know that natural processes can not create information, yet DNA contains information. Then there is the Cambruim explosion. The very existance of "Punctual equilibrium" is proof that there is no evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil records.
Darwinists like to say ID is religion, it is creationism, it is not science, etc. Most of these arguements are based on false representations of what ID really is. ID does not proof God, it only proof that live was designed.
Some darwinists are honnest enough to admit that ID is not creationism, but their refutation of ID is inaddequate. Kenneth Miller, for example, failed to demonstrate how a type 3 secretion system can gradually evolve to a bacterial flaggelum. The problem is that each step towards the BF must provide an advantage for the organism.
The objection against ID is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. Darwinists assume a priori that the universe had a mechanical origin. This is far from being a proven fact, it is a philosofical worldview. In this worldview, darwinism is a fact, because there is no alternative available. However, if you disallow this assumption, the darwinian case against ID becomes very weak indeed. Few darwinists even attempt to defend darwinism against ID, and rather use vague accusations, misrepresentations and other dishonnest mechanisms to discredit ID.
They also point to their hero, judge Jones III. Well, as it happens, ID has a judge too: Phillip E Johnson.
They like to point at the alledged moral motives of ID proponents, but fail to recognise that people like Dawkins and Dennett are very open about their non-scientific motives for defending Darwinism.
Einstein said: condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

But no one has yet found any "IRREDUCIBLY complex systems"...

We await the first such findings! Could you please list the papers detailing any such structures?

Robert Thomas Fertig wrote:

It's NOT about Intelligent Design OR Evolution. It is about Intelligent Design AND Micro-Evolution. They are both compatible! Life was created intelligently, and then it micro-evolved. There is ZERO evidence for Macro-Evolution (between species), however.
From my new book: "A Guide to Universal Truths."

"The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...

Hanno wrote:

...Intelligent design teaches that live contains IRREDUCIBLY complex systems.

And yet, the proponents can't give a single example of an IC system.

Everything they've ever proposed to be IC has been shown to be reducible.

Hanno wrote:

... An irreducible complex structure consist of several interlocking parts, which works in harmony with each other to perform a certain task. When a single part is removed from the system, it looses its ability to perform its function. In other words, the whole system must be assembled before it can serve its purpose.

However, the entire system does NOT need to be assembles for it to serve SOME purpose.

The automobile is defined by its engine, axel and wheels. If you remove any one of these three items, the car ceases to function as a car.

However, wagons predate cars and have just axel and wheels - no engine.

So CLEARLY, DESPITE the fact that removing a component of the car (the engine), the set of tools is NOT IC.

Hanno wrote:

...
Natural selection can not create such systems, as natural selection can only select for current advantage.

False. Natural selection has selected for human ability to play the piano based not on our evolutionary advantage on playing the piano.

It's selected our ability to differentiate sounds. It's selected for our manual dexterity. Both things are individually advantageous. Without either of these we would not be able to play the piano.

The combination of both allows for piano playing, however natural selection never selected FOR piano playing - it's a bonus.

Hanno wrote:

...
To create an irreducibly complex system, you need a mechanism that can select for future advantage.

False, as I just explain in BOTH of my examples.

Hanno wrote:

...
There is only one mechanism in the universe we know of that can select for future advantage: that mechanism is design.

Fail. You're premise is disproven, you conclusions stemming from it are therefore incorrect.

Hanno wrote:

...
This is the main arguement for ID

Then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Hanno wrote:

...we know that natural processes can not create information

False. Mutation and gene duplication results in increases to the length and "information" in DNA.

Hanno wrote:

...The very existance of "Punctual equilibrium" is proof that there is no evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil records.

False. There is plenty of evidence for gradual evolution in the parts of the fossil record where we have a long period of fossilization. Those places are rare.

Hanno wrote:

...
Darwinists like to say ID is religion, it is creationism, it is not science, etc. Most of these arguements are based on false representations of what ID really is. ID does not proof God, it only proof that live was designed.

By who?

Hanno wrote:

...Kenneth Miller, for example, failed to demonstrate how a type 3 secretion system can gradually evolve to a bacterial flaggelum.

False. The flaggelum is shown to be an adaptation on the injector. Read the Dover transcripts.

Hanno wrote:

...
The objection against ID is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one.

Because ID is NOT science. It assumes a "MAGIC!" component which is untestable, unprovable, and for which there is no evidence.

Hanno wrote:

...
Darwinists assume a priori that the universe had a mechanical origin.

Actually, biologists have NO assumptions about the origina of the universe as it has no relevance to their field of study whatsoever.

Hanno wrote:

...
However, if you disallow this assumption, the darwinian case against ID becomes very weak indeed.

There is no need to present any case "against" ID. It's not my duty to disprove your LACK of evidence.

It's your duty to OVERCOME your LACK of evidence.

To date, NO ONE has EVER provided ANY experimentation which would allow us to collect data on ID.

NO ONE has EVER found a SINGLE IC system.

NO ONE has EVER provided ANY reasonable "ID based" explanation for mutations, illogical "design", parallel morphologies, etc etc etc.

Hanno wrote:

...
Few darwinists even attempt to defend darwinism against ID..

What's there to defend "against"?

That's sort of like saying the people of Chicago have attempted to defend themselves against invading smurfs.

Until the smurfs show up, the people of Chicago can go about their business.

If you want to prove ID, PROVIDE evidence.

Hanno wrote:

...
Einstein said: condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

Excellent. Yet, here you are condemning evolution without having done any investigation.

What does that say about you?

Robert Thomas Fertig wrote:

It's NOT about Intelligent Design OR Evolution. It is about Intelligent Design AND Micro-Evolution. They are both compatible! Life was created intelligently, and then it micro-evolved. There is ZERO evidence for Macro-Evolution (between species), however.
From my new book: "A Guide to Universal Truths."

ID is not compatible with anything in the field of science. It's NOT a scientific theory.

ID states: "A guy used MAGIC! to do something and you can prove me wrong."

That's NOT science.

As for "no macro-evolution"... Define the term.

When you say micro and macro, you are reallying saying this:

People can count by 1s: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
But it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to EVER count by 3s: 3,6,9,12,15

Hanno wrote:

Intelligent design is not a conclusion based on mere intuision, nor is it an argument based on ignorance. It certainly is not creationism...

I decided to truncate your post after reading just this first part. If you get this basic premise wrong, then things do not bode well for the rest of your post.

Perhaps you have "forgotten" how this whole ID crap reared it's ugly head? ID most certainly is nothing more than the bastard stepchild of prototypical christian creationism. Your buddies at the DI got their butts kicked for teaching creationism as science by SCOTUS, so they decided to do an end-around. Heck they even took their textbook "Of Pandas and People" and used for the basis of their ID crap. It's the VERY SAME BOOK, well with a couple exceptions - they went through and where it said god it now says intelligent designer and where it said creation it now says intelligent design.

Plus if you read the DI's "Wedge Document" you can see that their real goal is nothing less than setting up a right-wing talibanesque theocracy. That may not bother you, but it bothers the crap out of me.

There is no "science" behind ID. They have no research - oh they have a pretty new lab, but nothing comes out of it. Hell, they even pissed off the Templeton Foundation.

One thing that many of us have been asking folks like you for years is to please post the scientific theory of ID. Will you be the one to finally step up to the plate?

Here's a 2003 quote from Philip Johnson, one of the originators of the intelligent design creationist movement, on a Christian radio talk show: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." And here's a 1996 quote from Philip Johnson: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion." This is a clue, folks, as to whether intelligent design creationism is science or religion.

EVERY science organization - the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Science, and all other actual science organizations, have produced position statements stating that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science. The only supporters of intelligent design creationism are religious organizations and religious people - that's a clue, folks.

Primewonk wrote:

One thing that many of us have been asking folks like you for years is to please post the scientific theory of ID. Will you be the one to finally step up to the plate?

It will never be presented. A theory needs repeatable evidence to support it, not just "we don't know so goddidit".

What the hell is a "Darwinist"?

IasonOuabache asked "What the hell is a "Darwinist"?"
That's almost always a code term used by creationists for those who support actual science, particularly but not limited to biology, and such scientific concepts as evolution and heliocentrism.
Some creationists use "Darwinist" as a code term for "atheist," because in their ignorance they somehow think evolution opposes religion.
By the way: Hanno in his/her/its first message says Phil Johnson is a judge - that's more Lying For Jesus(TM), as Johnson was only a lawyer, but never a judge. And Hanno, if the supporters of intelligent design creationism had felt that Judge Jones' decision was wrong, they would have appealed his decision - but they didn't. That's a clue, too.
And Hanno, Judge Jones' decision pointed out that some witnesses had lied during their testimony. Do you recall if it was the supporters of actual science or intelligent design creationism who broke the Ninth Commandment? There's a clue there, too. Any comments on this, Hanno?
And Hanno: Please give us your interpretation of the meaning of the term "cdesign proponentsists." I'm waiting...but not holding my breath.

Robert Thomas Fertig wrote:

It's NOT about Intelligent Design OR Evolution. It is about Intelligent Design AND Micro-Evolution. They are both compatible! Life was created intelligently, and then it micro-evolved. There is ZERO evidence for Macro-Evolution (between species), however.
From my new book: "A Guide to Universal Truths."

Um...Since you are blatantly ignorant of evolution about the creationist terms of micro and macro.....May I suggest that you rename your book to "A Guide to Universal Lies and Distortions"

Robert Thomas Fertig wrote:

It's NOT about Intelligent Design OR Evolution. It is about Intelligent Design AND Micro-Evolution. They are both compatible! Life was created intelligently, and then it micro-evolved. There is ZERO evidence for Macro-Evolution (between species), however.
From my new book: "A Guide to Universal Truths."

Well..Well Robert Fertig....I just remember that you are the Director of Plans and Conferences for Physicians & Scientists for Scientific Integrity, Inc. and looking up their web link ;

http://www.pssiinternational.com/
It states that.....

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
EventsSadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in many countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have either been censored or removed from their positions for allowing or facilitating open discussion of the empirical problems of macroevolution. In fact, one scientist with two earned PhDs in biology, who followed long-standing procedures in allowing a properly peer-reviewed but controversial article to be published in the journal he edited, was publicly vilified and relentlessly persecuted.

As academia has suppressed freedom of speech in this area, another avenue needs to be available to promote accurate information and the free exchange of ideas concerning the debate over Darwinism and alternative theories on origins. Allowing physicians and surgeons to speak on this subject with a united voice in significant numbers is one of the best ways to let the scientific facts be known, and to dispel falsehoods, innuendoes and distortions that often flood the media. To accomplish that goal,
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) was established as a means for physicians and surgeons to publicly be counted among those skeptical of nature-driven Darwinian macroevolution. In joining PSSI members of the medical profession certify their agreement with the above statement of dissent.

Um....this is also stated in their web site....

As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.

Robert......Am I assuming correctly that PSSI's alternative theory position is that goddidit like poof! Magic!?