[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[Free]

Why can't we all just get along??? I assume most of us are adults so please, everyone, start behaving more maturely. I suggest if anyone can't handle debating without overheating then remove yourself from the kitchen, even if momentarily.

Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

Uhh... you quote the post that I got the link right in, you delete the link from the post you quote, and then you asked me to try again. Clever.

I see you then made a poor effort of responding to my post, which I noticed is becoming habitual of you. I'm not going to bother to expend effort on your terrible arguments if this is going to be a trend. I doubt you even responded to half of what I said based on what I saw you quoted, so I didn't even bother reading what you have to say. If you're not going to read mine (or respond to it), I'm not going to read yours. You're steadily making your way in the direction of my ignore list. You might win a space soon.

I don't blame you for avoiding the "inconvenient details" and the salient points of each argument I post -- were I in your position I might have to resort to the same tactics.

In the mean time consider this -- the entire purpose of the board is to exchange views -- in concise cogent format and let the "salient points" of the argument be proven not assumed -- let them be read by the objective unbiased reader and let the reader "conclude".

I 'show' the "detection of Intelligent Design" characteristics in use every day - in fact commercially in the form of analysis and evaluation of electromagnetic wave forms. I show that this is more than just "theory" it is reliable fact. It is far too late to pretend that we have no discriminators for TV signals vs static. The ID Scientists simply choose to CONTINUE that level of academic freedom in all branches of science EVEN in those branches that atheist darwinist "believers" would prefer to have "locked down" to atheist religionist "controls".

If you simply run away - (which you are welcomed to do if you choose) then the unbiased objective reader "has a data point" to consider.

Think about it.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Is Atheist Darwinism "Science"?

No, it's a strawman you constructed.

Is ID "science"?

No, according to the guys who invented it, it's a religion. The self-professed "governing goal" of their religion is the establishment of their rather unorthodox idea of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope - ID is "science by definition" even according to the Discovery Institute -

And here is why -- when you compare it to blind atheism and the junk-science of Darwinism that it uses for "cover" here is what you get --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

 

[Barbarian]

We all know that the Discovery Institute wants us to believe ID is science. But there are two problems with that:

1. Accidental release of an internal memo (Wedge Document) admitting that it's a religion.

2. Failure of ID to produce testable predictions or scientific discoveries.

So it's dead as far as science is concerned.

It's still a viable religion though, if you like the Unification Church.

 

[BobRyan]

Wait! I know what you're saying to yourself now "boy if that is the defintion for Intelligent Design I wonder what the defition for the junk-science religion we call Darwinism would look like" --

Thought you would never ask -- here it is.

Enjoy!

Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Some of you will "instantly" recognize the truth of this.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Accidental post provides link to Intelligent Design concepts for the unbiased objective reader --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&p=378536#p378534

Accidental encounter with "facts" leads atheist darwinists to discover that their religion is now "official" and goes by the title 'humanism'.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

I have now seen that BobRyan is a sophist.

Even worse, he's a sophist who argues the same things ad nauseum, even when they don't address the person talking. The Barbarian addresses things of concern, and you divert, again. I have also directly addressed how it would be possible to scientifically test for intelligence. ID does not have specific criteria for that to my knowledge. The Barbarian pointed this out, and then you spouted off more garbage that didn't address what he was saying. I have requested that you stop responding to my posts selectively, leaving out pages of what I say. However, this is what you seem to do.

You do the same thing to me over and over, and you've earned a spot on my ignore list as a result. I thankfully no longer have to read your endless rhetoric and loaded language about your strawman definition of evolution.

Have fun with your fruitless attempts to sway people with biased language while hypocritically appealing to "objectivity."

I'll be happy to continue the debate about ID not being science to those who are willing to legitimately discuss it. I'd love to see the criteria that would make it science, and how they specifically test for intelligence. It's a fairly simple request; needless to say, I've already shown how the comparison to analyzing electromagnetic radiation is weak... one has a solid hypothesis and testability. I'm merely asking what their test is in ID.

 

[jwu]

I 'show' the "detection of Intelligent Design" characteristics in use every day - in fact commercially in the form of analysis and evaluation of electromagnetic wave forms.

So which company or organization uses a method that was presented in which particular ID research paper?

Which pharmaceutics company uses ID to develop new medicine?

I show that this is more than just "theory" it is reliable fact. It is far too late to pretend that we have no discriminators for TV signals vs static.

We can discriminate TV signals from static because we know what exactly to look for. TV signals, after all, are supposed to be easily detectable.



I note that you haven't answered how we can quantify information in the genome.

 

[Barbarian]

I know how to quantify information in a population of organisms.

Of course, what it tells us about information and evolution surely won't please the creationists here.

 

[BobRyan]

Wait! I know what you're saying to yourself now "boy if that is the defintion for Intelligent Design I wonder what the defition for the junk-science religion we call Darwinism would look like" --

Thought you would never ask -- here it is.

Enjoy!

Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Some of you will "instantly" recognize the truth of this.

So much for Darwinism -- now on to ID.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

ID is "science by definition" even according to the Discovery Institute -

And here is why -- when you compare it to blind atheism and the junk-science of Darwinism that it uses for "cover" here is what you get --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

 

[Ellusion]

I have noticed that you, BobRyan, have consistently used that definition of Intelligent Design, however, I feel it is... evasive.

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

First off, when you define something, you can't use the word itself in the definition.

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

In this definition, the latter part of the argument is unnecessary (i.e. EVEN if it leads...).
Thus, the definition is simplified to

Intelligent Design: Academic freedom to follow the data where it leads

Essentially, it is the same definition of science. Please don't argue that this proves Intelligent Design is a science. I mean, I'd like to hope I'm arguing with someone somewhat intelligent.

Why not use the traditional definition of Intelligent Design? The idea that we were all created by some sort of intelligence. I don't believe this is science because science requires a sufficient amount of proof, where I believe ID is lacking.

 

[Jayls5]

Why not use the traditional definition of Intelligent Design? The idea that we were all created by some sort of intelligence. I don't believe this is science because science requires a sufficient amount of proof, where I believe ID is lacking.

I think we are arguing the merits of its ability to be tested at all, let alone a current lack of proof. We may as well ask what their criterion for ID is and how they can test it. Once they've established that, then we can figure out how little proof they have. Until then, it seems like an unnecessary step. By analogy, if you're discussing how much gas you need for a trip, you probably want to find out if the person has a car to use it in the first place. If not, you're wasting your time.

I know how to quantify information in a population of organisms.

Of course, what it tells us about information and evolution surely won't please the creationists here.

Not that it would matter. He will probably just spam the same stuff over and over even after his argument is addressed and refuted.

 

[proponent]

Like Ellusion said, your definition of ID is flawed, but so is your definition of evolution:
Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Know, in order to make this definition workable we should first get rid of all of the loaded language and un-proven statements in the armgument. "Thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith. " These points can not be assumed in the definition without proof or at least evidence, so they must be nixed. Next, lets get rid of the false statements in the definition. "distinctively atheist" The Catholic Church and many other theists in Christianity and other faiths believe in evolution.

That leaves us with---
Evolution: A set of religious doctrines and dogmas. Obviously this is a terrible definition for evolution, as it describes ID, Evolution, and hundreds of other ideas and practices. Also, I could show why even what you have left is wrong and must be taken out of the definition, but I believe that I have sufficiently shown that that argument is garbage.

 

[BobRyan]

In the SCIENCE of ID -- you have "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion that does not pander to atheist dogmas and doctrines" -- for some atheist religionists and those who "follow after them" this sets up an immediate bias against scientific freedom.

But the fact that atheist religionists then set themselves to try to turn a blind eye to each instance where the data is leading to design (accepting one but not the other as in electromagnetic wave forms vs the infracstructure and design for DNA) does not change the nature of science. The apriori bias and censorship they WANT to bring to those experiments is nothing new for religionists vs scientists. It does not stop science itself it merely reveals their bias when they claim "rocks can do this too" even though they have no way to SHOW it in the lab.

The apriori bias of such religionists of course "is obvious to all". --

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Like Ellusion said, your definition of ID is flawed, but so is your definition of evolution:

bob said
Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Know, in order to make this definition workable we should first get rid of all of the loaded language and un-proven statements in the armgument. ".

This is an empty assertion on your part. Go to the "Junk-science basis for Darwinism" thread and see if you can SHOW that the hoaxes and frauds used to prop up darwinian doctrine are "pure science" as you claim -- rather than junk-science hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half-truths foisted onto school children for decade after decade.


In other words "show your work" do the math -- perform the excercise instead of merely "declaring victory over yourself".


Substance -- not merely sound and fury please.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

ID is defined as the "Academic Freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to DESIGN and a position that does not pander to atheists"

Not by the people who invented it. They say that it is a program to establish belief in their conception of God.

And ID does not grant it's members academic freedom, since they are committed to finding evidence for design. Any theist who does not find design, cannot be part of their organization. As you saw from "Expelled", the IDers there banned any theistic evolutionists from the film.

"No intelligence allowed." You betcha. They can't tolerate open inquiry.

 

[proponent]

Like Ellusion said, your definition of ID is flawed, but so is your definition of evolution:

bob said
Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Know, in order to make this definition workable we should first get rid of all of the loaded language and un-proven statements in the armgument. ".

This is an empty assertion on your part. Go to the "Junk-science basis for Darwinism" thread and see if you can SHOW that the hoaxes and frauds used to prop up darwinian doctrine are "pure science" as you claim -- rather than junk-science hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half-truths foisted onto school children for decade after decade.


In other words "show your work" do the math -- perform the excercise instead of merely "declaring victory over yourself".


Substance -- not merely sound and fury please.

Bob

You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I said, and gone on the offensive instead of actually considering the point of what I said. I never said that the loaded language in the definition was false (which it is), I simply pointed out that that is a useless definition for evolution in any intelligent discussion, because it makes claims that are unproven. When you start making assumptions then try and argue based on them the points you make are almost bound to be wrong, as coming to a correct conclusion based on false data is as unlikely as finding a needle in a haystack. A definition should not be biased, and should accurately describe the idea/word in question. Your definition says nothing about what evolution is, just what you think it is. A better definition for evolution would be, a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage), and while this is a general definition, it still tells the reader more about the idea than your definition, which could describe just about anything atheist. In the same respect, a terrible definition for ID would be: An idea held by devout Christians and all those that love God that is completely true because it is spoken in the Holy Bible, and because it is supported by the infallible Word of God, can not be refuted. While I'm sure that you more or less agree with most of the statements, you must admit that as a definition for ID it's worthless, if you told it to somebody who had know idea what ID was, thy would still have no idea.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I said, and gone on the offensive instead of actually considering the point of what I said. I never said that the loaded language in the definition was false (which it is),

I see. So you wanted to omit the TRUE or you wanted to LEAVE IN the false or you were trying to omit it because you differ with the conclusions of the "Junk-Science basis for Darwinism" thread?

I simply pointed out that that is a useless definition for evolution

When we look at the junk science basis for Atheist Darwinism as exposed in its long a reveared history of junk-science frauds, hoaxes and blunders we can not help but "wonder" at the ways the followers of that dogma have found to "turn a blind eye" the systemic fraud and political maneuverings it uses to promote itself.

Why in the world would you suppose that "noticing that glaring fact" is out of place when comapring atheist Darwinism to actual science?

Where is your logic to support that position?

as coming to a correct conclusion based on false data is as unlikely as finding a needle in a haystack.

Which was exactly my argument with atheist darwinism and Simpson's horse series in the "Junk-science basis for Darwinism" thread.

Bob