The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Purpose? Why do you think it has one?

The *function*, if it is in DNA, is to make RNA polymerase produce an anti-sense codon in some RNA. A codon in RNA can then *function* by interacting with a ribosome to induce a particular amino acid to bond to a polypeptide chain being made by the ribosome. The *function* of that polypeptide can be one of several things, from being an enzyme to catalyze a chemical reaction, to being a structural protein, or any number of other *functions* that proteins have in cells and living things.

But, in all cases, those particular functions are *highly* dependent on environment. If, for example, there is no ATP around, then all of these reactions stop and other ones take over. Those other reactions tend to be harmful to the organism as a whole, potentially producing death. In which case, the *function* of these chemicals would be to kill the organism by entering into side reactions that are usually avoided by the presence of ATP.

Purpose and function are different things. To have a purpose means there is some intelligence with an intention that directs the process. A *function*, on the other hand, does NOT require an intent nor, correspondingly, an intelligent agent. A function can be natural while a purpose has to have an intent behind it.

There are LOTS of functions in living things. But only those having to do with the patterns of reactions leading to consciousness can be associated with a 'purpose'.

Which is why I chose the term function. It does not rule out an intelligence, where purpose implies one. Neutral terms are needed in a discussion like this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do you know that?

Because DNA is an acid that we INTERPRET as code. It simply isn't a literal code.

Thats a good point you make and i admit i am making an assumption. However its not an unreasonable assumption. As i said prior, intelligence is not proven, its the best explanation based on the evidence and logical inference.

No, it isn't. I've already demonstrated why. Your first assertion (that DNA is a code) is already false, and even if we grant your assertion it still doesn't make the conclusion drawn from it logical.

In the future, if scientists prove the DNA came from none intelligence, then ID will be falsified.

This is also false. ID is unfalsifiable. Even if we determine that DNA results from entirely biological processes, it can still be asserted that an intelligence is responsible for setting those processes in motion.

However, ID PREDICTS that unguided forces having done it will never be proven.

That's not a prediction. A prediction is something we can actually test and discover to be false. As said above, no such thing can be done for the claim of DNA arising from intelligence.

Why is non intelligence testable but intelligence is not?

Because the intelligence often spoken about by many proponents of intelligent design can be expressed in literally any way and can - in many interpretations - achieve anything by any means. When people talk of an intelligence, they generally aren't referring to something like aliens (which could potentially be tested for) but an actual God, and once you evoke a God nothing you can do will falsify the hypothesis, because God serves as a sufficient explanation for literally any phenomenon. We could demonstrate exactly how and why life arose from non-living matter in an entirely natural way, but that still wouldn't rule out a God since it could be said that God simply set that process in motion or is behind it in some undetectable way. Once you insert supernatural causation by an omnipotent entity, you cannot meaningfully test for or falsify it.

Ok, i sorta understand, but, tell me why intelligence and none intelligence are not mutually exclusive?

Because biological systems can still be said to exist in a realm where a God influences or participates in the process. For example, to me it's perfectly reasonably for a theist to believe in evolution or abiogenesis because they can merely believe that God's influence on the process is either undetectable or - which seems more poetic to me - actually indeterminate from the actual biological process. I.E: God creates the Universe and all life in an action which, to him manifests as a simple act of will or a thought; But from OUR perspective, this simple act of will manifests as a billions-of-years-long physical and biological process of unimaginable complexity. I see no problem with a theist believing this.

Because in our experience codes only come from intelligence, so thats why i logically infer actual intelligence.

Again, this is a fallacious argument.

You dont have too see who or what the intelligence is in order to determine an intelligent cause.

Then please name at least one thing that you knew was designed before having any prior knowledge of its process of creation or the creation of any part of it, or the process behind the creation of anything with any similarity.

If you saw an ant hill, but no ants, youd infer intelligence made that hill. And not just because prior knowledge either, if you just examined it, youd figure some intelligence was behind it.

How? If you had never seen ants before, had no idea they built hills, had no knowledge of any process which makes formations similar to ant hills, HOW could you possibly infer it was designed?

If you saw a deserted bird nest, youd infer intelligence. Also, not just because of prior knowledge, but because of the way its made.

Again, this is assumption without basis. You're asserting that we simply KNOW design, but can't actually explain HOW.

If you saw a pot on the ground in a field, youd infer intelligence.

Again, HOW?

The point is, you dont have to directly see the intelligent agent in order to detect an intelligence.

And yet you've provided absolutely no examples of why that is the case, just listed a few things that you already know from prior experience are designed and asserted that, even without that prior experience, you'd somehow be able to identify design in them. The question is HOW.

Ive listened to speaches and debates on youtube where stephen myer said and i agree with him on this, it makes perfect sense to me, he was asked about this very thing; he said ID can still be used by theistic evolutionists.

Except ID can't really be "used" by anyone, because it's not testable.

Why? He said because God would have STILL intelligently designed the system of evolution.

So, in otherwords, theistic evolution is NOT a PURELY darwinian unguided process. God still intelligently designed that process.

Sure, but "theistic evolution" is still "evolution". The "evolution" part is identical, it just adds the extra supernatural assumption of there behind inherent design within the process. I have no qualms with this position, or at least no more qualms than I do with the general theist position, because it doesn't assert an intelligence that is EVIDENT in the process or is even scientifically or empircally identifiable - it's merely a theistic position held by someone who accepts evolutionary theory.

Now, if a theistic evolutionist wer to say he does not believe God designed the process, then that person is NOT logically consistent with the theism he says he believes in.

Not necessarily. You can be a theist who believes in evolution but still believe God didn't play an active role in the process. You'd still be a theistic evolutionist.

Now, let me point out the other thing stephen says. He says theres two kinds of IDers, theistic evolutionists and iders who are not evolutionists. Both are iders. And thats perfectly logical as well to say they are. ID is a large unbrella.

Not really. ID is specifically a movement against evolution, it's not just theism. So you can't both accept evolution and accept ID.

 

[Jollybear]

The RNA polymerase 'goes over' the length of the DNA by a sequence of chemical reactions which you can find details of in most modern biochemistry books. you can also read about where initial bonding of the polymerase occurs and what induces it to 'let go' of the DNA. These all happen because of fairly well-known laws of chemistry.

The 'cause' of the construction of the proteins is a longer chain of chemical reactions involving everything from the initial polymerase, to (often) self-splicing by the resulting RNA strand, to attachment on a ribosome (made of RNA and proteins), allowing transfer RNA, which is bonded to an amino acid (another longish story) to come close enough to the growing peptide strand to induce the ribosome to chemically attach the amino acid to the growing protein chain. Which tRNA attaches is determined by which codon is showing on the mRNA, which is in turn determined by the polymerase interacting with the codon on the DNA.

Again, all of this can be found in a modern biochemistry book, often in exquisite detail.

Yea, chemical reactions, sure.

But, in every website that defines and explains DNA, it does so by also describing it as codes as well.

Remember hubert yokey? He is not an ID proponent.

Heres and exerpt from this page with a quote from hubert >

The God of the gaps is not the scientific argument for God

"Many of the principles of human language apply to DNA, the language of life.
In the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the question of the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life, physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey explains how many of the principles of human language are also applicable to DNA, the language of life:

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. [1]""

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yea, chemical reactions, sure.

But, in every website that defines and explains DNA, it does so by also describing it as codes as well.

Remember hubert yokey? He is not an ID proponent.

Heres and exerpt from this page with a quote from hubert >

The God of the gaps is not the scientific argument for God

"Many of the principles of human language apply to DNA, the language of life.
In the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the question of the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life, physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey explains how many of the principles of human language are also applicable to DNA, the language of life:

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. [1]""

Similarities does not mean that something is what it is similar too. Calling it a code is used as an educational tool. Don't take it too literally.

 

[Jollybear]

Similarities does not mean that something is what it is similar too. Calling it a code is used as an educational tool. Don't take it too literally.

Why do they call it a code if its not then? How is that educating if its misleading?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do they call it a code if its not then? How is that educating if its misleading?

It is not meant to be misleading. It helps get across the idea that certain complex chemicals can repeatedly make the same proteins by traversing a strand of DNA. It takes much less time to say "read".

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Jollybear hear is a more technical article on RNA transcription of DNA. You will notice a lack of words such as read or code. If you found a peer reviewed article it would be even more formal:

Transcription and RNA polymerase - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf

The articles that you are complaining about are simplified. Simplification often introduces ideas that are technically incorrect in an attempt to paint a bigger picture.

 

[Polymath257]

Yea, chemical reactions, sure.

But, in every website that defines and explains DNA, it does so by also describing it as codes as well.

Remember hubert yokey? He is not an ID proponent.

Heres and exerpt from this page with a quote from hubert >

The God of the gaps is not the scientific argument for God

"Many of the principles of human language apply to DNA, the language of life.
In the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the question of the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life, physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey explains how many of the principles of human language are also applicable to DNA, the language of life:

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. [1]""

OK, and with the definitions from information theory, no intelligence is required for their to be a code, only information.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do they call it a code if its not then? How is that educating if its misleading?

Much of education is by use of metaphor. Often, that can be good at lower levels, but needs to be modified at deeper levels of understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more point for @Jollybear , I am sure that you have fun into Bible stories for children and students that simplified the story to the point where a nitpicker could claim that parts of it were "wrong" . Would that make the tellers dishonest or were they merely trying to get a complex story across?

 

[Jollybear]

Because DNA is an acid that we INTERPRET as code. It simply isn't a literal code.

And, how do you know that?

No, it isn't. I've already demonstrated why. Your first assertion (that DNA is a code) is already false, and even if we grant your assertion it still doesn't make the conclusion drawn from it logical.

Oh yes, its logical, its definately logical, beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind it is logical.

And it is equally just as much a hypotheses as naturalistic mechanisms having made the code on top of it.

This is also false. ID is unfalsifiable. Even if we determine that DNA results from entirely biological processes, it can still be asserted that an intelligence is responsible for setting those processes in motion.

Your talking to ME. Your not talking to the whole world and every IDer here. I described to you that if in the future it becomes PROVEN that the code arose from non intelligence, then ID would be falsified FOR ME.

But if you want to play like that, i can equally bounce back and say that nomatter what, even if ID becomes proven, the atheists position will still be unfalsifiable because they will ASSERT that the intelligence that made life and the universe, that intelligence evolved from none intelligence.

See, two can play that game huh.

It dont work playing like this though. An idea is either true or its not.

That's not a prediction. A prediction is something we can actually test and discover to be false. As said above, no such thing can be done for the claim of DNA arising from intelligence.

Yes, it is a prediction because i predicted it. I predict science will never PROVE life and DNA arose from non intelligent forces. This prediction can be tested by future attempts to prove life and DNA arose without intelligence.

Because the intelligence often spoken about by many proponents of intelligent design can be expressed in literally any way and can - in many interpretations - achieve anything by any means. When people talk of an intelligence, they generally aren't referring to something like aliens (which could potentially be tested for) but an actual God, and once you evoke a God nothing you can do will falsify the hypothesis, because God serves as a sufficient explanation for literally any phenomenon. We could demonstrate exactly how and why life arose from non-living matter in an entirely natural way, but that still wouldn't rule out a God since it could be said that God simply set that process in motion or is behind it in some undetectable way. Once you insert supernatural causation by an omnipotent entity, you cannot meaningfully test for or falsify it.

Its best to just discuss OUR views, not everyone elses views.

Because biological systems can still be said to exist in a realm where a God influences or participates in the process. For example, to me it's perfectly reasonably for a theist to believe in evolution or abiogenesis because they can merely believe that God's influence on the process is either undetectable or - which seems more poetic to me - actually indeterminate from the actual biological process. I.E: God creates the Universe and all life in an action which, to him manifests as a simple act of will or a thought; But from OUR perspective, this simple act of will manifests as a billions-of-years-long physical and biological process of unimaginable complexity. I see no problem with a theist believing this.

Ok and gauss what? That would still be intelligent design.

Again, this is a fallacious argument.

If its a falicious argument for me to infer intelligence made the code, then its equally falicious for you to say material forces made the code. You see? It goes both ways.

Then please name at least one thing that you knew was designed before having any prior knowledge of its process of creation or the creation of any part of it, or the process behind the creation of anything with any similarity.

I dont recall anything. However, i would be fascinated to test this on a child since they have no prior knowledge. But, its intuitive. Intuitively we can detect intelligence.

How? If you had never seen ants before, had no idea they built hills, had no knowledge of any process which makes formations similar to ant hills, HOW could you possibly infer it was designed?

You would not be able to know WHAT built it, but youd intuitively know some kind of intelligence made the ant hill, or bird nest because of design detection. You may not be able to say "bird" or "ant" but you cpuld say "something designed that".

As i said above, this is testable. But, im not able to test this because i dont have children. But, if someone had children and they kept the knowledge of ants and birds from them, then at a certain age asked them about an ant hill or bird nest if they think it was designed or not, it be interesting to hear there answer. But unfortanately im not in the situation to do this test.

Again, this is assumption without basis. You're asserting that we simply KNOW design, but can't actually explain HOW.

The how is based on the APPEARENCE of design. Its based on intuition as well. Its based on experiences too. The combination of those three.

Except ID can't really be "used" by anyone, because it's not testable.

Heres a quote from a ID webpage saying how its testable.

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms), and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"

Sure, but "theistic evolution" is still "evolution". The "evolution" part is identical, it just adds the extra supernatural assumption of there behind inherent design within the process. I have no qualms with this position, or at least no more qualms than I do with the general theist position, because it doesn't assert an intelligence that is EVIDENT in the process or is even scientifically or empircally identifiable - it's merely a theistic position held by someone who accepts evolutionary theory.

Oh wait a minute now, theistic evolutiin in order to be consistent HAS to claim design IS still evident.

Even francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project said on video that God DESIGNED the process of evolution. Callins is a theistic evolutionist.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov&cshid=1551618672037

Not necessarily. You can be a theist who believes in evolution but still believe God didn't play an active role in the process. You'd still be a theistic evolutionist.

Thats a weird position. That says God exists, but God did not create life or the universe. It says God played no role in setting up or designing the system to even run on its own after that. So, God exists, then life and the universe kinda just made itself apart from God.

Perhaps some people believe this, but francis callins DOES NOT believe that. Ive even read his book "DNA, the language of God". Read it a long time ago.

Not really. ID is specifically a movement against evolution, it's not just theism. So you can't both accept evolution and accept ID.

Thats factually wrong. You are misrepresenting ID at that point.

ID is not against evolution.

A quote again

"No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely a negative argument against evolution, that reasons as follows: "evolution cannot produce many irreducibly complex structures, therefore they were designed (by God)." This is not how intelligent design argues, for intelligent design theory depends on the positive predictions of design made based upon our understanding of how intelligent agents operate. Intelligent design may use an "explanatory filter" to rule out competing hypotheses, but at its heart, intelligent design is inferred because of its positive predictions."

And ill re add that theistic evolution to be consistent, does say God DESIGNED evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, im setting a intellectual trap for you. Just being honest. But, come now, jump in it. Are the nucleotide combinations codons or not? Yes or no?

If you have to set traps for the people you are communicating with, it should tell you something. It tells me something. It tells me that you realize that you do not have a valid argument. You only need tricks when you have lost. Tricks like this are a form of false witness and not very Christian.

Heres what i have astablished, pay attention very carefully now. Im gonna say this in plain simple terms.

I have astablished that the nucleotides are a combination of codons (aka, codes or instructions). I have astablished that there is no proven example of codes ever from our experience coming from none intelligence forces. To say DNA is such an example is false because thats NOT a proven example.

I have astablished also that intelligence being behind the creation of the DNA code is JUST AS much a scientific hypotheses as the hypotheses that says DNA came from non living chemicals back in a primordial soup by chance forces. Both are EQUALLY a hypotheses.

However, where i take it a step further, i say intelligence is the hypotheses that I PERSONALLY adhere too because its more LOGICAL of an inference.

So, THATS what i have astablished.

You have not established anything that I have seen. The only evidence we have is that DNA is the result of natural processes. There is no evidence for God or any supernatural cause, so logically, your inferences and choice to place that position over natural causes with evidence is not logical at all.

What you have done is declare or assert your view without benefit of establishing that your view is supported.

Notice i have not DIRECTLY proven intelligence, because, well, obviously we dont see or saw the intelligence having made the DNA long ago in the begining.

So, there ya go. I hope you paid attention to all that. A CHILD can understand what i just said.

Probably a true Scotsman would understand it too.

I understand what you did, the problem is that you do not understand what you did and how it is not what you imagine it is.

You have not supported a designer for the reasons that everyone trying to help you has told you why you cannot support it. Apparently, you recognize that we were correct.

Thats not all i did. Refer to above.

That IS all you did.

Your a "christian" right? And christians believe in the bible, right? So, you believe the God of the bible created the universe, right? So, that makes you a biblical creationist, right? Lol, come on man, get with the program.

It does not matter what my beliefs are, I can not magically generate evidence that is not there.

The Bible makes some specific claims about the origin of life on Earth and these claims go against the evidence. I do not accept the story of Genesis in the Bible as valid, since it goes against the evidence if you read it as a literal depiction of events.

What I believe and what I can support about that belief are two different things. That I believe is supported by the fact that I declare I believe and profess that belief is based on faith.

I am with the program. When you cannot build an argument, you resort to logical fallacies and personal attacks. That is your program.

I dont care what you say, your views are relavent to this discusion.

No they are not. They are relevant to you, because you have nothing and want to make this personal. You do not ask others about what they believe. You only seem to be interested in my beliefs that ARE NOT relevant to the discussion. If they are not relevant for others, they are not relevant for me.

I didnt say that. You said your a christian, then you argue like your not. So, i simply ask why?

I argue about science using evidence, logic, reason and theory. There is no other way for that to be done.

Maybe you are just not used to discussing this with rational Christians.

all. Pretty simple, huh?

Everything you have posted is pretty simple.

You misunderstood the question then.

No. I do not have a similar problem with reading comprehension and I saw that you changed your question. Both questions you made were different.

Because through your answer im going to astablish more of my support for my hypotheses. So, answer the question. Are nucleotide combinations codons, yes or no?

You seem to know the answer and my responding to is not required.

My answer will not provide you with anything that you can use to build a valid response. Your argument has already failed.

Actually, look here >

"With base substitution mutations, only a single nucleotide within a gene sequence is changed, so only one codon is affected (Figure 1). ... In fact, depending on the nature of the codon change, base substitutions can lead to three different subcategories of mutations."

Heres another quote

"DNA is a dynamic and adaptable molecule. As such, the nucleotide sequences found within it are subject to change as the result of a phenomenon called mutation. Depending on how a particular mutation modifies an organism's genetic makeup, it can prove harmless, helpful, or even hurtful."

Also there is a thing called gene editing, that scientists can do.

So, one more time, are nucleotides codon combinations, yes or no?

It does not matter what my answer is, based on how you are trying to argue, your argument fails.

Your position is not astablished, i just refuted it.

No. Not at all. Your argument failed.

On a positive note, I appreciate that you finally made the attempt to provide an argument. It is a step in the right direction and you are out looking for information. I hope you keep looking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And, how do you know that?



Oh yes, its logical, its definately logical, beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind it is logical.

And it is equally just as much a hypotheses as naturalistic mechanisms having made the code on top of it.



Your talking to ME. Your not talking to the whole world and every IDer here. I described to you that if in the future it becomes PROVEN that the code arose from non intelligence, then ID would be falsified FOR ME.

But if you want to play like that, i can equally bounce back and say that nomatter what, even if ID becomes proven, the atheists position will still be unfalsifiable because they will ASSERT that the intelligence that made life and the universe, that intelligence evolved from none intelligence.

See, two can play that game huh.

It dont work playing like this though. An idea is either true or its not.



Yes, it is a prediction because i predicted it. I predict science will never PROVE life and DNA arose from non intelligent forces. This prediction can be tested by future attempts to prove life and DNA arose without intelligence.



Its best to just discuss OUR views, not everyone elses views.



Ok and gauss what? That would still be intelligent design.



If its a falicious argument for me to infer intelligence made the code, then its equally falicious for you to say material forces made the code. You see? It goes both ways.



I dont recall anything. However, i would be fascinated to test this on a child since they have no prior knowledge. But, its intuitive. Intuitively we can detect intelligence.



You would not be able to know WHAT built it, but youd intuitively know some kind of intelligence made the ant hill, or bird nest because of design detection. You may not be able to say "bird" or "ant" but you cpuld say "something designed that".

As i said above, this is testable. But, im not able to test this because i dont have children. But, if someone had children and they kept the knowledge of ants and birds from them, then at a certain age asked them about an ant hill or bird nest if they think it was designed or not, it be interesting to hear there answer. But unfortanately im not in the situation to do this test.



The how is based on the APPEARENCE of design. Its based on intuition as well. Its based on experiences too. The combination of those three.



Heres a quote from a ID webpage saying how its testable.

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms), and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"



Oh wait a minute now, theistic evolutiin in order to be consistent HAS to claim design IS still evident.

Even francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project said on video that God DESIGNED the process of evolution. Callins is a theistic evolutionist.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=2ahUKEwjDqtLwhebgAhVQdt8KHdecAgYQwqsBMAB6BAgKEAU&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov&cshid=1551618672037



Thats a weird position. That says God exists, but God did not create life or the universe. It says God played no role in setting up or designing the system to even run on its own after that. So, God exists, then life and the universe kinda just made itself apart from God.

Perhaps some people believe this, but francis callins DOES NOT believe that. Ive even read his book "DNA, the language of God". Read it a long time ago.



Thats factually wrong. You are misrepresenting ID at that point.

ID is not against evolution.

A quote again

"No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely a negative argument against evolution, that reasons as follows: "evolution cannot produce many irreducibly complex structures, therefore they were designed (by God)." This is not how intelligent design argues, for intelligent design theory depends on the positive predictions of design made based upon our understanding of how intelligent agents operate. Intelligent design may use an "explanatory filter" to rule out competing hypotheses, but at its heart, intelligent design is inferred because of its positive predictions."

And ill re add that theistic evolution to be consistent, does say God DESIGNED evolution.

He established that your argument is not logical.

ID is not a scientific hypotheses. It is a claim of religion. Establishing a natural origin for life does not falsify a creator. It merely moves creation back to some other event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And, how do you know that?

If you want to get technical it is because a code is used in communication between one intelligence and another. Where are the two intelligences within a cell?

Oh yes, its logical, its definately logical, beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind it is logical.

And it is equally just as much a hypotheses as naturalistic mechanisms having made the code on top of it.

I am sorry but a simple belief does not make something logical. One needs more than belief to be able to claim that. And your belief is not a hypothesis. Tell me what reasonable test could possibly show that you are wrong? If you cannot answer then by definition you do not have a hypothesis.

Your talking to ME. Your not talking to the whole world and every IDer here. I described to you that if in the future it becomes PROVEN that the code arose from non intelligence, then ID would be falsified FOR ME.

Sorry, that is not a reasonable test. People tend to be dishonest in their acceptance of evidence quite often. A person's inability to accept reality is not how their beliefs are tested. Until you find a way to test your beliefs that does not rely on the beliefs of others you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs by definition.

But if you want to play like that, i can equally bounce back and say that nomatter what, even if ID becomes proven, the atheists position will still be unfalsifiable because they will ASSERT that the intelligence that made life and the universe, that intelligence evolved from none intelligence.

See, two can play that game huh.

It dont work playing like this though. An idea is either true or its not.

But that is a strawman of the atheist position. ID is not accepted because there is no scientific evidence for it at all. This is why it is a good idea to understand what is and is not evidence. Almost all creationists do not understand the concept.

Yes, it is a prediction because i predicted it. I predict science will never PROVE life and DNA arose from non intelligent forces. This prediction can be tested by future attempts to prove life and DNA arose without intelligence.

That is not a valid test. First off science does not"PROVE" anything. It tests models. Models can be shown to work, as the theory of evolution does, or they can be refuted. The problem with creationism and why it is not scientific is that creationists will not create a testable model of their beliefs. As a result they cannot claim to have any scientific evidence for their beliefs. Atheists simply refuse to believe ideas that are not supported by reliable evidence.

I dont recall anything. However, i would be fascinated to test this on a child since they have no prior knowledge. But, its intuitive. Intuitively we can detect intelligence.

Intuition is not scientific. It is highly prejudicial and not very trustworthy.

You would not be able to know WHAT built it, but youd intuitively know some kind of intelligence made the ant hill, or bird nest because of design detection. You may not be able to say "bird" or "ant" but you cpuld say "something designed that".

No, that is a logical fallacy. An argument from ignorance.

As i said above, this is testable. But, im not able to test this because i dont have children. But, if someone had children and they kept the knowledge of ants and birds from them, then at a certain age asked them about an ant hill or bird nest if they think it was designed or not, it be interesting to hear there answer. But unfortanately im not in the situation to do this test.

Your tests leave a lot to be desired. We need to go over what a proper test is.

The how is based on the APPEARENCE of design. Its based on intuition as well. Its based on experiences too. The combination of those three.

A proper test does not rely on appearance or experience. It only relies on what is observed.

Heres a quote from a ID webpage saying how its testable.

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms), and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"

"Specified complexity" is a term that the IDists cannot define. And every specific example of irreducible complexity that they have claimed in the past has been refuted. By these standards ID has been refuted. That is why it is not taken seriously by scientists.

Oh wait a minute now, theistic evolutiin in order to be consistent HAS to claim design IS still evident.

Even francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project said on video that God DESIGNED the process of evolution. Callins is a theistic evolutionist.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=0ahUKEwiC-67_gebgAhUQS6wKHbLHDY4Qxa8BCCYwAA&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov

Sorry, that claim is a non sequitur. And who cares what Collins thinks? And please note, he does not accept ID. That does not help your case.

Thats a weird position. That says God exists, but God did not create life or the universe. It says God played no role in setting up or designing the system to even run on its own after that. So, God exists, then life and the universe kinda just made itself apart from God.

Perhaps some people believe this, but francis callins DOES NOT believe that. Ive even read his book "DNA, the language of God". Read it a long time ago.



Thats factually wrong. You are misrepresenting ID at that point.

ID is not against evolution.

A quote again

"No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely a negative argument against evolution, that reasons as follows: "evolution cannot produce many irreducibly complex structures, therefore they were designed (by God)." This is not how intelligent design argues, for intelligent design theory depends on the positive predictions of design made based upon our understanding of how intelligent agents operate. Intelligent design may use an "explanatory filter" to rule out competing hypotheses, but at its heart, intelligent design is inferred because of its positive predictions."

And ill re add that theistic evolution to be consistent, does say God DESIGNED evolution.

You need to learn the difference between ID and theistic evolution and deism. There was nothing illogical about his statements. Francis Collins (note spelling) believes in theistic evolution but has no scientific evidence for the theistic part.

 

[Polymath257]

You dont have too see who or what the intelligence is in order to determine an intelligent cause.

If you saw an ant hill, but no ants, youd infer intelligence made that hill. And not just because prior knowledge either, if you just examined it, youd figure some intelligence was behind it.

What a wonderful example! You would infer an intelligence behind the building of the ant hill *and you would be wrong*. The ants have no plan. They have no intent as far as we can determine. They certainly don't have a blueprint or enough intelligence to plan out an ant hill.

So your conclusion would be wrong.

If you saw a deserted bird nest, youd infer intelligence. Also, not just because of prior knowledge, but because of the way its made.

And again, you would usually be wrong in this conclusion. What you are witnessing isn't an active intelligence, but rather instinct. Your conclusion would be *wrong*.

 

[Bear Wild]

.



Thats factually wrong. You are misrepresenting ID at that point.

ID is not against evolution.

A quote again

"No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely a negative argument against evolution, that reasons as follows: "evolution cannot produce many irreducibly complex structures, therefore they were designed (by God)." This is not how intelligent design argues, for intelligent design theory depends on the positive predictions of design made based upon our understanding of how intelligent agents operate. Intelligent design may use an "explanatory filter" to rule out competing hypotheses, but at its heart, intelligent design is inferred because of its positive predictions."

And ill re add that theistic evolution to be consistent, does say God DESIGNED evolution.

No critics completely understand the intelligent design argument. Some have applied misleading mathematical models not based on real measured information than pure numeric predictions to a subject that is to complex for such simple modeling. Lots of numbers lots of claim and no evidence. That is a negative approach not a positive one. Evolution model and current genetic understanding gives us all we need to see how complex structures and dramatic change can occur without imaginary friends to make the design. There are no accurate positive predictions that have supportive evidence. Show the best one but every one I have come across is filled with misleading information and not based on solid evidence. No real positive predictors in intelligent design have ever been produced that has supportive evidence only lots of rhetoric.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And, how do you know that?

Are the little magnetic bits on a hard drive or a piece of recording tape a language? No. They are not. DNA is just like those little bits of magnetic iron on a hard drive or tape. They are not a language. DNA is not a language.

Oh yes, its logical, its definately logical, beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind it is logical.

And it is equally just as much a hypotheses as naturalistic mechanisms having made the code on top of it.

Sorry. It is not logical. It is what you want to believe. You are not finding something and drawing a conclusion. You have your conclusion and you are trying to line everything up so that it fits with that conclusion. That is not logic.

Your talking to ME. Your not talking to the whole world and every IDer here. I described to you that if in the future it becomes PROVEN that the code arose from non intelligence, then ID would be falsified FOR ME.

ID is not a falsifiable theory or set of theories.

But if you want to play like that, i can equally bounce back and say that nomatter what, even if ID becomes proven, the atheists position will still be unfalsifiable because they will ASSERT that the intelligence that made life and the universe, that intelligence evolved from none intelligence.

Science is not an atheist world view or tool. Science can be practiced by and learned from by any person, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

In science, there is no proof. Even when something is so well studied and understood that there is only a tiny chance that it could be rejected, in science it remains subject to rejection on the possibility that new information could be found that would warrant rejection.

See, two can play that game huh.

You get very emotional about all of this and interferes with your ability to think objectively and critically.

It dont work playing like this though. An idea is either true or its not.

An idea could be partially true, but not in the case of the intelligent design movement. It is religion disguised as science. At best it is a pseudoscience and is of no value to science.

Yes, it is a prediction because i predicted it. I predict science will never PROVE life and DNA arose from non intelligent forces. This prediction can be tested by future attempts to prove life and DNA arose without intelligence.

Attempting to do something is not evidence that a theory should be accepted or rejected. The intelligent design movement is attempting to many things and none of those attempts are any reason to reject the theory of evolution or the hypotheses proposed for the origin of life.

No one here is going to reject any scientific theory or hypothesis based on any prediction you have made or what you are claiming is prediction.

Its best to just discuss OUR views, not everyone elses views.

The views of the intelligent design movement and your views are religious with the aim of wedging science out of the picture, so all views are relevant and available for discussion.

and gauss what? That would still be intelligent design.

It is still religion too and not science.

If its a falicious argument for me to infer intelligence made the code, then its equally falicious for you to say material forces made the code. You see? It goes both ways.

No. Material natural processes can be tested, reproduced in the laboratory and observed. A non-specific supernatural intelligence cannot be tested.

I dont recall anything. However, i would be fascinated to test this on a child since they have no prior knowledge. But, its intuitive. Intuitively we can detect intelligence.

Sorry. No we cannot. What you are detecting is your desire for evidence of intelligence to exist. You are biased and not objective at all.

I think we have enough people on here with no prior knowledge of science or logic that we can leave children to be children.

You would not be able to know WHAT built it, but youd intuitively know some kind of intelligence made the ant hill, or bird nest because of design detection. You may not be able to say "bird" or "ant" but you cpuld say "something designed that".

Ants are not intelligent in the same sense as humans are intelligent. Nest building behavior--like the behavior of ants--appears to have a strong behavioral/genetic basis, not requiring much direct thought at all, outside of what is required to gather and pile sticks and refuse.

As i said above, this is testable. But, im not able to test this because i dont have children. But, if someone had children and they kept the knowledge of ants and birds from them, then at a certain age asked them about an ant hill or bird nest if they think it was designed or not, it be interesting to hear there answer. But unfortanately im not in the situation to do this test.

This is a ridiculous idea. It would not go to testing your beliefs.

Children will come up with all kinds of answers. All we would end up with is evidence for what children think and no answers that would be useful in furthering your religious cause.

The how is based on the APPEARENCE of design. Its based on intuition as well. Its based on experiences too. The combination of those three.

An appearance of design is not design. A mirage can be the appearance of water, but it is not water.

All of this is based on your biased opinion and beliefs with cherry-picked pieces that you think support your belief.

Heres a quote from a ID webpage saying how its testable.

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms), and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"

Irreducible complexity is a failed concept that has not been and cannot be observed.

None of these are predictions of any value. They are the using existing knowledge to generate so called predictions about history and biology for which we do not have all the answers for in science yet. It is the ultimate God of the gaps argument in the form of predictions. The rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record is a detail of evolution that is still under study, but all the evidence is still supported by explanations based on natural phenomena.

Homology of structure is explained by evolution and we did not need religion to find that explanation.

Function in biological structures is not a goal or a condition that is designed for.

So much for your predictions.

Oh wait a minute now, theistic evolutiin in order to be consistent HAS to claim design IS still evident.

Theistic evolution is still a religious belief, just like design.

Even francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project said on video that God DESIGNED the process of evolution. Callins is a theistic evolutionist.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=2ahUKEwjDqtLwhebgAhVQdt8KHdecAgYQwqsBMAB6BAgKEAU&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov&cshid=1551618672037

I recognize Collins' religious views. Francis Collins also knows that he cannot demonstrate his religious views.

a weird position. That says God exists, but God did not create life or the universe. It says God played no role in setting up or designing the system to even run on its own after that. So, God exists, then life and the universe kinda just made itself apart from God.

You are confused. That view of theistic evolution only states that life evolved without guidance from God. It does not say anything about the origin of that life and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. At least it is an attempt to harmonize and adjust belief with what is observed and explained by science and not trying to throw science out so that some weird version of Christianity is forced into schools against the Constitution and the will of rational people.

You do realize there is a difference between what God does directly and what God just allows to happen?

Perhaps some people believe this, but francis callins DOES NOT believe that. Ive even read his book "DNA, the language of God". Read it a long time ago.

Francis Collins is speaking of his beliefs and not what he knows about science. He can separate the two things, but you cannot. You should learn to.

Francis Collins has not suggested that his beliefs replace science in education or practice.

Thats factually wrong. You are misrepresenting ID at that point.

ID is not against evolution.

A quote again

"No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely a negative argument against evolution, that reasons as follows: "evolution cannot produce many irreducibly complex structures, therefore they were designed (by God)." This is not how intelligent design argues, for intelligent design theory depends on the positive predictions of design made based upon our understanding of how intelligent agents operate. Intelligent design may use an "explanatory filter" to rule out competing hypotheses, but at its heart, intelligent design is inferred because of its positive predictions."

And ill re add that theistic evolution to be consistent, does say God DESIGNED evolution.

He is spot on with regards to ID. I do know that some of the proponents accept some modified and reduced version of evolution, but the main thrust of the movement is to rid science of evolution and science and to put Christian theology in its place.

You have been hoodwinked.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And, how do you know that?

The same way you apparently know what a code is. I can say with as much certainty that DNA is not that, it is an acid.

Oh yes, its logical, its definately logical, beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind it is logical.

But it isn't - I've already explained why. If you can understand why "Every Australian I have ever met has a beard, therefore all Australians have beards" isn't logical, you should be able to understand why your argument - "every example of code I've seen is designed, therefore all codes are designed" - isn't.

Your talking to ME. Your not talking to the whole world and every IDer here. I described to you that if in the future it becomes PROVEN that the code arose from non intelligence, then ID would be falsified FOR ME.

But ID as an assertion wouldn't be. Just because you may have a very particular conception of a creator that requires a DEMONSTRABLE link between biological life and intelligence, doesn't render the assertion of life being a result of intelligence falsified. The claim still stands.

But if you want to play like that, i can equally bounce back and say that nomatter what, even if ID becomes proven, the atheists position will still be unfalsifiable because they will ASSERT that the intelligence that made life and the universe, that intelligence evolved from none intelligence.

That makes no sense. How would proving an intelligence created life not falsify the atheist position? And what does the atheist position have to do with anything we've been debating? I've talked exclusively about evolutionary theory, not atheism.

See, two can play that game huh.

Not really.

It dont work playing like this though. An idea is either true or its not.

While that's true, what matters is whether or not we can DEMONSTRATE an idea to be true or not true, and an idea such as a supernatural creator is, by is very nature, impossible to demonstrate to be not true.

Yes, it is a prediction because i predicted it. I predict science will never PROVE life and DNA arose from non intelligent forces. This prediction can be tested by future attempts to prove life and DNA arose without intelligence.

No, a scientific prediction is testable. You cannot test for something "never being proven".

Its best to just discuss OUR views, not everyone elses views.

This is a debate about various positions and the umbrella terms that they come under and their implications. Also, you've repeatedly asserted things about positions that neither of us hold.

Ok and gauss what? That would still be intelligent design.

Not in the same sense we talk of ID in the debate regarding evolution. For example, people like Kenneth Miller do not hold that ID is a valid position because ID asserts that intelligence is actually inferable scientifically. He does not hold this position, and clearly delineates his religious beliefs from his scientific ones. Being a theist does not make you a proponent of ID because a theist doesn't necessarily hold that their position is scientific.

If its a falicious argument for me to infer intelligence made the code, then its equally falicious for you to say material forces made the code. You see? It goes both ways.

Except I haven't said that.

I dont recall anything. However, i would be fascinated to test this on a child since they have no prior knowledge. But, its intuitive. Intuitively we can detect intelligence.

Based on what? And you do realize that intuition can also be wrong, right?

You would not be able to know WHAT built it, but youd intuitively know some kind of intelligence made the ant hill, or bird nest because of design detection. You may not be able to say "bird" or "ant" but you cpuld say "something designed that".

Once again, you are making an assertion without answering the question, which is HOW?

The how is based on the APPEARENCE of design.

Except "appearance of design" is nonsense, because something can have a look of being deliberately ordered and yet be a result of natural forces, and something can have an appearance of being entirely random and still be a result of intelligence.

Its based on intuition as well. Its based on experiences too. The combination of those three.

Except you cannot identify what differentiates design from non-design without utilizing prior knowledge. I've already challenged you to do this and you couldn't.

Heres a quote from a ID webpage saying how its testable.

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."

Already tested and failed. There are no known extant examples of irreducibly complex structures or of specified complexity. And even if there were, this wouldn't indicate inherent design, it would just potentially falsify evolution.

Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record,

Again, this is not an indicator of design.

3) re-usage of similar parts in different systems (i.e., different types of organisms),

Also not an indicator of design.

and 4) function for biological structures.

Meaninglessly vague.

Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"

False.

Oh wait a minute now, theistic evolutiin in order to be consistent HAS to claim design IS still evident.

Again, false. You can believe design isn't necessarily evident while still believing in a God.

Even francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project said on video that God DESIGNED the process of evolution. Callins is a theistic evolutionist.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=2ahUKEwjDqtLwhebgAhVQdt8KHdecAgYQwqsBMAB6BAgKEAU&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov&cshid=1551618672037

Except he never says that design is EVIDENT in the process, nor does her assert his position on God as being testable or in any way scientific.

Thats a weird position. That says God exists, but God did not create life or the universe. It says God played no role in setting up or designing the system to even run on its own after that. So, God exists, then life and the universe kinda just made itself apart from God.

That depends entirely on how an individual defines God. You may believe God set the Universe in motion but sat back and allowed it do progress via natural, unpredictable processes from then on.

Perhaps some people believe this, but francis callins DOES NOT believe that. Ive even read his book "DNA, the language of God". Read it a long time ago.

Why should anybody care what one person thinks? The point is that you CAN choose to believe that, it's not logically inconsistent or impossible.

Thats factually wrong. You are misrepresenting ID at that point.

ID is not against evolution.

ID is a new name given to the creationist movement, a movement which specifically opposed the teaching of evolution in schools and sought to have a theistic alternative taught instead. It is specifically conceived as a reaction to evolutionary theory. Look into the "Of Pandas and People" controversy to see clear proof of this.

***mod edit***

 

[Audie]

Why do they call it a code if its not then? How is that educating if its misleading?

Why is German silver called German silver?
It is not silver.
Or a silverfish called a fish?

The term "code" is used as a descriptive
convenience, it is not intended to pronounce
that it IS a CODE.

Do you have something else in mind, a single
word? It does not appear to me that there
happens to be another word in the English
language that happens to have the meaning
to which "code" is put.

OR, you could just accept it that "code" could have various
meanings, some quite different.

Like, say, "frog". That can be a throat problem part
of a bayonet, part of a violin, a hoppy amphibian...

Surely you do not insist that a musician must
use an amphibian or bayonet in concert, because
you happen to favour one meaning over another.


Ask yourself this, now. WHY do you jump on
a single word used by scientists, and reject
or ignore, um, things that do not suit you?
Maybe because the word "code" can be
interpreted in a way that does suit you?

See, the term is not misleading. YOU
are misleading YOURSELF.

Your mistake has been pointed out over
and over.

 

[Jollybear]

Are the little magnetic bits on a hard drive or a piece of recording tape a language? No. They are not. DNA is just like those little bits of magnetic iron on a hard drive or tape. They are not a language. DNA is not a language.

I had to take a break from this for a few days cause its getting on my last nerve.

Are hardrives designed? Do they have code in them?

Likewise, DNA.

Sorry. It is not logical. It is what you want to believe.

Few questions.

1, how do you know what i want to believe?
2, want and reasons for belief are different, do you know that?
3, do you want to believe what you believe?

You are not finding something and drawing a conclusion. You have your conclusion and you are trying to line everything up so that it fits with that conclusion. That is not logic.

Thats false. I have found alot, then infer a conclusion from it. But, you "WANT" to believe that i just conclude and try to line everything to it. Thats what you want to believe because it makes you more comfy in your atheism.

ID is not a falsifiable theory or set of theories.

I already corrected this. If you "WANT" to persist in your ignorence, go for it. But, if something is true, then it can never be falsified, logically.

However, by your definition of falsifiability, then darwinian naturalism is unfalsifiable.

Science is not an atheist world view or tool. Science can be practiced by and learned from by any person, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

I agree.

In science, there is no proof. Even when something is so well studied and understood that there is only a tiny chance that it could be rejected, in science it remains subject to rejection on the possibility that new information could be found that would warrant rejection.

I agree.

You get very emotional about all of this and interferes with your ability to think objectively and critically.

Thats false. Furthermore, you dont even see my face, yet you think im freaking out here emotionally? Seriously, i wish you could see my face, im calm as a lake with no wind blowing.

But hey, if you "WANT" to believe im being emotional, go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.

An idea could be partially true, but not in the case of the intelligent design movement. It is religion disguised as science. At best it is a pseudoscience and is of no value to science.

Its not religion, that is a misrepresentation of ID. And not only is it a misrepresentation, but its stubbornly being persisted after multiple corrections. And this is partly why i took a break from this thread because its....getting on my nerves.

And if its pseudoscience, then darwinian naturalism or materialism also would equally fit pseudoscience.

Attempting to do something is not evidence that a theory should be accepted or rejected. The intelligent design movement is attempting to many things and none of those attempts are any reason to reject the theory of evolution or the hypotheses proposed for the origin of life.

So why cant ID be a competting hypotheses for the origin of life?

No one here is going to reject any scientific theory or hypothesis based on any prediction you have made or what you are claiming is prediction.

Oh i know they wont. And i know also youl never believe. Atleast, truely.

The views of the intelligent design movement and your views are religious with the aim of wedging science out of the picture, so all views are relevant and available for discussion.

False, false, and false. Stubborn and misrepresentation. Just stop doing it. If all you can do is misrepresent, then logically you got NOTHING.

No. Material natural processes can be tested, reproduced in the laboratory and observed. A non-specific supernatural intelligence cannot be tested.

No, it has not been tested in the lab and shown that life can come from none intelligence. That has not been shown. Nor has it been tested or shown that codes come from unguided forces in the lab. If you deny that, PROVIDE A PROVEN source. PROVEN one. I repeat, proven one. I mean it, dont waste my time giving me a bs source that just speculates.

Sorry. No we cannot. What you are detecting is your desire for evidence of intelligence to exist. You are biased and not objective at all.

If im biased, then so are you.

I think we have enough people on here with no prior knowledge of science or logic that we can leave children to be children.

You just want to attack just to attack, thats what this looks like to me.

Ants are not intelligent in the same sense as humans are intelligent.

I cant believe that i gotta even respond to this. I mean, seriously, do you say this because you really think i dont know that humans are more intelligent then ants? Im very aware of that.

Nest building behavior--like the behavior of ants--appears to have a strong behavioral/genetic basis, not requiring much direct thought at all, outside of what is required to gather and pile sticks and refuse.

My gosh, the birds and ants use there little brains to build there nests and hills. Yea, they do it with instinct, but, there using there little intelligence to do it. Why do i got to argue this? Its incredable to me.

This is a ridiculous idea. It would not go to testing your beliefs.

Children will come up with all kinds of answers. All we would end up with is evidence for what children think and no answers that would be useful in furthering your religious cause.

Its a test, yes it is. Gosh. You guys like to deny everything. Literally everything. Theres no credability in that.

An appearance of design is not design. A mirage can be the appearance of water, but it is not water.

Apples to oranges. Design is not a mirage.

All of this is based on your biased opinion and beliefs with cherry-picked pieces that you think support your belief.

Yea, if you say so. Ill let you believe that, go ahead. Its false, but hey, no amount of rational argument from me is gonna change your mind. Thats for sure.

Irreducible complexity is a failed concept that has not been and cannot be observed.

Yea.....ok then, if you say so.

None of these are predictions of any value. They are the using existing knowledge to generate so called predictions about history and biology for which we do not have all the answers for in science yet. It is the ultimate God of the gaps argument in the form of predictions. The rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record is a detail of evolution that is still under study, but all the evidence is still supported by explanations based on natural phenomena.

You can deny the predictions of ID if you want. Have at it. If it makes ya feel better, have at it.

Homology of structure is explained by evolution and we did not need religion to find that explanation.

Ok, so DNA, whats the homology there? And our bodies, what about that?

Theistic evolution is still a religious belief, just like design.

Remember you Said your like francis callins? Your actually not. Francis callins still said theistic evolution, God DESIGNED that process. He also said that the evidence tips toward God. Yes, he used the word evidence. While you say theres no evidence. He also uses the fine tuning of the universe. But you deny the fine tuning.

I recognize Collins' religious views. Francis Collins also knows that he cannot demonstrate his religious views.

Francis callins admits he cant prove it, but he did say the evidence tips in favor of God.

You are confused. That view of theistic evolution only states that life evolved without guidance from God. It does not say anything about the origin of that life and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. At least it is an attempt to harmonize and adjust belief with what is observed and explained by science and not trying to throw science out so that some weird version of Christianity is forced into schools against the Constitution and the will of rational people.

Theistic evolution states that God made the laws, God started life, then let the universe and life run and or evolve on its own.

If you deny this, then your a walking contradiction.

And theres nothing in the constitution that is against evidence. Theres evidence of ID whether you like it or not.

You do realize there is a difference between what God does directly and what God just allows to happen?

Yes.

Francis Collins is speaking of his beliefs and not what he knows about science. He can separate the two things, but you cannot. You should learn to.

I should learn to be a walking contradiction, like you? Hell no!

Also id like callins speak for himself. He is not contradicting himself like you do.

He says the evidence tips in Gods favor.

Francis Collins has not suggested that his beliefs replace science in education or practice.

Ive never said beliefs should replace science. But materialistic naturalism for the origin of DNA and life and the universe is no more science then ID would be by your definition.

He is spot on with regards to ID. I do know that some of the proponents accept some modified and reduced version of evolution, but the main thrust of the movement is to rid science of evolution and science and to put Christian theology in its place.

No you dont know that. Thats a misrepresentation and you stubbornly hold to it because you frankly got nothing of substance to refute ID.

You have been hoodwinked.

You have been hoodwinked by your own stubborness.