Hey, ID Creationists!

[Jose Fly]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

 

[Lain]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

Maybe they'll say it'll look the same if it's designed by man or God Himself. I have no idea, first time I'm hearing of these weird claims.

 

[AlexanderG]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

I'll go with "bunch of crap."

Intelligent Design Theory is creationists trying to make their conclusions based on their personal intuitions sound objective or scientific. In fact, conclusions based on personal intuitions are literally the opposite of science. They are exactly what science had to overcome and falsify, in order to give us all those fruits of science that we enjoy today, from cars to skyscrapers to medicine to computers to sanitation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

It does seem like a great opportunity to validate their claimed techniques. Of course, it would get us no closer to showing evidence for a Designer. We already know that man can design things and does so in great abundance. Still, you would think this opportunity would have them champing at the bit to show off.

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

It might be.

It could be.


It is.

 

[exchemist]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

ID is pretty well dead now, though, isn"t it? Apart from a few final convulsions from the likes of @Hockeycowboy , I mean.

 

[Brian2]

I'll go with "bunch of crap."

Intelligent Design Theory is creationists trying to make their conclusions based on their personal intuitions sound objective or scientific. In fact, conclusions based on personal intuitions are literally the opposite of science. They are exactly what science had to overcome and falsify, in order to give us all those fruits of science that we enjoy today, from cars to skyscrapers to medicine to computers to sanitation.

Science cannot say one whether ID is correct or not.
It might not be a science but imo is more intelligent than concluding no intelligence behind the universe.

 

[exchemist]

Science cannot say one whether ID is correct or not.
It might not be a science but imo is more intelligent than concluding no intelligence behind the universe.

The problem with ID is that, while it is not science, as you rightly observe, it is presented as science to credulous people and those with a religious agenda. It is in other words a pseudo-science.

To the extent that it is intelligent, therefore, it is mendacious.

 

[GardenLady]

ID is pretty well dead now, though, isn"t it?

Only to rational people.

Though some would say I'm not rational, since, while I accept scientific evidence for deep time and evolution, I am also a mainstream Christian.

 

[Brian2]

Only to rational people.

Though some would say I'm not rational, since, while I accept scientific evidence for deep time and evolution, I am also a mainstream Christian.

There are many Christians like yourself. It sounds rational to me.
People who throw faith and intuition away are less human for it and paradoxically less rational imo.

 

[exchemist]

Only to rational people.

Though some would say I'm not rational, since, while I accept scientific evidence for deep time and evolution, I am also a mainstream Christian.

Shome non shequitur shurely?

Being a Christian and accepting the scientific account of the age of the universe and evolution most certainly does not require you to embrace the pseudoscience of ID. You would have to believe the cosmos was created by an intelligent God, but that is quite another thing.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe they'll say it'll look the same if it's designed by man or God Himself. I have no idea, first time I'm hearing of these weird claims.

Their "design detection" methods are alleged to be able to differentiate between things that are "designed by intelligence" and those that come about via natural means. Given that that's exactly the question with how COVID came about, this would seem to be a perfect opportunity for them to use their methods.

And to be clear, they really don't have any way of detecting "design". That's what this thread is about....calling their bluff. Of course it's possible that some ID creationist will prove me wrong and actually meet the challenge, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Jose Fly]

It does seem like a great opportunity to validate their claimed techniques. Of course, it would get us no closer to showing evidence for a Designer. We already know that man can design things and does so in great abundance. Still, you would think this opportunity would have them champing at the bit to show off.

Exactly! Now's the time for ID creationists like @Hockeycowboy and @nPeace to step up to the plate and prove us "evolutionists" wrong.

It might be.

It could be.


It is.

 

[Jose Fly]

ID is pretty well dead now, though, isn"t it? Apart from a few final convulsions from the likes of @Hockeycowboy , I mean.

Yup. It's been dead for some time now.

 

[AlexanderG]

Science cannot say one whether ID is correct or not.
It might not be a science but imo is more intelligent than concluding no intelligence behind the universe.

Thanks for the reply. This is an opportunity for you to learn about a common misconception that theists have. Science has not in fact concluded that there is no intelligence behind the universe. Most atheists have not concluded this, either.

I've talked with a lot of Christians who assume that everyone else must have a firm belief about the fundamental nature of reality, since theists generally do and you rely on that belief for a lot of emotional fulfillment, life purpose, hope for the future, etc. We simply don't operate that way, and we don't need such beliefs to get by.

Instead of starting with an absolute truth and looking for ways to make it fit with the reality around us, we look at what we can observe about reality and see how close it can get us to significant truths. We use evidence to construct our beliefs from the ground up, and we don't make more conclusions about the external world than are warranted by good evidence. If there isn't evidence to support a claim, we don't conclude the claim is definitely false, but neither can we accept it as true. We acknowledge what we don't know and work with what we're pretty sure is true, and that's plenty for us.

ID is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions and it is unfalsifiable. It fails the central pillars of what even constitutes a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It has been considered by scientists and definitively rejected. The courts have heard from expert witnesses and ruled that it is not science, in several cases. There is no evidence that it is more than an intuition of wishful thinking, or anything more than imaginary. It might still be true, but there's currently no reason to think so, and so we don't accept that it is true. Note that this is not the same as claiming it is definitely false.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How does this have any bearing on any aspect of ID? Only in one way....

Scientists have “created [a virus] in a lab”?

If so, wasn’t intelligence involved in performing the feat?

From my angle, it bolsters ID.

 

[Jose Fly]

How does this have any bearing on any aspect of ID? Only in one way....

Scientists have “created [a virus] in a lab”?

If so, wasn’t intelligence involved in performing the feat?

From my angle, it bolsters ID.

Allow me to try and explain again.

There has been debate about whether the COVID virus arose via natural means, or if it was made in a lab.

ID creationists have claimed for years that they have ways to determine if something was "designed by intelligence".

Therefore, we have a great opportunity to put the above ID creationist claim to the test by utilizing their methods to determine whether the COVID virus arose via natural means or if it was made in a lab (IOW, "designed by intelligence").

Thus, I am offering this as a challenge to ID creationists.....show us how your methods work by applying them to this situation and let us know what your results are.

Can you do it?

 

[Brian2]

Exactly! Now's the time for ID creationists like @Hockeycowboy and @nPeace to step up to the plate and prove us "evolutionists" wrong.

Intelligent Creation does not mean that there was no evolution.
For me evolution is a mechanism which shows intelligence in a creator since life forms can adapt to environments and keep on adapting if necessary as environments change.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For myself actually, I don’t think that the Covid-19 virus was created de novo. It seems to have been a man-made alteration from some previously existing SARS corona ancestral strain.

Either way, man-made or through natural processes, it doesn’t dispute ID.

You do know that I accept evolution in the sense that organisms change over time, right? I always have. All species that we observe, have evolved from their first ancestral forms, and branched out from them — but those first forms were created, probably for most at their respective Family taxon level. So I only claim that there are limits to what evolution has accomplished / created.

The empirical evidence, through experiments and observation, consistently reveals those limits…

Drs. Bechly, Meyers, Behe, Axe & others agree.

As Gerd Müller put it in his paper “Why an EES is necessary” on 18 Aug 2017, “The limitations of the MS theory are not only highlighted by the criticisms directed against several of its traditional tenets but also by the failure to address some of the most important phenomena of organismal evolution. The question, for instance, of how complex phenotypic organizations arise in evolution is sidestepped by the population theoretical account, as is the reciprocal influence of these features of higher levels of organization on the evolutionary process. Indeed, the MS theory lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans.”

As long as I’ve been posting here, you and other materialists have never acknowledged any deficits within evolutionary theory.

 

[Brian2]

Thanks for the reply. This is an opportunity for you to learn about a common misconception that theists have. Science has not in fact concluded that there is no intelligence behind the universe. Most atheists have not concluded this, either.

I've talked with a lot of Christians who assume that everyone else must have a firm belief about the fundamental nature of reality, since theists generally do and you rely on that belief for a lot of emotional fulfillment, life purpose, hope for the future, etc. We simply don't operate that way, and we don't need such beliefs to get by.

Instead of starting with an absolute truth and looking for ways to make it fit with the reality around us, we look at what we can observe about reality and see how close it can get us to significant truths. We use evidence to construct our beliefs from the ground up, and we don't make more conclusions about the external world than are warranted by good evidence. If there isn't evidence to support a claim, we don't conclude the claim is definitely false, but neither can we accept it as true. We acknowledge what we don't know and work with what we're pretty sure is true, and that's plenty for us.

ID is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions and it is unfalsifiable. It fails the central pillars of what even constitutes a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It has been considered by scientists and definitively rejected. The courts have heard from expert witnesses and ruled that it is not science, in several cases. There is no evidence that it is more than an intuition of wishful thinking, or anything more than imaginary. It might still be true, but there's currently no reason to think so, and so we don't accept that it is true. Note that this is not the same as claiming it is definitely false.

Thanks for that.
What sort of evidence from science would you think could tell you that there is a God?

 

[Jose Fly]

Intelligent Creation does not mean that there was no evolution.
For me evolution is a mechanism which shows intelligence in a creator since life forms can adapt to environments and keep on adapting if necessary as environments change.

That's fine, but doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread (ID creationists' claims about detecting design).