sheshisown said:
What has kept ID outside the scientific mainstream since the rise of Darwinism has been the lack of precise methods for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones.
Hence my argument about the EM field of study and the EM wave forms being discriminated for by a car radio in a SCAN function. EM is one of the four basic forces in nature SHOWN not only to have ID applied to it - but this is ID science "commercially viable"!
Though the practitioners did not thing of themselves in this light -- It was in fact ID science "left free to advance" because it involved a form of ID that did not threaten an atheist relgionist POV.
In studying and analyzing a system’s components, a design theorist may determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, part of natural law, have an intelligent design, or some combination of the same.
Indeed as I stated -- if it is something that the scientist determines through confirming experiment that "rocks could do given enough time or mass or energy or all of the above" then it is not deemed to be the product of design.
Chance and design are integrally different
True but the objective test for determining the difference is straightforward.
An improbable event is not sufficient to eliminate chance; by flipping a coin long enough, one will witness a highly complex or improbable event.
Indeed -- imagine a series of geologic tremmors causing the coin (or coin-like-rock) to flip - and this goes on for 1000's of years. Surely sequences will arise that are statistically rare. Nevertheless -- rocks are doing it on their own.
What does ID claim?
Intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say that well-defined methods exist, which when based on observable features of the world, can reliably distinguish intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinctionâ€â€notably forensic science, cryptography, and archeology. Essential to all these methods is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity.
Indeed those exist today and though they do not go through the exercise of proving that "a rock could not have fallen and killed a person in this way" in every case -- that is a clear undeniable derivative of their work.
Just how scientific is ID?
The advocates of ID base their arguments on biological and physical data generally accepted in science. They use the same kinds of analytical methods as other scientists. ID scientists “observe†the types of information produced when intelligent agents act, then “rigorously test†objects which have those same types of informational properties commonly known to come from intelligence.
And in certain glaringly obvious cases such as protein synthesis it is clear that rocks do not "do this on their own" starting with a strand of DNA unwinding..RNA matching error correcting transmitting, decoding translating and producing a useful product for the cell.
It has been claimed here that design theorists do not publish their work in appropriate peer-reviewed journals, a practice in scientific inquiry called formal disclosure. However, the scientists inquiring into intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. A simple search for these documents may be found on the discovery.org website available to the public.
The trick used by Darwinist is to then argue that any peer-review that does not include vetting in majority by believers in atheist darwinism is not valid.
Just how Darwinist was Darwin?
Finally, to the Darwinist; Darwin’s greatest achievement was to show how the structured complexity of organisms could be attained apart from a designing intelligence. ID therefore, directly challenges Darwinism and other naturalistic approaches to the origin of life. Yet, if Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology with gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, and the highly specific structures of certain proteins, would he have found his own theory convincing? I believe he may have desired to find the fair results, his own writings confirm this. “A fair result can be obtained only by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.†(Charles Darwin) Certainly, his fair-minded approach is not only clinical and scientific, but would suppose questioning his own theories for the sake of balance in good science.
Possibly - but appealing to the imagination on the fairmindedness of Darwin is being placed against the firmly held belief "there is no god" that is the heart-and-soul motivation for Darwinists like Dawkins, Provine, Huxley, Meyers etc.
There are a very few among them as Colin Patterson demonstrated who might at times be willing to step back and observe "the emperor has no clothes" but in Niles Eldredge's response to Patterson we see that such moments of clarity and objectivity are not as "common" as one might have hoped.
Adding my bucks worth to this pot. :-D bonnie
Well said and welcome to the board.
Hope you will visit often.
Bob
