Kurieuo:
Definately not. [...]
What ID would say though is that Darwinian evolution is perhaps the best natural explanation we have, yet this natural explanation is inadequate to account for the complexities we see.
It seems to me we are saying the same thing. You say ID claims that (any) natural explanation is inadequate, which is exactly what I meant by "cannot be explained".
I simply don't consider an inadequate explanation to be an explanation.
After all
Canuckster1127 (who claimed to be an ID supporter, at least philosophically speaking) said
ID is the belief that natural selection in and of itself is insufficient to
explain the complexity of life.
I look around and I found the source from which you pasted the description of ID (Dembski) as well as some other stuff. It seems to me they acknowledge the natural explanations just to say readily after that such natural explanations are inadequate.
Unfortunately I could not find any clue about the motivation leading them to claim they are inadequate.
Can someone tell me why natural causes cannot (or if you prefer are inadequate to) explain emergence of CSI and IC?
Not to mention why ID should be considered a better explanation than the natural!
Kurieuo:
ID does not rule out common ancestry at all.
That reminds me of another discussion I had in the past.
I asked if ID accepts common ancestor and you replied that ID does not rule out common ancestry.
Unfortunately that is not what I asked.
Are you claiming that there is no shared ID position about common ancestor?
Something like "ID is compatible but remains agnostic about the common ancestor"?
Since ID is not concerned with the designer this question need not be answered.
Therefore, talk about the designer including assumptions about who or what it is would be best left to philosophers and theologians.
Well ok. I ask it to philosophers and theologians.
(theologians? why theologians? I understood that the designer had nothing to do with God!)
As maybe I told you I'm collecting informations for a project which was assigned to me.
It is required to be a rational project. I cannot write ID is claiming that life needs a designer to be explained but at the same time it rejects any question about the designer.
I can understand ID does not want to identify the designer with Christian God but it is taking a strong position about some characteristics of such a designer (it is intelligent in the first place!)
I don't think I asked any quality of the designer which is not already included in ID arguments.
Kurieuo:
Does one need to know who the designer is before they can realise something is designed? No.
I did not ask "who the designer is". But if one claims that the designer created something which needs intelligence to be created, one is claiming that the designer is intelligent, am I wrong?
Any comment?
sandy_mcd quoting Dembski:
Information can be specified. Information can be complex. Information can be both complex and specified. Information that is both complex and specified I call "complex specified information," or CSI for short.
I already saw this definition around. I do not understand it. What does it mean specified?
Complex? Can it be measured? It seems to me it must be if one looks at the arguments that follows.
What is the relation between CSI and Kolmogorov complexity? They seem extremely closed though I know Kolmogorov complexity cannot be computed.
I seems to me none of you consider the points:
- Wouldn't it be the same (or simpler) if I assume that life is caused by a natural ZForce which has never been observed if not through its effects, which by its nature creates CSI, and has nothing to do with intelligence?
Both the notions are just assumed by their effect without further evidences.
So why should I prefer ID to ZForce?
- The fact that an eye stop functioning as an eye doesn't mean it would have no function at all... This destroyes the IC's argument.
I believe these are trivial arguments I should be ready to answer.