The failure of Intelligent Design

[Sunstone]

A quick google search and here's your answer - Intelligent Design

What's telling, Thana, is that no examples are offered in support of all that high soundin' language.

 

[Sunstone]

Has there been anything that has been found to be irreducibly complex?

Nope. I'm pretty sure there has not.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Give her a chance to back up her position.

 

[Thana]

Give her a chance to back up her position.

Huh? My position is 'Yes ID is a scientific theory.'
That's all

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Did you find any examples of ID?

 

[Breathe]

I agree. Initially ID was simply a re-naming of YEC. There is no formal theory, no specific claim.

Thanks for your response

That's... certainly a problem in formulating the hypothesis.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some don't. But I do. I believe in multiple gods and universes creating multiple gods and universes and in the theory of Malevolent Intelligent Design.

For your reading pleasure....

 

[Ouroboros]

Has there been anything that has been found to be irreducibly complex?

The only big ones I've heard are blood clothing, the eye, and the flagellum.

But they've all been explained and debunked.

If there are any other ones, it would be interesting to hear.

Oh, and recently, Spark of Life Metabolism Appears in Lab without Cells
It's an experiment that shows that metabolic process can arise in nature... naturally. Big step in abiogenesis research.

...
"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.
...
Remarkably, the discovery was an accident, stumbled on during routine quality control testing of the medium used to culture cells at Ralser's laboratory. As a shortcut, one of his students decided to run unused media through a mass spectrometer, which spotted a signal for pyruvate – an end product of a metabolic pathway called glycolysis.
...
Ralser's team took early ocean solutions and added substances known to be starting points for modern metabolic pathways, before heating the samples to between 50 ˚C and 70 ˚C – the sort of temperatures you might have found near a hydrothermal vent – for 5 hours. Ralser then analysed the solutions to see what molecules were present.

"In the beginning we had hoped to find one reaction or two maybe, but the results were amazing," says Ralser. "We could reconstruct two metabolic pathways almost entirely."
...
In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren't identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren't detected. However, "if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed," Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells.
...

 

[CynthiaCypher]

For your reading pleasure....

Well to me the universe does look like it is manage by rotten 6 year old with ADHD

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The only big ones I've heard are blood clothing, the eye, and the flagellum.

But they've all been explained and debunked.

If there are any other ones, it would be interesting to hear.

I know of these.

What i'm trying to ascertain is what evidence leads Thana to accept ID?

 

[fantome profane]

Huh? My position is 'Yes ID is a scientific theory.'
That's all

Ok, so are you going to back up that position with any science?

 

[idav]

Well to me the universe does look like it is manage by rotten 6 year old with ADHD

I see a universe managed by someone out to lunch. Super Intelligence would be a stretch either way.

 

[Bunyip]

A quick google search and here's your answer - Intelligent Design

You are mistaken. During the Kitzmiller Dover trial Micheal Behe one of the founders of ID stated that ID should not be taught in schools because there is no theory of ID to teach.

ID is not a scientific theory, no example of irreducible complexity has ever been demonstrated.

 

[Bunyip]

This is begging the question....


What testable hypothesis are you using to make that claim of God?
Almost all religious doctrines recognizes God as not a product of any other higher being and uncreated,
So you are making that claim as part of your OP.

Answer the question please...
What testable hypothesis are you using to make that claim of God?

If you continue to dance around it as you did in the other thread on subjects with me and a different guy, I will just reblock you and never engage you again.

I am a very decent guy, and willing to give you another chance to have a legitimate debate but I will not go round and round and round with you.
:yes:
Up to you how you wish to precede.

No offence, but I decline to proceed.

 

[TheDopeyOne]

The thing is that they think it is a conspiracy. They think that people want to kill God (because of something someone wrote 200 years ago about letting man get on without God), so they are not accepting ANYTHING that gets discovered, on the basis that the entire thing is just some trick to get God to disappear.

 

[metis]

During the Kitzmiller Dover trial Micheal Behe one of the founders of ID stated that ID should not be taught in schools because there is no theory of ID to teach.

ID is not a scientific theory, no example of irreducible complexity has ever been demonstrated.

And the judge that ruled as such is an active Christian and a Republican appointee.

 

[Parsimony]

The thing is that they think it is a conspiracy. They think that people want to kill God (because of something someone wrote 200 years ago about letting man get on without God), so they are not accepting ANYTHING that gets discovered, on the basis that the entire thing is just some trick to get God to disappear.

There are certainly some creationists that believe that. I have seen one claim that Satan placed aged bones in the ground to deceive us, and another person seemed to suggest that some dinosaur bones were planted by the government. In any case, conspiracy does not seem to be the main stance of most creationist groups. When I was a creationist, I did not believe in a conspiracy either. I thought it was just scientists jumping to conclusions using insufficient data. After I took the time to learn more, I found that the conclusions were justified after all.

 

[outhouse]

Huh? My position is 'Yes ID is a scientific theory.'
That's all

ID has never been a scientific theory, it is however a very religious one.

One intended to try and keep religion in a science class.

 

[rusra02]

Although it has existed for quote some time the Intelligent Design movement appears to remain stuck at the starting gate. The Discovery Institute for all it's millions of dollars and all other proponants of ID have yet to elevate it to the status of a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory.
At this point there is no testable hypothesis, no established example of irreducible complexity and no other way to detect the influence of an intelligent agency.

Hence my questions:

1. Why is Intelligent Design presented as an alternative theory to the Theory of Evolution, when it is not only not a theory, but not yet even at the level of a testable hypothesis? Surely presenting ID as if it were an alternative theory is essentially fraud?

2. The basic assumption of ID seems to invalidate god as the creator. If complexity requires intelligence, then god must be the creation of a superior intelligence - which would mean that god is not the supreme being, but a product of a higher being. And that supreme being must he the product of an even more superior being and so on ad infinitum. Abiogenesis and evolution avoid this infinite regress by proposing a trend from the simple to the complex - how do ID proponants deal with, or in any way explain an infinite regress of decreasing complexity as is implicit in the basic premis of ID?

3. Lastly, do any proponants of ID have any ideas about how to get ID to the starting point - a testable hypothesis? How could the influence of an intelligent designer be detected, what mechanism or test for such a designer do you propose?

1. I believe ID is a self-evident fact. The illustration of a piece of wood or stone with the name "John" carved in it, is proof positive of an intelligent agency. To claim all life arose by undirected natural events is fraudulent, IMO.

2. I agree with you that evolution and it's spinoff abiogenesis avoid the question of how the universe and life arose. That does no credit to these theories, in my mind. Nor is your claim correct that there can be no first cause. The Bible clearly explains who this first Cause is, at Psalm 90:1,2. Without beginning nor end, Jehovah is the source of all life, as Psalm 36:9 affirms: "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light. "

3. Evolutionist logic upon finding a watch: "that watch had no maker. It is the result of natural forces acting upon material over billions of years. We cannot test for an intelligent designer for that watch, so we conclude there was none."
:help:

 

[McBell]

1. I believe ID is a self-evident fact. The illustration of a piece of wood or stone with the name "John" carved in it, is proof positive of an intelligent agency. To claim all life arose by undirected natural events is fraudulent, IMO.

2. I agree with you that evolution and it's spinoff abiogenesis avoid the question of how the universe and life arose. That does no credit to these theories, in my mind. Nor is your claim correct that there can be no first cause. The Bible clearly explains who this first Cause is, at Psalm 90:1,2. Without beginning nor end, Jehovah is the source of all life, as Psalm 36:9 affirms: "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light. "

3. Evolutionist logic upon finding a watch: "that watch had no maker. It is the result of natural forces acting upon material over billions of years. We cannot test for an intelligent designer for that watch, so we conclude there was none."
:help:

Still spewing the same old long ago refuted bull ****...

Sad really.