Continued: 5. The effort of such a "DNA Pattern Institute" is bogus because their real agenda is put get their religious ideas in textbooks. All people are biased to some extent. Is it not possible that a pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as revenge for trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his adolescent church group? The definition of science should not depend on such human motivations. Linking the definition of science to human emotions and motivations is asking for trouble. It would turn science into a soap opera. We don't know how to reverse engineer living neurons, so measuring motivations is barely more than an art. Again, science should focus on ideas, not what people are thinking. 6. String Theory at least involves math, but ID has no math. Evolution used to not have significant math associated with it either and was still considered a scientific theory at that point, or at least a scientific idea. MU generally is not defended via math either. Having a mathematical model boosts a theory, or at least the testability of a theory, but is not a prerequisite to be called a scientific idea based on historical patterns. 7. Humans have such a strong bias toward proposals that involve intelligent intervention or interference that we should discard them. The suggestion that any intelligence-based theory should be summarily thrown out is ridiculous. The laws of the universe don't activate or deactivate based on what humans think. It is even possible to accidentally be right. We may also be able to create our own life forms, virtual or real, one day. Summarily tossing all theories related to biased writers reminds me of the saying, "Just because you are paranoid does not necessarily mean they are not out to get you". I doubt any human being is bias-free anyhow. 8. Your working definition of Intelligent Design (below) assumes one can measure "complexity". There is no consensus way to measure complexity That is perhaps true. However, all "origin of complexity" theories will be stumped by the same problem. If it is claimed that evolution can "increase complexity", then lack of a complexity metric will make such a claim hard to test. If one instead reduces evolution claims to merely "explaining change", then one could point to many other agents that also cause change; such as weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical reactions, rust, etc. Merely claiming to cause change is not very useful and does not help separate competing agents of change. Thus, evolution is potentially in the same boat. 9. You compared SETI to looking for patterns in DNA. But SETI does not claim they can always know intelligent signals for sure when they find something. Almost nothing in science is "for sure". There is strong evidence, medium evidence, and weak evidence (and everything in-between). I don't see why the definition of science should include the finding of only strong evidence. Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so easily. Searching for tough-to-find evidence is still part of science (although not always the wisest expenditure of effort). Like mentioned above, scientific ideas such as MU are perhaps never even testable in the end. I think most would agree that finding the first million prime numbers right next to each other in DNA would at least be weak evidence for intelligent design or intelligent interference of some sort. Extra points if the prime numbers alternate with the digits for Pi (using a base appropriate to DNA). 10. If we open the door to speculative ideas such as ID, then we will have to allow in ghosts and fairy tells. This is a typical slippery-slope fallacy. I have heard ID-like questions raised in biology class, but never fairy tells (outside of jokes). If and when it does become a problem then the issue can be revisited. Until then, just relax. More to come... Working Definition of Intelligent Design Because there are various incarnations of ID floating around, I felt I should make clear the working version I am using here. Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s). The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc. If this version differs too much from those put forth by Bible proponents, then so be it. This version is based almost entirely on the observation of sources of complexity, not religion. "Fully observed" means there is a clear human-observed record of the process creating complexity from basic building materials such as raw elements and commonly-occurring minerals and chemicals. Issues regarding measuring complexity are addressed in the question and answer section above. Common Abbreviations Used Here: * ID - Intelligent Design hypothesis * Evo - Evolution theory based on Darwin's Natural Selection concept * MU - Multiple Universe hypothesis based on the Anthropic Principle * ST - String Theory, a model attempting explain physics at large and small scales http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
Oh, its MACRO -EVOLUTION thats in trouble. Well, why didnt you say so? Ive read all of darwins work, and your postulations as to his theory are little light on. Darwins overall theory makes little sense, without his other more important works. You have actually read all of darwins work, right? Your aware, the book was banned for some time,(by the same crowd now bringing us ID) and that his most important work isnt even mentioned in any curriculum, nor examined as an educational tool? Further, that JUNK you just posted about half-bats is CRAP. Granted, it wasnt your crap specifically, but people only established "dragons" may have existed due to more extansive farming and mining enterprises. We dont know about it, so it couldnt exist. What was this thread about again?
Looks like another member of the "shout down" crowd at work. Keep padding the numbers.... It is a riot to me that the atheists believe they can comment on religion and religious texts and ideas, personal faith, etc........but when a theist comments on science....that is not allowed in "their world." Too funny actually, the myopia is beyond a certain blindness. p.s. Oh, and by your "argument" of the need to read the totality of an author....if you haven't read each and every scripture in the origonal text and language, then of course you are not in a position to comment on them.... p.p.s. Love your objective scientific evaluation of some idea and theory as "crap." Yep, labeling an idea as crap is a term scientists use in their scientific papers all time.
Shout down what? What am i against? Padding what numbers? Did i mention, i was taught ID as an alternative theorum at school? It takes like, 5 minutes, there isnt that much to it, when presented in the context of chemistry and quantum physics. Answer the question, have you read darwins work-ALL OF IT?????? Were you taught ID in school, and what was your assesment?? ON what, is your multitude of opinions based??
Oh, ive read all the religious texts. But only the 2-3 ENGLISH versions available, transcribed by presumably trustworthy religious types. Is there an interpreter for "Z" speak on babelfish? Must look into that.
I was not taught ID in school. 100% Darwinism. Complexity of theory is not a necessary indicator of a truth, quite the reverse is often, as greater complexity often takes us farther and farther away from axiomatic thinking.
Oh, you have read and fully understood all the English translations of every single scripture of every single religion? Really..... Translations...well, there you go. From my point of view, you have just established yourself as another pseudo intellectual lost in translation....
lol Z... you have completely given up on any pretense of dialectic, I see. This is a good thing. It's easier for people to see your real motivations. Could you post with that refusal to answer any more challenges to the assertions you are making re: ID and evolution? Have you really made 160 posts in the last 60 hours? Assuming even 20 hours of sleep, that would be 4 posts an hour every hour for the entire time you were awake. Actually I think it was through 3 sleep cycles, so it must be even more. Also, have you really averaged 17+ posts a day for the past 540 days? If you average 4 posts an hour, that would mean you spend almost 5 hours a day every day posting here, every day for 540 days straight. However there must have been at least 100 days when you could not post. So what does that mean...7 hours a day posting here? However, I rarely see you posting in the trading areas. So you are posting a lot of political/religious material, or so it seems. Why is that? Why do you post here so much? Do you post on other BBs?
His opinions are based on the fact that he thinks they are reasonable. He has said so repeatedly on this thread. Whenever someone asks him "But Z, why is it that you believe this? We are talking about presenting ID as alternative to evolution in our schools; to do so we must be able to tell kids 'Here's why some people believe in evolution and here's why some people believe in ID' ". The problem is, every time we ask Z why he believes in ID, so that we can get an understanding of the arguments in favour of it and make a determination as to whether it would be appropriate to change school curricula to accommodate it, we get this response. "I believe in it because I think it's reasonable" (!!) or "I prefer to believe in it" or "You can't prove it isn't correct" (!!) I presume that Z's idea is that we should teach this in schools and when kids say "What evidence is there for ID?" we should say "The evidence is that Z10 thinks it's reasonable and that he says you can't prove it isn't correct and Pat Buchanan likes the theory". For anyone new to this thread, I am not making this up - these are direct quotes from Z. He actually said, when asked for evidence of his claims. "You can't prove it isn't true"
By the way, Z... you haven't told me what you think about my new proposal, that TD be taught in schools. I believe it is a reasonable theory and you can't prove it isn't true. Any comment, Z?