[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent Design

[Vaccine]

Remember, even if a paragraph includes "specificity" and "complex", it doesn't mean that the paragraph is saying anything about "specified complexity."

They said it was complex in this way, FURTHERMORE it was specific in that way. "Furthermore" is a conjunction, it links the two sentences together.

Your establishing a double standard by calling them dishonest

Can you show where I defended someone for misrepresenting the words of others?

When ICR saw specified-complexity in ENCODE's analysis and proclaimed intelligent design, you say that's dishonest.


Let's apply your logic to evolution:
Remember, even if a paragraph includes "adapt" and "environment", it doesn't mean that the paragraph is saying anything about "evolution".
By that logic most the evidence presented for evolution would be considered "dishonest".

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Remember, even if a paragraph includes "specificity" and "complex", it doesn't mean that the paragraph is saying anything about "specified complexity."

They said it was complex in this way, FURTHERMORE it was specific in that way. "Furthermore" is a conjunction, it links the two sentences together.

Hmm... it's true that politicians lie. And cast iron sinks. But that doesn't mean I just said that politicians lie in cast iron sinks. You need more than two words that are kinda close to what you want them to be.

Your establishing a double standard by calling them dishonest

Can you show where I defended someone for misrepresenting the words of others?

When ICR saw specified-complexity in ENCODE's analysis and proclaimed intelligent design, you say that's dishonest.

That's criticizing someone for misrepsenting the words of others. Remember, ICR said that the ENCODE researchers said it. And as you admitted, they didn't.

Let's apply your logic to evolution:

When someone says "let's apply your logic", it's almost certain, they are going to misrepresent one's logic.

Remember, even if a paragraph includes "adapt" and "environment", it doesn't mean that the paragraph is saying anything about "evolution".

Indeed. Much adaptation is physiological, and not evolutionary at all. Why would this surprise you? There are paragraphs like that about organization structures that include those words.

Supervisors' job responsibilities are changing. As both individuals and members of an organization's managerial team, supervisors need to prepare themselves to adapt successfully to a rapidly changing business environment.
http://www.fmlink.com/article.cgi?t...t&pub=BOMI International&id=31153&mode=source

See, the words are there, but the context doesn't say anything at all about biological evolution. You've just proved my point for me.

By that logic most the evidence presented for evolution would be considered "dishonest".

Nope. Unless you think that passage was about evolution. Think about it.

 

[Vaccine]

These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

 

[Barbarian]

These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.

So nothing about specified complexity there, either. Remember, even if the paragraph has "complex" and "specificity" in it, that doesn't mean that it's saying anything about "specified complexity."

Some ENCODE researchers have concluded that because a large amount of non-coding DNA still has some activity, such as binding of histones, that it must have some important function in organisms. But it doesn't have to be so. This could explain the apparent discrepancy, in which huge amounts of DNA can be removed from the genome of mice with no detectable changes.

After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."
http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020724.html

While it's clear that some non-coding DNA has function, (and this was known as early as the 1960s), the evidence shows that a lot of it can be lost with no effect on the organism.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

How do you define an intelligent cause?

Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science.

Modern science also thinks Plato, Aristotle, etc. were wrong on many of their observations and findings. Their importance is out of respect that they founded science, but not their ideas in themselves.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Actually, this is running the scientific method backwards.

How you would test the theory of intelligent design is first, you would need to define what intelligence is, which would be the observation. Then you set up a hypothesis. If intelligence is the prescience of x, we would expect to find x when examining substance A. The experiment would be to then take the definition of X and try and find it in substance A. Then findings would be recorded. Then the experiment is repeated to see what the result yield. If the results are inconclusive or different, then its back to step one. New observations are then applied.

Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

The problem is that "Intelligence" is not defined. Its just a fill in. If something is shown to be complex and outside our understanding it still doesn't infer intelligence, because we don't know what that is.

 

[Vaccine]

How do you define an intelligentcause?

Hello Meatballsub! I appreciate your interest in this topic. I hope I can answer all your questions. An intelligent cause would an agent capable of guiding or directly causing something to happen oroccur. It is the opposite of the unguided, random, or unintentional causes we see in the natural world. You for one, would be an example of an intelligent cause.

Their importance is out of respect that they founded science, but not their ideas in themselves.

Agreed, it was out of respect for their early version of design they were mentioned. Currently, ID theory is the based on empirical observations of modern science.

Actually, this is running the scientific method backwards.
How you would test the theory ofintelligent design is first, you would need to define whatintelligence is, which would be the observation. Then you set up ahypothesis. If intelligence is the prescience of x, we would expectto find x when examining substance A. The experiment would be to thentake the definition of X and try and find it in substance A. Thenfindings would be recorded. Then the experiment is repeated to seewhat the result yield. If the results are inconclusive or different,then its back to step one. New observations are then applied.

What you say is true if science were actually searching for the identity of said “intelligent†agent, searching or defining intelligence is a job for psychology or theology. Intelligent design is only a search for a cause, the same as natural selection is a cause. When we speak of natural selection, "natural" is just a convenient description of what was observed, one animal surviving or being eaten over another. “Intelligence†is merely a convenient description of a guided, not random, cause.

Intelligent designhas applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreduciblycomplex biological structures, the complex and specified informationcontent in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of theuniverse, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversityin the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530million years ago.

The problem is that "Intelligence" is not defined. Itsjust a fill in. If something is shown to be complex and outside ourunderstanding it still doesn't infer intelligence, because we don'tknow what that is.

I can appreciate your point of view, however ID relates to empirically detecting causes and effects of an intelligent agent, not identifying or defining the intelligent agent.

As far as outside our understanding, intelligent causes are within our understanding. Modern medicine and Dog breeding are examples of intelligent agents at work. Empirical evidence of an intelligent (guided, not random) agent at work. When we find cave drawings or the hieroglyphs, natural (unguided, random) causes alone are not adequate to explain them. Enter ID theory which observes specified-complexity an infers there was an intelligent agent at work.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem for IDers is two-fold. First, no one has found "design" in anything in nature. Indeed, when we find the causes of natural things, they turn out to be natural. God uses nature to do most things in this world.

The second, and more difficult problem for them is; they have failed to make any sort of scientific discovery using their new doctrine. The worst hit on ID from a scientific point of view is that it doesn't do anything.

And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

 

[Vaccine]

And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

Good afternoon Barbarian!
ID is very helpful in that knowing something was designed and has a purpose allows it to be reverse engineered. We see it all the time in technology, but now we know we can apply that to medicine. Knowing an organ, emzyme, or structure has an "optimal" design helps medical research immensly. It's what allows them identify when something goes wrong and make synthetic drugs like synthroid or insulin. ID is what makes nanotechnology possible. Microsoft has reverse engineered the genetic code to develop a programming language meant to compile and "run" programs in a living cell. Discovering the genetic code is an artificial language is the best example of design in nature.

 

[Barbarian]

ID is very helpful in that knowing something was designed and has a purpose allows it to be reverse engineered.

As engineers have found, it can be done with evolved things as well as man-made things. The point is, assuming that something is designed, does nothing for our understanding of it. It's a religious belief with which science can do nothign at all.

We see it all the time in technology, but now we know we can apply that to medicine. Knowing an organ, emzyme, or structure has an "optimal" design helps medical research immensly.

But it doesn't. For example we have enzymes that can be artifically enhanced to work better. And things like human feet, wrists, spine, hips, and knees are all suboptimal with some defects that any designer could have anticipated and corrected.

It's what allows them identify when something goes wrong and make synthetic drugs like synthroid or insulin. ID is what makes nanotechnology possible.

Show me a nanotechnology researcher that assumed the existence of God as part of his research. Sounds very unlikely to me.

Microsoft has reverse engineered the genetic code to develop a programming language meant to compile and "run" programs in a living cell. Discovering the genetic code is an artificial language is the best example of design in nature.

Here, you're assuming what you intended to prove. We know that the DNA code evolved, because there are actually several slightly different versions, depending on the domain. And the differences sort out according to phylogenies obtained by other methods.

 

[Vaccine]

It can be done with evolved things....It's a religious belief with which science can do nothign at all.

Hello Barbarian! I think we can agree we see engineers learning from natural things. I have the opinion we can't know they are looking at an evolved thing. I think you're position is we do know it is an evolved thing. Would you say it is even possible things in nature are designed?
My position is ID theory is science because it is based on empirical observations. I see the point you are making and acknowledge philosophy can and does spawn from scientific theories. Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and other IDer's do have their philosophies and religion, some which I agree some I don't. But I hope you see my position that there is a difference between the science and philosophies, even though Behe said what he did. The theory of evolution is science, social Darwinism is somebody's idea of philosophy, which should be seen as two separate things. This is unrelated to ID or evolution, but I have been thinking about the ethics of genetics and nanotech lately, maybe I'll start a thread.

But it doesn't. For example we have enzymes that can be artifically enhanced to work better. And things like human feet, wrists, spine, hips, and knees are all suboptimal with some defects that any designer could have anticipated and corrected.

I have a feeling we are just going to have to agree to disagree on which description is better, artificially enhanced enzymes/intelligently designed enzymes.
But your do raise a valid point. Are there defects in wrists, spine, knees, etc? Sure. I wouldn't try argue otherwise. My position is entropy or degeneration since the first human explains some. But why someone would design something suboptimal does raise questions. I'll just say from my point of view, I see imperfections by design as God way of saying he loves us, imperfections in our character and all.

Microsoft has reverse engineered the genetic code to develop a programming language meant to compile and "run" programs in a living cell. Discovering the genetic code is an artificial language is the best example of design in nature.

Here, you're assuming what you intended to prove. We know that the DNA code evolved, because there are actually several slightly different versions, depending on the domain. And the differences sort out according to phylogenies obtained by other methods.

From what I know of computer code, ASCII and Hex are just slightly different variations of binary code. Honestly, I do see that the domains of life all have DNA as the best evidence for a common ancestor. But at the same time this is what led me to doubt evolution, not only DNA, but the information stored in it is so specific, one sequence produces a tree, another sequence produces a horse. I just have a hard time accepting nature produced an artificial language.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian! I think we can agree we see engineers learning from natural things. I have the opinion we can't know they are looking at an evolved thing. I think you're position is we do know it is an evolved thing. Would you say it is even possible things in nature are designed?

God could do it any way he liked. But the fact that engineers have discovered that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems, seems to indicate that God did it in the most elegant manner. Which is consistent with everything else we see in creation.

My position is ID theory is science because it is based on empirical observations.

According to the guys who invented it, it's based on faith in their religion.

I see the point you are making and acknowledge philosophy can and does spawn from scientific theories. Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and other IDer's do have their philosophies and religion, some which I agree some I don't. But I hope you see my position that there is a difference between the science and philosophies, even though Behe said what he did. The theory of evolution is science, social Darwinism is somebody's idea of philosophy, which should be seen as two separate things. This is unrelated to ID or evolution, but I have been thinking about the ethics of genetics and nanotech lately, maybe I'll start a thread.

Thinking and learning are always a good idea. That's not guaranteed to get you to the truth, but there's no other way to find the truth for the physical universe.

But it doesn't. For example we have enzymes that can be artifically enhanced to work better. And things like human feet, wrists, spine, hips, and knees are all suboptimal with some defects that any designer could have anticipated and corrected.

I have a feeling we are just going to have to agree to disagree on which description is better, artificially enhanced enzymes/intelligently designed enzymes.
But your do raise a valid point. Are there defects in wrists, spine, knees, etc? Sure. I wouldn't try argue otherwise. My position is entropy or degeneration since the first human explains some. But why someone would design something suboptimal does raise questions. I'll just say from my point of view, I see imperfections by design as God way of saying he loves us, imperfections in our character and all.

Why would it then be so wrong, if He used nature to make us, as he does for almost everything else? Even if our bodies are the result of natural processes He made, our souls are given directly by Him to each of us. That is how we are in His image.

Microsoft has reverse engineered the genetic code to develop a programming language meant to compile and "run" programs in a living cell. Discovering the genetic code is an artificial language is the best example of design in nature.

Barbarian observes:
Here, you're assuming what you intended to prove. We know that the DNA code evolved, because there are actually several slightly different versions, depending on the domain. And the differences sort out according to phylogenies obtained by other methods.

From what I know of computer code, ASCII and Hex are just slightly different variations of binary code.

At the bottom, everything is binary code in a digital computer. The switch is either off or it's on. Higher-level languages merely compiled and run on binary.

Honestly, I do see that the domains of life all have DNA as the best evidence for a common ancestor. But at the same time this is what led me to doubt evolution, not only DNA, but the information stored in it is so specific, one sequence produces a tree, another sequence produces a horse.

But many of the same enzymes that work for the tree, also work for the horse. Cytochrome c, for example. The small differences in that enzyme among living things don't change it's activity (there are spots on the molecule that never change, because those would change how it works) and those changes sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies, too.

just have a hard time accepting nature produced an artificial language.

Maybe all of His creation in this world is natural. Nature is His creation; why wouldn't He use it?

 

[Narwhalist]

I don't mean to intrude in this great conversation, but I thought this might make you think about ID and evolution.
Psalm 19:1-4
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
This declares God as the maker of everything. But how did he do it. We can only speculate, but this passage tells us that He "used His hands to work" and that nature will pour out this knowledge if we seek it. So, two things"
1) Nature is the creation of God and whatever it tells us, MUST be right for God is never wrong.
2) The Bible is God's word, so it is never wrong either.
If there's a problem in interpretation, it is ours not nature's nor the Bible's.
The Bible does not say how God created all, just that He used His hands to do so. So, ID, why not. When you look at a DNA strand it looks like a computer language. But even more intriguing. ID that seems like's organisms are evolving. There's no reason why God couldn't have programmed organisms to evolve a certain way, or created the physical laws to make it so.
Life could not have started on it's own, and I do believe evolution works, however, going back to the Bible. I believe that we are a special creation. Man that exists today was created by God. The reason I believe this is because Jesus does affirm Adams existence in scripture and He would not mislead us.
So how are our existence and the existence of several hominid species that are now extinct coincide. I don't know, and anything I would say would be pure speculation on my part.
I only know that ID is a possibility, especially ID controlled by God that makes use of evolutionary techniques visible when you study Biology.
Whew, I think my brain caught fire. God bless.

 

[Barbarian]

Amen, brother. That sort of ID is, of course, indistinguishable from nature and creation by God through natural processes.

But it's not the sort of ID that the Discovery Institute would accept.

 

[Vaccine]

1) Nature is the creation of God andwhatever it tells us, MUST be right for God is never wrong.
2) TheBible is God's word, so it is never wrong either.
If there's aproblem in interpretation, it is ours not nature's nor theBible's.

Hello Narwhalist! Thank you for that contribution, I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, but I totally agree. I admit any problem will always be with me and my interpretation, which I do amend from time to time as I learn. I have a feeling my views are similar to yours. I wrestle with a young/gap/millions of years, but that's for another thread.
@Barbarian I think I see what you're saying now. Nature is God's creation. He uses it for his purposes. Any suspension/violation/supernatural event in nature would be unnecessary and contrary. However, I believe one of those purposes was the Word. I believe Jesus reserves the right to impose in nature if/when he wants to and is not contrary because it was purposed by God.

 

[Barbarian]

However, I believe one of those purposeswas the Word. I believe Jesus reserves the right to impose in natureif/when he wants to and is not contrary because it was purposed byGod.

That's the point. Why did Jesus do miracles? Not because He had to. He does them in order to teach us something. That's not how He manages nature.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hello Meatballsub! I appreciate your interest in this topic. I hope I can answer all your questions. An intelligent cause would an agent capable of guiding or directly causing something to happen oroccur.

What I need for you to do is define the agent, or how the agent operates. You mention a comparison, but comparisons are best used after you establish your model. You haven't done that yet.

What you say is true if science were actually searching for the identity of said “intelligent†agent, searching or defining intelligence is a job for psychology or theology.

No, it isn't. The intelligent design theory isn't a real theory, unless it explain how the adjacent does it. The point of a theory is to demonstrate a model or equation for use in further study. Without a model, its just a dead end assertion.

Intelligent design is only a search for a cause,

Then its a field of inquiry and study, but not a theory.

the same as natural selection is a cause.

No, natural selection is a model with rules. Natural selection is used as a base model to test adapatability of a species in a system. It is part of the Weinberg Equation for figuring out mutation rates.

When we speak of natural selection, "natural" is just a convenient description of what was observed, one animal surviving or being eaten over another. “Intelligence†is merely a convenient description of a guided, not random, cause.

You are pushing this random thing, but no known theory ( to my knowledge) actually uses random as a descripture. Natural selection isn't random, because its an observable model with rules.

I can appreciate your point of view, however ID relates to empirically detecting causes and effects of an intelligent agent, not identifying or defining the intelligent agent.

Then its neither theory or science. At this point you can't even use empirical evidence. Mainly because in order for your evidence to be empirical or your observation to be empirical, you would need to understand how your adjacent functions.

As far as outside our understanding, intelligent causes are within our understanding.

This isn't zen, its either you understand something or you do not.

Modern medicine and Dog breeding are examples of intelligent agents at work.

You are defining the use of theoretical models as intelligence. Then at this point, inteligence is just application, but not a theory.

When we find cave drawings or the hieroglyphs, natural causes alone are not adequate to explain them.

This is because we use existing observations on tool use. Also, other models that explain how ink and paint work also goes into effect.

Enter ID theory which observes specified-complexity an infers there was an intelligent agent at work.

No, there is no in that. What you are explaining is an observation. If you see a painting, you can make an observation about the substance and material. You can use that to show that it not likely a natural occurrence, but very similar to a human occurrence.

 

[Vaccine]

What I need for you to do is define the agent, or how the agent operates. You mention a comparison, but comparisons are best used after you establish your model. You haven't done that yet.

Take a look at this:
View attachment 3352


Was this designed? Of course.
What does ID say about who designed it? Nothing. Science isn't concerned with who, so much as why. Maybe you might want to know, but that isn't a question for science.
What does ID say about its purpose? I'm sure after close examination we could figure out it was an adding machine.
Can we fix it? Only if we know how it works.

Apply ID to the human body:
Is the human body designed? Yes, according to analysis by ENCODE.
What does ID know about who designed it? Nothing. I have a personal opinion about who and why but it's philosophy, not science, so I'll keep it to myself.
What does ID say is the purpose of the human body? Physiologically to eat, sleep, survive, and reproduce. But there's so much more to life than meets the eye.
Can we fix the human body? Only if we know how it works.
Darwin's theory has taught medicine vestigal organs, vestigal DNA (aka junk DNA), and species improve with mutations. If medical research thinks people are evolving, why should they bother? Let nature take its course.
Medical research is just beginning to learn from ID. Knowing a body has an optimal design is HUGE in identifying problems and cures. How does any doctor know it's broken? Unless he knows how it is supposed to work. Science has recognized design for some time, they just finally made a theory about it. Even if I am not adept at explaining ID or convincing you, it is being accepted by more and more scientists. Nobel prize winner Francis Crick accepts it, Dembski, Kenyon, Behe, Moran.

 

[Vaccine]

Hi everyone! I just thought I'd give a few examples of design:

View attachment 3353
This is a flagellum. It has many similarities with an electric motor and works pretty much the same.

This is ATP synthase. It provides energy to the cells, works very much like a generator.

View attachment 3354

 

[Milk-Drops]

What does ID say about who designed it? Nothing.

Exactly. Its not science. Its not a theory,its nothing. It adds nothing. The sciences are the studying and application of learned knowledge. If ID doesn't actually do anything, then its not science.

Science isn't concerned with who, so much as why.

You haven't provided a Why. You have provided nothing. As you actually stated.

Maybe you might want to know, but that isn't a question for science.

Unless you are asserting a theory that uses the "who" as its basis. Then its not science.

Apply ID to the human body:

You can't, you have yet to provide a model to use.

Is the human body designed? Yes, according to analysis by ENCODE.

Now I can call you a liar because Barbarian already unearthed that you are exaggerating and changing words to fit your assertion. At least the creation institute did this. You are just repeating this.

What does ID know about who designed it? Nothing.

Then its useless.

What does ID say is the purpose of the human body? Physiologically to eat, sleep, survive, and reproduce. But there's so much more to life than meets the eye.
Can we fix the human body? Only if we know how it works.

Wait, ID does not say any of that. You are taking other theories and claim they are ID. ID has not provided anything here.

Darwin's theory has taught medicine vestigal organs,

Vestigial organs were known before Darwin.

vestigial DNA (aka junk DNA),

No, Darwin's theory didn't state this because DNA was discovered a century later. Darwin wasn't even aware of genes.

and species improve with mutations.

Wrong again. Darwin never said mutations by themselves improve organism ( also he never said it improved species) That is why Darwin provided a model called natural selection. That explained how the theory worked. You do not understand the very thing you are trying to critique.

If medical research thinks people are evolving, why should they bother?

Because medical science is fitted around the same rules of Biology as Evolution and because of the theory of evolution, medical application has seen great strides in fields of Virology and Vaccines.

Medical research is just beginning to learn from ID.

No, there is no ID model to work with.

Knowing a body has an optimal design is HUGE in identifying problems and cures.

Where did evidence for the optimal designed body come from? Definitely not ID since ID doesn't have a model. You have also told me in another thread that you don't have evidence of an optimal body design. So what exactly is medical science learning from a theory with no model and an assertion without a specimen?

How does any doctor know it's broken? Unless he knows how it is supposed to work.

Actually its based on how something functions normally. IF your leg usually bends and suddenly it doesn't anymore, chances are its broken.

Science has recognized design for some time, they just finally made a theory about it.

Except the part where there is no theory because there is no model or function.

Even if I am not adept at explaining ID or convincing you, it is being accepted by more and more scientists.

Where are you getting your numbers? Are these scientists Biologists, physicists, or geologists?

Nobel prize winner Francis Crick accepts it, Dembski, Kenyon, Behe, Moran.

So what, have they developed a model for it?

 

[Vaccine]

Exactly. Its not science. Its not a theory,its nothing. It adds nothing. The sciences are the studdying and application of learned knowledge. If ID doesn't actually do anything, then its not science.

Hey Meatballsub! I agree correct studying and applying learned knowledge is science. I think I see what you are asking now. Intelligent design model predicts specified-complexity, and irreducible-complexity. Observing these models in the world is extremely helpful to microbiology. Take a look at my previous post. ATP generates energy for the cell similar to a generator. Knowing how an electric generator works, knowing the weaknesses and strenghts in the design, is extremely helpful to anyone wanting to understand ATP synthase. Take a look at the rotary motor on a flagellum. Knowing how an electric motor works, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the design, is extremely helpful to anyone wanting to understand the rotary motor driving a flagellum.

Is the human body designed? Yes, according to analysis by ENCODE.

Now I can call you a liar because Barbarian already unearthed that you are exaggerating and changing words to fit your asserciton. At least the creation institute did this. You are just repeating this.

I'm gonna make a macro for this quote:

ENCODE did the research and providedthis data analysis:

These analyses portray a COMPLEXLANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges ofhundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactionsamong unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60%of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four celllines, indicative of ahigh degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

ENCODE's analyses was there exists specified-complexityin the gene element connectivity. This was the work of 594scientists, which was submitted to an academic journal for peerreview, and then reprinted in the National Institute of Health whichassures the credibility of the research and data analysis.

ENCODE's ANALYSES was specified-complexity. My pants aren't on fire.:naughty