ID is not ignorant chance. Just as darkness is not light. Just as darkness is non existent, but the product of a lack of light, the conclusion of ignorant chance is an ignorant guess that a non existent condition is some reality, which comes to people as a result of the lack of intelligence to see design and causation is the force which promotes change. You know, when someone goes to Vegas, and throws a 7 at the craps table, we say "luck." What does that mean? There is no real luck in the movement of the dice to the table, the dice bouncing on the table, etc. Everything is governed by firm laws of physics. No luck at all. What is called luck is the disconnect from the event with the person who threw the dice, because they didn't know what they were doing. The suggestion of luck is an admission of ignorance on behalf of the person who is throwing the dice. So an intelligent creature (supposedly, one could wonder how intelligent if found gambling in a casino) makes a decision and acts without all the data, and the results is attributed to "luck." If all the data could be gathered about the die, the environment, the position in which to throw from, all the angles, etc., it could easily be seen that it was not luck at all that produced a 7, but simple physics. No magic, no luck, only ignorance of how to do it repeatedly...or inability to do it repeatedly. Even knowing the exact position to be in, the speed to throw the dice, etc. might not result in a "7" because of the problems with perfect execution. Full knowledge does not always bring perfect execution of a plan. So it is with what we see in nature. Everything is causal, we see effect, and since we don't have enough knowledge to know cause...the Darwinist crowd guesses "dumb luck" or ignorant chance. Yet they don't know this to be true, it could be by design. Very unscientific actually to promote ignorant chance, but that's what we are dealing with when it comes to the Darwinists... Still waiting for proof that changes are by non ID...
All things are not measurable, yet they do exist. Of course I'm referring to things that cannot be held in hand yet the results can be seen. Self sacrifice would be one example. Can it be measured? Can you determine who is capable, for how long, under what circumstances, with any exacting formula? Yet it does exist, does it not? The results can be seen, can't they? Perhaps our science is using the wrong measuring device to measure creation.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle demonstrates that your assertion of determinism patently false. But even if you were correct, your assertion is meaningless, because though the universe were entirely deteriministic in every way has nothing to do with whether or not ID is scientific. If you had a book containing the entire pattern of the progression of universal change, you could measure it, by proposing a start and stop time, and then confirming the pattern via your measurement. Right up until you meet the wall of the supernatural -- the moment where the universe begins. At which point no further measurement is scientifically possible, because there is nothing to measure. ID proposes to measure that which is not contained in your book -- the unmeasurable. Science means to measure only what is in your book -- the measurable. ID is therefore not science because it's unmeasurable.
John Dough wrote: ID is an investigation of the following possibilities: Things were designed to evolve. Evolution was designed. Evolution was used by design.
Oh man, this is "peeing my pants" funny... People latching on Heisenberg's principle, which maybe true for its own level, and think that it applies to macro events like throwing dice? Puuuuleeeeeeeze..... Cause and effect is not determinism... Doh! You continue to introduce the "supernatural" which is not what I am saying at all. I am saying design, not chance... Please trying to keep this as simple as I am making it, don't put words in my mouth, don't bring in principles that don't apply, etc. After all, we are teaching this ignorant chance shit in public schools to children, so it must not be that complicated, right? Design, not chance is just as possible chance, not design. So if both are equally possible, and no test to verify either one, then don't teach either. As simple as that. Still waiting for your proof of ignorant chance...
I think you're missing the point. Astrology exists but it's not scientific, because when subjected to verification by repeatable experiment, no enhanced predictive capability over random chance is demonstrated. Thus Astrology is an unconfirmed hypothesis -- an unproven idea -- but not science. Likewise mathematics is just symbolic logic until actually applied to a physical problem. You can say all day that 2 + 2 = 4, but until you say what the four things are, you are merely constructing an idea without proof. What if it turns out that 2 of the things are apples and two are oranges? When you add them together, do you get four? Yes, you get four things, but you do not get four oranges or apples. Likewise ID is a mathematical postulate that has a ton of interesting equations and theories, but NOT ONE physical experiment confirming it as real. Thus, while ID may exist, and while it even may ultimately be true, until someone actually conducts an experiment to verify something substantive about the math hypothesizing ID, ID remains just a postulate, and not a science. If someone confirms an experiment that shows Astrology can predict future events with greater precision than random chance would suggest, then Astrology will be scientific. Until then, it's not. And, neither is ID.
I don't disagree. At this point ID is not a science, but something does not have to be a science to actually exist. I just argueing that our current science may not be able to measure ID, if in fact ID is the root cause of life
The quantum forces which Heisenberg identifies affect everything in the universe -- including the roll of dice, which are subjected to all sorts of turbulence at the subatomic level. You are claiming that everything in the universe can be determined according to a pattern. Heisnberg's principle conclusively demonstrates otherwise. You are also now digressing to your public policy argument. If you don't want to teach anything to high school students, then legislate it out of the curriculum. Regardless, ID is not science until you prove otherwise. Whereas evolution is science, because it can be subjected to a verifiable test. I'm sorry that you've peed your pants. Maybe you should consider wearing Depends(r).
Hmmm... what's that, the 42nd time in these threads that the ID'ers have been asked to provide one shred of proof for their supposedly 'scientifically provable' theory? Hmmm... is there a pattern emerging here? Or is it random? I wonder if an intelligent designer is behind these statements?? Well, we can rule out the intelligent part for sure... Don't hold your breath for an offer of evidence, John. They have none. ID is a faith-based belief. I also have a belief. I believe that the moon is made of Green Cheese. I am starting a movement to 'promote a science consonant with Green-Cheesian theistic convictions'. My theory is scientifically provable. However, I will not be revealing any of the evidence. Also, even though the big claim I am making is that GC is scientifically provable, I am taking the position that science is brainwashing. I feel uncomfortable if anyone suggests that there's a contradiction in this. Thank you and send me your money.