Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[godslanguage]

So far as I see it there is no reason to abandon evolutionary theory and simply say it is much too complex to solve.

ID does not say its too complex to solve, ID says because its incredibly complex to solve using ND theories and principles of ND scientific experimentation (those past and future failures will be no different), ID takes into account the defining meaning of all hierarchical reality, a reality that defines mind, intelligence, purposeful, predictive, goal-directed and goal-intended processes to a test ND theory would never hope to include, tests that ND theories would never acknowledge as scientific because of the implications. Nevertheless taking into account these hierarchical layers of reality requires far more advanced scientific research and engineering principles. Its a study of strict "integrated design" of modular real-time systems that incorporates biological design, ID looks at "causation" and in effect reaches different conclusions on how such incredibly complex systems were created.

[Jad]

"So a painting implies a painter only because we know by previous experience that paintings are put together by painters."

On the other hand, by the same token, if I didn't know what a painting looked like or what a painter does, I'd probably be curious as to how it put itself together into a frame, on a canvas and how the paint was applied to it, what chemicals and elements created the texture etc... (ie: the mechanism behind such a painting, even if that painting looked like either something I recognized or something I didn't recognize). I'd also compare something of that caricature to other natural components (which at that time I'd assume it came from nature since I don't know what a painting looked like or who a painter was). I don't have to know who the designer was or even what a painting was to determine something even as simple as object "X" must not have assembled itself.

Again you're applying the watchmaker argument to the frame, the canvas and how the paint was applied to it. If you had no previous experience of say a piece of wood shaped like a frame, or a material-like canvas, or a paintbrush for applying paint you would not be able to come to the conclusion that it was something designed.
When we look at pictures of mars and see the shape of a face on the surface, is that designed? When we look at a map of Italy we see a shoe, is that designed? In both cases we know weather has a lot to do with it, or nature I should say. It only looks like a face on mars because we are familiar with faces and Italy only looks like a shoe because we are familiar with shoes.

"This is not just some argument derived from the personal opinion of someone in the 1800's, it was one of the main arguments used in the Denver courtroom regarding the teaching of ID in public schools."

Well, it may have been valid back then when people didn't know much about anything, (ie: falling for Darwins hoax) but now its invalid. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Back then as in the Denver court case two years ago in 2005?

The argument is still valid today. I could have used a modern day explanation of the argument but I used the John Stuart Mill argument firstly out of personal preference and secondly to show this is not a new argument against ID.

"The other thing ID'ers do is make out that chance alone could not do it. It begs the question, chance to who? Again it implies that if it looks like pure chance to the human mind then it cannot be valid. I think this is a wrong assumption. And yes you can turn my argument around on the Darwinian evolutionist as well like you have done in your signature, "Living systems only have the appearance of being evolved"

This is non-sense. Mathematical concepts and models are universally applied, probabilities tend to go against this "favor in chance logic". So its not merely the human mind that denies DE to chance logic, its mathematical principles that tend to go against it. The current known variables that would determine the probability in self-assembly of the first living cell are not fully-known, respectively. However, even if more variables in regards to unknown properties of the universe to initiate the cause and effect sequence of events to assemble the first cell are found, the present high probabilities of those arrangements will still be significantly high. Many (Darwinists) expect the number to decrease significantly as more scientific research is endured, but what if this number gets increasingly higher?, what then? Do we still assume chance assembly logic can occur?

How is your argue different that chance assembly logic can occur based on the human mind and that it cannot occur based on the human mind? Or to put it in other words, how do you come to the conclusion that the mind favors non-chance assembly instead of chance assembly logic?

I agree mathematical concepts, new technologies for studying the natural sciences etc. all help the Christian world view as they continue to show some kind of order or reason the more and more we study the natural sciences. Like the example of the rainbow I gave earlier; to Noah it would have looked like a natural phenomena or for lack of a better word, a 'miracle'. But nowadays we know the process in how and why a rainbow occurs. It is now not some chance or random phenomenon in the sky but a series of events caused by nature.

What you call non-sense (chance) godslanguage only appears like non-sense to you and I right now. As I said earlier God's ways are higher than our ways and God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. What I am trying to say here is there is no such thing whatsoever as perfect chance or pure randomness. It only appears like chance or randomness to you and I but to God it is not. God's creation is revealed to us the further we study it but that doesn't mean we rule out chance right off the bat because we can't see God in it at the time. The atheistic evolutionist is quick to jump on the 'chance' bandwagon and simply conclude that it is all chance and randomness and therefore there is no need for a God. Unfortunately for him the further we study the natural sciences the smaller chance theory becomes. The cosmological argument is a great argument against this atheistic approach to the natural sciences.


-

[Enigma7457]

What proposal of mechanisms? To say something is irreducibly complex suggests there is no reason to even investigate on the basis that it can't be done. That attitude has no place in the scientific method. If the hypothesis is "this is so complex it has no possibility of ever being figured out,"

ID does not say that. Irreducible Complexity says it is too complicated (complex) to be created randomly, not too complex to be created at all.

It merely takes the random factor out and subsitutes it for an intelligent agent. It is then up to the individual to decide who that agent is.

[Enigma7457]

NObody is denying Natural Selection. The stronger (more fit) a species is, the more it will produce. But randomness together with Natural Selectionis the root behind evolution (darwinian). ID does not take out natural selection and it does not necessarily take out common descent either (though the latter part is debatable), it merely takes out the random.

Sorry if i missed your question, what was it?

[Jad]

Randomness alone is not the mechanism of natural selection.

Randomness to who? I think just because it looks random to us does not mean there is true randomness. As you stated,"steadily, things are indeed found out. It seems the further we study the natural sciences things aren't so random after all."

How would you design an experiment under the scientific method to test intelligent design?

Great question. If I understand the question correctly you cannot. Intelligence on it's own I think is possible to experiment under the scientific method; adding design to it though is in the eye of the beholder. I think the same question could be asked concerning randomness or chance. How can you randomly create an experiment under the scientific method to test randomness? Now my head hurts, I'm might go lay down for a bit.


-

[Jad]

How can you test for randomness? Every time the degradation of of C14 or other radioactive atoms are used for dating something, scientist are running a test on randomness. The reliable timing of the expulsion of a certain number of particles from a given mass of the substance is measured. On the other hand, if you could identify any given particle in a given atom, you never know when it is going to be expelled - no idea - because the process is random. Random but predictable when you have enough numbers.

Swingin' on a star,

An Ape

Again random to who though? It just looks like randomness to us finite beings is all I am saying. Until perhaps one day we find out just how non random it really is like everything else these great scientists find out when they continue in the study of the natural sciences.

[zoegirl]

I understand what Jad is saying, though. To us, we can say something is random or unpredictable. To an infinite being, though, who is omniscient and omnipotent, what is apparently random to us is perfectly predictable to that being.

Jad, am I reading you correctly?

[Jad]

I understand what Jad is saying, though. To us, we can say something is random or unpredictable. To an infinite being, though, who is omniscient and omnipotent, what is apparently random to us is perfectly predictable to that being.

Jad, am I reading you correctly?

Yes you are correct zoegirl, thanks. That is one of my arguments anyway. My purpose here is not to debunk all that is within ID but to point out some of the arguments that should not be used to support it. I do rather like the term Intelligent Agent though as opposed to Intelligent Design which was mentioned by Enigma7457. It rolls off my tongue a lot easier.

I heard another interesting argument against the idea of 'design implying a designer' just a few hours ago. Tell me what you think of this...

If design implies a designer, then can the same analogy not be applied to the designer Himself? As in if the designer is so 'designed' in and of himself, does that not imply a designer for the designer as well, according it's very own argument? Does the analogy then fall into an infinite regress from some kind of circular reasoning?


-

[Gman]

The thing is I don't think chance can be nullified. How could we in our right mind render or declare something legally void or inoperative simply because it looks like chance to us as humans? Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Just because some things now look like chance to us does not mean they won't in the future when we've had the chance (pun intended hehe) to do a little more research on it. I think the ID'ers are a too quick to try and nullify chance simply because it only looks like chance to you and I. Again, watchmaker syndrome echoing loud and clear here.

Jad.. I believe you are mistaken or I'm not following you here. First off, I wouldn't believe that God would use chance in his arsenal for creation. Would you? To imply that God used chance or what may "seem" like chance is to imply that creation was an accident or a "happy" accident. If life was formed by chance then who needs God? This is what the Darwinian evolutionists believe, not what a creationist may believe. Also, chance is NOT a strong solution as some may think. It has NEVER been seen to produce life out of non-living chemicals...

Well there are a select few scientists out there that have become Christians because they see data pointing to a young earth. If that's the case then I think it's worth looking into because it seems some people don't have to have prepositional creationism to render the data plausible. I can't say the same for ID'ers and either can the court room.

Jad you might want to read this article on the scientific evidence for a young earth. There is much against it...

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

[Gman]

I have a question. How would you design an experiment under the scientific method to test intelligent design?

An Ape

Here... http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

An Elephant

[zoegirl]

Gman,

Jad is not saying that God used chance. He, although again, Jad, please correct me if I am wrong, is saying that to us, what seems like a process that depends and operates on chance is actually a process that is entirely under God's control. Is it not possible that we are such finite beings that it can be close to incomprehensible that this could be so. It might look like random processes and yet in reality it isn't.

[Gman]

Gman,

Jad is not saying that God used chance. He, although again, Jad, please correct me if I am wrong, is saying that to us, what seems like a process that depends and operates on chance is actually a process that is entirely under God's control. Is it not possible that we are such finite beings that it can be close to incomprehensible that this could be so. It might look like random processes and yet in reality it isn't.

I'm just saying the more credence we give to chance (with or without God or perceived), the more we can say that it didn't involve a creator (or is used against the creator concept). I don't think we need to go there because I don't think we need to inflate "chance" or "randomness" into the monster or God as it is perceived to us today.

[zoegirl]

However, should we reject an arguement jsut because it might seemingly give the opposition strength? In that case are we not in some measure admitting to a fear that God cannot withstand scrutiny?

I don't think we would be giving chance any more credence. We would be the ones asserting that it isn't chance. After all, naturalists, by their own rules, cannot exclude the existence of a God. In fact, havent we in some part given their arguemnt credibility by ommision? We are allowing them to eatablish what can and cannot by in God's possible mechanisms? By saying that "God didn't do it that way"....are we not crippling ourselves if, if fact, there are some lines of evidence that shows that things happened in a supposedly naturalistic means. In their arguments, they say they can establish how things happened by chance. But aren't they really simply saying how things *did* happen ? Can they even remotely establish God's involvement? OR eliminate it?

Are we shooting ourselves in the foot or even limiting our presentation of our God by saying we can't think of this? That God is so incredibly omnipotent that He could be in charge of even apparently meaningless random events?

Just thoughts out loud....

[Jad]

The thing is I don't think chance can be nullified. How could we in our right mind render or declare something legally void or inoperative simply because it looks like chance to us as humans? Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Just because some things now look like chance to us does not mean they won't in the future when we've had the chance (pun intended hehe) to do a little more research on it. I think the ID'ers are a too quick to try and nullify chance simply because it only looks like chance to you and I. Again, watchmaker syndrome echoing loud and clear here.

Jad.. I believe you are mistaken or I'm not following you here. First off, I wouldn't believe that God would use chance in his arsenal for creation. Would you? To imply that God used chance or what may "seem" like chance is to imply that creation was an accident or a "happy" accident. If life was formed by chance then who needs God? This is what the Darwinian evolutionists believe, not what a creationist may believe. Also, chance is NOT a strong solution as some may think. It has NEVER been seen to produce life out of non-living chemicals...

Yes zoegirl is right, I don't believe God uses chance at all, in fact I believe there is no such thing as true chance. Just because something looks like chance to you and I and whatever looks like complete randomness in the science lab today does means that God uses chance and randomness. It also doesn't mean that what looks like chance today will still look like chance to us tomorrow. The continuing study of the natural sciences reveals every day a new reason for a cause and every time that happens the idea of true chance gets more unrealistic and more unrealistic. In short it simply looks like chance to us because God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and God's ways are higher than our ways. That is the basic gist of it.

Well there are a select few scientists out there that have become Christians because they see data pointing to a young earth. If that's the case then I think it's worth looking into because it seems some people don't have to have prepositional creationism to render the data plausible. I can't say the same for ID'ers and either can the court room.

Jad you might want to read this article on the scientific evidence for a young earth. There is much against it...

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

That web pages uses all it's arguments from two books dated 1995 and 1992. This page below is a web page from YEC's AiG and it's a list of what arguments not to use in defense of a young earth. Much of which are found in the link you provided...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar ... nt_use.asp

The link you provided also implies that YEC's deny certain facts of nature , however unintentionally, because they did not fit into their belief system, and that old earth creationists do not fall under this category. I think there are good arguments for both young and old earth creationism. My only suggestion is to read the evidence for YEC from a current YEC website and not old YEC evidence interpretation from an old earth creation website only.

I'm not advocating either sides here, I think we need to look at both evidences with the least amount of bias as possible. My personal conclusion from my 10 years of study in it is that I simply do not know.


-

[bizzt]

An Elephant

Nice!