The "Theory" if I.D.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The "Theory" if I.D.

Author Message
WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,794,121
RAC: 12,675
United Kingdom
Message 1401666 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 3:32:32 UTC
Last modified: 11 Aug 2013, 3:38:09 UTC

In that link it mentions flagellum in

ID and Biochemistry:

Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.


Now go and read what the New Scientist has to say on the subject.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

and on "junk DNA" which is also mentioned so rather that read all of it I'll just link you to the results page after searching for "junk DNA" in the NS.

http://www.newscientist.com/search?doSearch=true&query=junk+dna

It would help if you read more than one paper on a subject before posting spurious rubbish. I can't be bothered reading that link in detail it is so full of waffle it is not worth wasting my time over.

Best advise I can think of - become skeptical.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29507
Credit: 8,927,978
RAC: 26,142
United Kingdom
Message 1401755 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 10:26:15 UTC

Isn't it all a lot simpler than this.

If you are religious, then you have a need to believe in a God or a supernatural being that created everything, as your own scriptures will probably tell you. If you are not religious and don't have a need to believe in a God or ultimate being, then Intelligent design doesn't come into it.

Some scientists are religious and some aren't which probably also affects their approach. There is a bit of a difference in thinking "I'm damn sure there isn't anything there that will prove this, but I'll have a look anyway". To "I'm damn sure there is something there to prove this and I'll look until I find it".

ID proponents say, life on earth couldn't just have happened overnight, it's too complex for that, therefore there must have been some intelligent intervention, divine or not. Adherents of evolution say that the right components were there in the right place at the right time. Dead lucky? maybe. The point is you can argue this all day long until the cows come home, no-one is likely to find an answer one way or the other in the foreseeable future, given the current rate of advancement of human understanding.

So, I'll bid you good day and go and do something useful like mow the lawn.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,794,121
RAC: 12,675
United Kingdom
Message 1401763 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 11:51:03 UTC - in response to Message 1401755.
Last modified: 11 Aug 2013, 11:52:42 UTC

Of course it is simple, why do you think the UK government bans the teaching of ID as science, it is because ID is something being pushed as science. But they only take the bits that they think backs their cause. As I posted in Two mysteries of the Cambrian explosion. msg 1389674, this Discovery Institute is just full of it.

And as you noted this thread is actually about religion, therefore should it be here?

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13307
Credit: 27,857,806
RAC: 15,759
United States
Message 1401789 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 14:36:41 UTC - in response to Message 1401763.
Last modified: 11 Aug 2013, 14:37:08 UTC

I personally think that anyone who tries to prove God exists scientifically has the weakest faith of all.

Modern man is having difficulty believing in things without evidence to back it up, and proponents of Intelligent Design are looking to find and argue evidence in favor of a deity, which shows they have little to no faith at all in their belief in the existence of a deity. If they have faith, they don't need evidence. If they have evidence, they don't need faith.

Thus, by forcing the evidence to fit a conclusion to continue to believe in a God belies the weakest faith of all. The Abrahamic religions teach that faith is the root of their beliefs, and that they will be rewarded for having faith (belief without evidence or proof).

Makes me wonder that - if there is a God, afterlife and judgement - will they not be scorned for their attempts to prove His existence?

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13307
Credit: 27,857,806
RAC: 15,759
United States
Message 1401830 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 15:27:55 UTC - in response to Message 1401824.

The two are not rivals. They are complementary.


No, they truly are opposites, and thus a sort of rivalry. Again, faith (religion) requires belief without proof (science). Science looks for proof and lacks faith. Anyone who tries to marry the two will eventually have to choose one over the other: faith or proof.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29507
Credit: 8,927,978
RAC: 26,142
United Kingdom
Message 1401838 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 15:44:26 UTC

That is a good point.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13307
Credit: 27,857,806
RAC: 15,759
United States
Message 1401870 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 16:30:11 UTC - in response to Message 1401861.

The two are not rivals. They are complementary.


No, they truly are opposites, and thus a sort of rivalry. Again, faith (religion) requires belief without proof (science). Science looks for proof and lacks faith. Anyone who tries to marry the two will eventually have to choose one over the other: faith or proof.


No, thats a very bad point.

You assume and leave enough room that I too must assume what you're trying to point at.


I've assumed nothing. I've only pointed to factual statements. That it points to the opposite of what you're doing and you don't like it doesn't make it incorrect (or "bad" as you put it).

My Faith is not blind. I believe my Designer thinks in schwartz radii, fibonacci number sequence, energy mass conversions, none of this can be attributed to a factor called chance. All of this point to a design and a Designer. This take my Faith outside in the sunlight and 180 from blind chance.


But your faith is blind. You have no supporting evidence that this is the way your God "thinks"; its just your "belief". I do believe that it is said no one can know the mind of God, and by you asserting that you know how He thinks suggests a certain level of arrogance - and blind faith in your own belief.

As you can see I have both Faith and enough proof for my Faith not to be a blind one. Proof of God? No, not yet but enough for a good hypothesis. Much of science is still in this hypothesis stage. As a matter of fact schwartz radii are still in this hypothesis stage. You cannot show me a blackhole. You can show me a photo of what's going on around a blackhole but you cannot show me a blackhole. The same thing with the Designer, I can't show you the Designer but I can show you what's going on around the Designer.


Yes, a lot of science resides in the hypothesis stage, but many have become true scientific Theory given their provability over time. Gravity is a perfect example of a theory that is proven yet not fully understood.

The problem with the assertion of Intelligent Design hypothesis is that all of what is claimed to be going on around a Designer that points to a Design is completely circumstantial and has already been explained by other, more natural means that tend to fit the evidence better. It always takes a leap of faith (pun intended) to believe in Intelligent Design, which firmly puts it in the realm of religion and not science.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,794,121
RAC: 12,675
United Kingdom
Message 1401897 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 18:13:54 UTC - in response to Message 1401861.

Guess you didn't read the article you linked.

Part A: What Intelligent Design Is Not

2. ID is NOT a theory about the designer or the supernatural


The second problem with the critics' definition of ID is that it suggests the theory is focused on studying the designer. The claim is that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life, but rather studies natural objects to determine whether they bear an informational signature indicating an intelligent cause. All ID does is infer an intelligent cause behind the origins of life and of the cosmos. It does not seek to determine the nature or identity of that cause.


Intelligent Design apparently now is not about A Designer or God but about some outside intelligent designers who come come from anywhere or everywhere.

This is not the same as what you claim to believe in.

So why are you pushing ID?

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13307
Credit: 27,857,806
RAC: 15,759
United States
Message 1401923 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 19:34:32 UTC - in response to Message 1401908.

This is your belief. Not mine. As science points to a singularity at the center of our galaxy with a Faith because it cannot be seen so does science point to a design without the Designer being seen.


Then you seriously misunderstand what faith is. Faith is not simply believing in something you cannot see. Faith is believing in something without evidence. The evidence surrounding a black hole suggests something is there, hence it is not a leap of faith to believe in a black hole. The "evidence" used to support Intelligent Design is simply bad science misinterpreted.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29507
Credit: 8,927,978
RAC: 26,142
United Kingdom
Message 1401927 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 19:50:56 UTC

Faith is not simply believing in something you cannot see. Faith is believing in something without evidence.


We would not have discovered some of the outermost planets in the solar system, without a logical deduction that they had to be there because of the effect of what we couldn't see, on what we could see. It just was a case of looking until we found them. Was that faith or not?


OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13307
Credit: 27,857,806
RAC: 15,759
United States
Message 1401930 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 20:09:39 UTC - in response to Message 1401927.
Last modified: 11 Aug 2013, 21:09:15 UTC

Faith is not simply believing in something you cannot see. Faith is believing in something without evidence.


We would not have discovered some of the outermost planets in the solar system, without a logical deduction that they had to be there because of the effect of what we couldn't see, on what we could see. It just was a case of looking until we found them. Was that faith or not?


It was not faith.

Observing the effect of what we couldn't see would be the evidence that supported the claim. Just like the evidence surrounding a black hole suggests evidence of something we can't see. Searching for additional evidence because we made an initial observation is a reasoned-based decision.

A proper example of faith would be claiming that the alien Xrack exists on the planet Bob. If I believe in this whole-heartedly without evidence, then that would be faith. An additional example would be a Wiccan "asking" for permission to take something from the Earth because they believe (have no evidence of) the power of the Earth would prevent them from doing so if it did not want them to take from the Earth.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13307
Credit: 27,857,806
RAC: 15,759
United States
Message 1401937 - Posted: 11 Aug 2013, 20:54:48 UTC - in response to Message 1401935.
Last modified: 11 Aug 2013, 21:12:42 UTC

Well, there are people who believe in things without evidence of them. I'm not one of them. My Faith is not blind, the evidence of the design is all around us. If there is design then there is a Designer. Just like each letter I have posted means nothing without the intended design I put into them.


But what you suggest is evidence of design already has perfectly natural explanations. Attempting to take already existing data and retro fit it to a theory for which it was never meant to support suggests twisting data to fit a conclusion. Attempting to suggest there's evidence to your faith shows a very weak faith to start with. If there's evidence, there's no need for faith. And all faith is blind by definition.

Everything you see around you that you assert is evidence of design is nothing more than evidence of evolution and nature. It appears intelligent to you and others because you only observe the things in nature which have succeeded in natural selection, and erroneously conclude that it must be by a grand design.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29507
Credit: 8,927,978
RAC: 26,142
United Kingdom
Message 1402102 - Posted: 12 Aug 2013, 9:45:45 UTC

[spanner in the works on]

Lyall Watsons "Supernature" is a good read. It lists things like ammonites and stuff having fibonacci spirals, the golden ratio, and the spacing of leaves around a plant stem. It does seem that there is some consistent "technical link" in various forms of nature. But that does not mean that there was a deliberate co-ordination at some point by some entity i.e. a Designer. It could just mean that nature evolved the most suitable to survive in their habitat, and a certain way of producing things was the most efficient to survive.

OK lets try you with this one. An entity or committee has designed and produced a male human being. Its reproductive organs situated on the outside of the torso. Ok, now we need to let that human being breed and reproduce. So we need a fe-male version that can produce copies of itself. OK, lets give this new fe-male a chamber to incubate these copies, lets call it a womb. Then we can call this new fe-male version a man with a womb or a womb-man.

OK, now we need some sort of physical interaction here for the breedng process. Don't let's reinvent the wheel, why not take the current male model and turn the existing reproductive organs back to front internally with modifications, so that they complement each other. The testicles can become the ovaries etc, you get the picture. Size compatibility is inbuilt.

Intelligent design?

[Spanner in the works off]

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The "Theory" if I.D.

Copyright © 2014 University of California