The subject is "Intelligent Design is not creationism." Doh! My "subject" is how the entire evolutionary theory rests on the ignorant assumption that events are random simply because a pattern cannot be seen. I say ignorant assumption, because that is exactly what is happening, an assumption of no design or pattern, simply because none is seen. Yes, there is no existing formula to rule out pattern and design, no test, no logical argument that design is impossible....nothing but faith in patternless ignorant chance being propagated an atheistic agenda advanced...
"There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection." http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html It takes but a moment to catch someones drift... It all revolves around the concept of random, that is the linchpin... He has his opinions, his agenda, and I have no interest in arguments from ignorance...
No, there is no formula to show design is impossible any more than there is a formula to show that events observed as random are actually random and not programmed, in an open system such as the universe. You guys are so funny, dancing on the head of the pin of randomness...
Why should I watch a video that for all I know has nothing to do with the subject of this thread? Can you present one argument that Miller makes that convinces you that ID is creationism? If so, present it here. If I find it valid I will watch the video.
funny you telling someone like this he argues from ignorance while you are afraid to even listen to what he says. whats your major accomplishment other than resident troll on et? Kenneth R. Miller Professor of Biology Ph. D., 1974, University of Colorado Box G-B5 Brown University Providence, Rhode Island 02912 I am interested in the detailed relationships of structure and function in biological membranes. One of the principal experimental systems which my lab has used is to photosynthetic membrane. By using the freeze-etching technique, metal replicas can be prepared for the electron microscope which capture the fine details of membrane structure. These can be correlated with the polypeptide and lipid composition of the membrane. We have also begun to investigate structure-function relationships in plasmodesmata, the junctions that link plant cells. Using the freeze-etching technique we have prepared high-resolution images of these junctions. In the next few months we expect to be able to follow the movement of macromolecules from cell to cell through the junction at the resolution level of the electron microscope.
it does.if nothing else i would think you might want to watch it to advance your knowledge on the subject.
I think you are giving the cosmological constant way too much evidentiary force. I see nothing inherent in the existence of a cosmological constant that leads inescapably to the conclusion that the constant must have been designed into the universe. It could just as easily be the product of random chance. And the string theory which suggests multiverses, with potentially different cosmological constants, gives as much support to random chance of universes containing variant life forms (or no life forms), as it give support to an intelligent designer behind all of those universes. In the end, you are still stuck with the fundamental problem: were all the universes created by a designer or were they always just "there?" If you have a hypothesis which can be experimentally verified and which will answer the above question, then you will have the world's attention. Until then, however, all the cosmological constant proves is that there's a cosmological constant. So, to bring this back to my point: no ID advocate has yet produced any verifiable experiment to prove that organic life is designed. And, the existence of a cosmological constant brings them no closer to that verifiable goal.
Let's say that I agree with you that ID is not Creationism, substantially for the reasons that you state in this thread. However, I submit that Creationists have hijacked the idea of ID in order to advance what is essentially a religious view that humans are the product of a divine creator who intends a special place for human-kind in the universe. Most of the major figures in ID (Dembski, Behe, et. al.) are admitted Christians who have publicly admitted the above-described goal as part of their personal agenda. As does the Discovery Institute, which is funded by a fundamentalist christian. Assuming that you agree with the above (and, of course, you may not), then I still submit that in order for you to make ID into a scientific subject, you must conduct verifiable experiments to show that what appears to be random mutation is in fact something else. Do you have any verifiable experiments to offer? If so, please describe cite the experiments, summarize and refer me to the published results.