What is Intelligent Design all about ?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the only thing dishonest here is your analysis and your argument is completely absurd. there are a lot of things science can't do and there are a lot of things science has already accomplished and is still accomplishing.

science has currently progressed to a point where it can perform eye transplants, and create a primitive computerized eye to help th ...[text shortened]... which has been made by religion, barring their fictional (ie: lying) claims of miracle working.

yes, nanotechnology in the field of medical science is going to be huge, its nothing short of astounding what has been accomplished.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Have you observed life being born from non life? nope, all you can state with any certainty is that self replicating RNA has been synthesised in a test tube and that Stanley Miller managed to create some amino acids by blasting electricity into a primitive atmosphere yet you are willing to give credence to the theory of materialistic abiogenesis. ...[text shortened]... t Greek, it had no punctuation and no spaces between the words, kindoflikethis - regards robbie.

Have you observed life being born from non life? nope, all you can state with any certainty is that self replicating RNA has been synthesised in a test tube and that Stanley Miller managed to create some amino acids by blasting electricity into a primitive atmosphere yet you are willing to give credence to the theory of materialistic abiogenesis.

Have you observed life being divinely created? No. And yet you find it easier to believe in an infinite, immortal, omniscient and omnipotent being as a causative agent than some as yet undiscovered but mundane process?

What about the transmutation of one species into another, have you observed that? Nope, but then again you are willing to give credence to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

No, but then we've only been looking at the issue for a couple of hundred years. And the evidence of the fossil record is indisputable - species come and species go. Again, there seems no good reason to resort to a divine explanation for this when a completely mundane albeit as yet possibly incompletely understood mechanism may exist.

From a scientific perspective scripture and oral tradition is largely irrelevant, and if you disregard this source of knowledge, what is left of religion?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[quote]Have you observed life being born from non life? nope, all you can state with any certainty is that self replicating RNA has been synthesised in a test tube and that Stanley Miller managed to create some amino acids by blasting electricity into a primitive atmosphere yet you are willing to give credence to the theory of materialistic abiogene is largely irrelevant, and if you disregard this source of knowledge, what is left of religion?

Look i am not going to get into an argument on what is indisputable and what is not, the fact of the matter remains that scientific data is open to interpretation. Why should materialists have a monopoly on interpretation, especially when it has been demonstrated that they themselves also rely on certain unobservable phenomena in the promulgation of their ideas, despite their aversion to this.

The fossil record is a case in point, it does not demonstrate a gradual transition of one species into another as Darwin predicted, in fact, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented in an attempt to explain the phenomena of entire groups appearing without precedent, vertebrates are a good example. To state that it is a relatively new field of study and as a consequence the data is somehow incomplete, which it is, and constantly being reassessed, which it is, is neither here nor there, for there are in excess of one hundred million extant fossils, catalogued throughout the earth. Again why should materialism have a monopoly on its interpretation? As you state, there is no valid reason why this should be the case in religious terms, so why should the very same criteria not be applied to the materialist? Is what is good for the goose, not also good for the gander?

If the theist wishes to draw inferences about his religious belief from this, so what of it? are you willing to dispute that there is evidence of harmony? how will you proceed? no it appears to me to be be random and chaotic? If the theist claims that processes demonstrate a degree of intelligence and design because of they way a system functions, how will you dispute it? All you can say with any certainty, is that it appears to you, not to demonstrate intelligence or design or that natural processes may have formed constituent parts so as to form a whole, again, an unobserved phenomena. So we are back to what seems to us to be plausible, all else is dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Look i am not going to get into an argument on what is indisputable and what is not, the fact of the matter remains that scientific data is open to interpretation. Why should materialists have a monopoly on interpretation, especially when it has been demonstrated that they themselves also rely on certain unobservable phenomena in the promulgation of ...[text shortened]... an unobserved phenomena. So we are back to what seems to us to be plausible, all else is dogma.

Indeed there are an awful lot of fossils. Most of them of creatures now extinct, and very few of them of creatures we see inhabiting the world today. Species come and species go, that much I trust we can agree on.

My point is, why would one postulate a numinous cause for this when a mundane cause may exist?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Indeed there are an awful lot of fossils. Most of them of creatures now extinct, and very few of them of creatures we see inhabiting the world today. Species come and species go, that much I trust we can agree on.

My point is, why would one postulate a numinous cause for this when a mundane cause may exist?

Lol, numinous, now that is a good word!

Of course there is no need to attribute such an event to a divine agency, especially if there is no basis for doing so. In the case of Christians there is a valid reason for making an observation of the natural world and attempting to draw inferences from it, for Romans 1:20 states that by doing so we shall find evidence of divine 'qualities'. This evidence of course is not proof in itself for it relies upon inferences rather than concrete exhibit a type evidence. I cannot understand why anyone should find this objectionable, for if there is harmony, then there is harmony, if it displays order, then there is order, beauty, beauty and so on. Its simply as inconceivable to the theist that these attributes should be present without intelligence as it is to the materialist that they have come into being through the intervention of a divine agency. Again what we are we left with is but a plausibility, what seems more plausible to us.

What the protagonists of intelligent design have sought is to level the playing field, but they initially went about it the wrong way, seeking to develop completely unscientific theories and simply to ignore the data if it conflicted with their religious convictions, as i think googlefudge mentioned.

Do you find it objectionable that someone should observe the natural world and draw inferences from it and attribute such to a divinity?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, numinous, now that is a good word!

Of course there is no need to attribute such an event to a divine agency, especially if there is no basis for doing so. In the case of Christians there is a valid reason for making an observation of the natural world and attempting to draw inferences from it, for Romans 1:20 states that by doing so we shal ...[text shortened]... should observe the natural world and draw inferences from it and attribute such to a divinity?

Of course you are correct, it all comes down to what seems plausible to us. As I've discussed with you before, I feel obliged by reason to disregard scriptural data, but this doesn't mean that I feel able to reject the existence of a god. Intelligent Design however seems so monumentally flawed a concept that I have no problem in discarding it in favour of natural selection as the mechanism behind the wonderful diversity of life.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Give me examples of honest science, then counter examples of dishonest science. In your own words, not cut and paste. Anyone with a computer can do that.

Honest science will observe life coming from life and tell it like that.

Dishonest science will observe life coming from life and not tell it like that.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the irreducible eye claim has been debunked for a long time. the fact is that a simpler eye could exist and be very useful to the organism. and looking in nature, we do see a wide spectrum of eyes from very simple to very complex, each quiet useful to the organism that has them.

It is only debunked in the eyes of those who wish to see it debunked.

I'm just telling you what he believed. If you believe the extreme that we are the result of an infinite number of monkeys typing on a typewriter, then that's what you believe. I'm just saying that others believe that there must be some higher power guiding evolution here on earth.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Of course you are correct, it all comes down to what seems plausible to us. As I've discussed with you before, I feel obliged by reason to disregard scriptural data, but this doesn't mean that I feel able to reject the existence of a god. Intelligent Design however seems so monumentally flawed a concept that I have no problem in discarding it in favour of natural selection as the mechanism behind the wonderful diversity of life.

Yes and selection lends itself to decision and mechanism lends itself to systems.

There can be no decisions and systems without directive intelligence guiding them in worthwhile functional ways..

Dishonest science tells us that these decisions and systems a operating by random chance.

Absurd.

Originally posted by Dasa
Yes and selection lends itself to decision and mechanism lends itself to systems.

There can be no decisions and systems without directive intelligence guiding them in worthwhile functional ways..

Dishonest science tells us that these decisions and systems a operating by random chance.

Absurd.

When the blind blows resulting in leaves being detached from the tree, does the wind make any 'decision'?

Originally posted by Dasa
Yes and selection lends itself to decision and mechanism lends itself to systems.

There can be no decisions and systems without directive intelligence guiding them in worthwhile functional ways..

Dishonest science tells us that these decisions and systems a operating by random chance.

Absurd.

What nonsense. Only dishonest persons would make such foolish claims.

(All hail the sausage.)

Originally posted by Proper Knob
When the blind blows resulting in leaves being detached from the tree, does the wind make any 'decision'?

The wind blows because of the decisions made by the laws of physics which are ultimately Gods laws.

Notice how the laws of physics are always there.

For them to always be there decisions are being made on levels not witnessed by us.

In a random chance universe we would see sometimes the laws of physics not being there......and then othertimes there.

Originally posted by Eladar
It is only debunked in the eyes of those who wish to see it debunked.

I'm just telling you what he believed. If you believe the extreme that we are the result of an infinite number of monkeys typing on a typewriter, then that's what you believe. I'm just saying that others believe that there must be some higher power guiding evolution here on earth.

the infinite monkeys argument has also been debunked for a long time.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm just saying that others believe that there must be some higher power guiding evolution here on earth.

But why does believing that lead to claims about irreducible complexity? It simply doesn't follow that if there is a higher power guiding evolution then it is impossible for the eye to have evolved from something simpler via a series of steps.

Originally posted by Dasa
The wind blows because of the decisions made by the laws of physics which are ultimately Gods laws.

Notice how the laws of physics are always there.

For them to always be there decisions are being made on levels not witnessed by us.

In a random chance universe we would see sometimes the laws of physics not being there......and then othertimes there.

So are you saying that 'selection' doesn't always imply 'decision'?!