[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[Geth]

I agree that curiosity is a good thing. I do not think society is getting better, either in standard of living (except for a few) or quality of life (except for a few). I do not see any science being done for altruistic motives, but only for motives of eventual profit by corporations. The only boundaries I see being broken are in salaries.

Well I agree with you that in nowadays many of scientific researches are profit motivated. But the knowledge they provide is still be enormous. I.e. the cancer and AIDS research. Sure there's a hell lot of money to be made but it would still be a benefit for human mankind.
But I was mostly refering to the last centuries wherein our species, driven by curiosity and lust for knowledge, discovered so many great things and advanced in so many ways.

And I should have been clearer with my statement of ID beeing pushed into schools. I meant that it's beeing tried to push it in. I'm sorry about that.

Even the majority of the population accepts evolution on it's face, largely without question (and for the reasons I already stated). Schools should not be afraid of children pointing out flaws in the accepted theories of anything.

The majority of the population accepts religion without questioning it :wink: .
But I agree with you that there are still some flaws and (partly major) gaps within the theories of evolution, abiogenesis an the origin the universe. And we are also on the same page that questioning existent theories should never be prohibited. Without that there would have never been any progress for humanity. Should it be the refusing from blind belief in religous domga (i.e. sun circling the earth) or the questioning of scientific theories (i.e. the theory of Aether).
But it's beeing worked at those flaws and gaps this very moment. And even with the given flaws the theories answer the question how we got here pretty good.

And I can't see that beeing done with ID. The only thing that IDers seem to be interested in is pointing out the flaws of the existing scientific theories. I would very much appreciate further research within ID to check its viability so I can form an honest opinion about it based on facts.
And before these actions have been taken there is just no point in bringing ID into classrooms.

...

Bob - you're sounding like a broken record. We've all got it that the detection of radio waves from the background radiation could be an hint to ID. We also got what Patterson wrote in a letter allmost 30 years ago. There is no need to post this massive walls of text anymore. All it does is making the threads unreadable. I would very much appreciate if you refrain from posting 30 lines of quotation over and over again.

Greetings
Geth

 

[VaultZero4Me]

ID is at best "god of the gaps".

VZ4M "see von Braun letter... read von Braun letter. SEE head of NASA Marshall Space flight center argue the case with California board of education... then respond substantively some day."

I am confused here. Are quoting something or asking me to look at something. If there is something out there that argues for ID as science besides what Behe or Dembski write, I would be highly interested. If you are asking me to look at something, provide me with a source in which to do that....

 

[BobRyan]

We've all got it that the detection of radio waves from the background radiation could be an hint to ID.

Apparently not.

We also got what Patterson wrote in a letter allmost 30 years ago.

Really? And then "substantive response to the points he raised" as well?

No?

Hmm how surprising and yet "instructive" at the same time!!.

There is no need to post this massive walls of text anymore.

I see "no answer -- and no need to keep reminding us of it". ;-)

I get it -- thanks for that compelling argument.

All it does is making the threads unreadable.

Right ;-) don't bring up those inconvenient points Patterson raises "until you find an answer"

No worry -- I am here to make darwinism look good! I got you covered.

I would very much appreciate if you refrain from posting 30 lines of quotation over and over again.

Check -- and thanks for being so thorough in your avoidance of every single point raised that you had no answer for.

It helps create a context for the thread!


On a serious note - it is always the case that after a serious problem is presented a new poster will reveal whether they "would never allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of a good story" or whether they have the objective ability to enter into the discussion and confront "the details".

After all - everyone knows that literally "anyone" can show up here and repeatedly "gloss over inconvenient details" as some darwinists here have demonstrated time after time.

But it helps to have each new contributor register on one side or the other of that line as early as possible.

Thank you so much for being transparent about it.

Greetings

Bob

 

[Geth]

We've all got it that the detection of radio waves from the background radiation could be an hint to ID.

Apparently not.

What do you want me to say? Oh you're absolutely right? One hint in one specific area of technology is not sufficient proof for me to accept ID or turn down the other scientific theories.

Really? And then "substantive response to the points he raised" as well?

No?

Hmm how surprising and yet "instructive" at the same time!!.

Well how about asking Dr. Patterson himself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson/patterson.gif

This is a scan of a letter written by Dr. Patterson. It gives some explanations about the real intentions behind his statements. The interpretation adressed within the letter can be found here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

I didn't respond to this point because it has been adressed often enough by other people in this forum. And yet you seem to ignore their explanations or remarks.

On a serious note - it is always the case that after a serious problem is presented a new poster will reveal whether they "would never allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of a good story" or whether they have the objective ability to enter into the discussion and confront "the details".

After all - everyone knows that literally "anyone" can show up here and repeatedly "gloss over inconvenient details" as some darwinists here have demonstrated time after time.

But it helps to have each new contributor register on one side or the other of that line as early as possible.

Thank you so much for being transparent about it.

Well I adressed the "inconvinient facts" of freeway01 and DavidLee because they made new statements. Since your statements have already been adressed multiple times with you rejecting the given information (which sounded plauseble to me btw) I have seen no need to adress them again.

Now I would like you to adress to some inconvinient facts of evolution. Here's a link to a video.
Please watch it and tell me how this phenomenom is better explained by ID than by evolution.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk


Greetings
Geth

 

[DavidLee]

Well I agree with you that in nowadays many of scientific researches are profit motivated. But the knowledge they provide is still be enormous. I.e. the cancer and AIDS research. Sure there's a hell lot of money to be made but it would still be a benefit for human mankind.
But I was mostly refering to the last centuries wherein our species, driven by curiosity and lust for knowledge, discovered so many great things and advanced in so many ways.

Profit has almost always been the real driving force behind advances in technology as a whole. Out of all the research going on today, what knowledge will be provided as a direct benefit to society at large? What are the benefits to be discovered? I don't mean the investment opportunities. I suppose we won't know until we see them. Medical Research is in no danger from ID. Astronomy is in no danger from ID. Agriculture is in no danger from ID. High Technology is in no danger from ID. Mathematics, physics, social sciences, petroleum, languages. None of these are in danger from ID. I can't think of any other fields at the moment, but you should get what I'm saying.

What is to be gained in any field by the study of evolution? I don't know, but a lot of smart people are denied grants, other sources of funding, and even jobs because they have an idea that science should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The majority of the population accepts religion without questioning it :wink: .
But I agree with you that there are still some flaws and (partly major) gaps within the theories of evolution, abiogenesis an the origin the universe. And we are also on the same page that questioning existent theories should never be prohibited.

I don't know if it's ever been like that. My personal opinion is that one side of any issue is always afraid of being wrong. People are people. The balance of power shifts frequently.

Without that there would have never been any progress for humanity. Should it be the refusing from blind belief in religous domga (i.e. sun circling the earth) or the questioning of scientific theories (i.e. the theory of Aether).
But it's beeing worked at those flaws and gaps this very moment. And even with the given flaws the theories answer the question how we got here pretty good.

I don't think a belief in evolution has driven the pursuit of knowledge. I think human curiosity has been the driving force. When unsatisfactory answers are given to a curious person's question, science happens (all by itself).

And I can't see that beeing done with ID. The only thing that IDers seem to be interested in is pointing out the flaws of the existing scientific theories.

I think that is largely motivated by the common response of evolutionists to IDers. People are people. Airbags were not used in cars until people pointed out all the deaths that could have been avoided. People said seatbelts were sufficient. Nothing happens until flaws can no longer be ignored.

I would very much appreciate further research within ID to check its viability so I can form an honest opinion about it based on facts.

ID cannot be checked within itself. It is not a limitation applied to knowledge or science. It is a way of saying "How does this work?". Rejection of God is a fundamental first step of any other way of looking at something.
I have been convinced of God's love for me and His presence in my everyday life. To deny Him would be like cutting off my arms and swearing I never had them. That information probably does not convince you that God is real, but does it hinder your efforts in whatever pursuits you are employed?
I believe God is the designer and creator of everything we see (and things we don't see). So what? Why does that bother anyone? If a person does not perform their job in a satisfactory manner, replace them. If a scientist or educator believes in ID, he is ridiculed and ostracized aside from his prior performance. Why do you think that is?

And before these actions have been taken there is just no point in bringing ID into classrooms.

To many of us, ID makes sense and cannot be disproved. To many of us, evolution is like a broken toy. It looks very nice on the shelf, but it doesn't work. To you, and others, your curiosity is satisfied by the general theory of evolution. If there are enough holes in a bowl, it becomes a sieve. If anyone wants to try and turn it back into a bowl, fine. But to deny anyone else the right to look for another bowl is short-sighted and selfish, especially if a bowl is needed at this moment.

Sorry for my wordiness. It seems I have no economy of thought. :D

 

[Barbarian]

Science is in little danger from ID because scientists generally ignore it (because it doesn't do anything ) and the public and the judiciary show little interest in forcing it on science. If ID worked, scientists would use it, no matter who didn't like it. And if it doesn't work, they won't touch it, no matter who says they should.

What is to be gained in any field by the study of evolution?

Lately? In engineering, more efficient diesel engines. In medicine, antibiotic protocols that make the evolution of resistance less likely.

I don't know, but a lot of smart people are denied grants, other sources of funding, and even jobs because they have an idea that science should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Can you name one? Might be interesting to take a close look at something like that.

I don't know if it's ever been like that. My personal opinion is that one side of any issue is always afraid of being wrong. People are people. The balance of power shifts frequently.

People are always people, but in science, the system favors those who would stir things up. The biggest rewards always go to the guys who overturn old theories and make more accurate new ones.

I don't think a belief in evolution has driven the pursuit of knowledge.

Belief, no. Understanding, yes. The two things I mentioned above are just recent ones. Look up "genetic algorithms" and "antibiotic protocols" to learn more.

Geth wrote:And I can't see that beeing done with ID. The only thing that IDers seem to be interested in is pointing out the flaws of the existing scientific theories.

I think that is largely motivated by the common response of evolutionists to IDers.

It's largely motivated by having no alternative ideas. Remember, ID is just creationism with a new name. "Of Pandas and People" was a creationist tract which cites God and creationism, but then the publisher removed God, and creation and inserted "ID" and "design" and presto! An ID textbook.

So it's an intellectually bankrupt program, that is motivated by the desire to establish their rather unorthodox ideas about God.

 

[BobRyan]

We've all got it that the detection of radio waves from the background radiation could be an hint to ID.

Apparently not.

What do you want me to say? Oh you're absolutely right? One hint in one specific area of technology is not sufficient proof for me to accept ID or turn down the other scientific theories.

Deal substantively with the argument raised or continue to gloss-over the details as if you do not understand the point.

Apparenly you choose the latter.

I am simply noting what all can see clearly in that case.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Geth

Really? And then "substantive response to the points he raised" as well?

No?

Hmm how surprising and yet "instructive" at the same time!!.

Well how about asking Dr. Patterson himself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson/patterson.gif

This is a scan of a letter written by Dr. Patterson. It gives some explanations about the real intentions behind his statements. The interpretation adressed within the letter can be found here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

I didn't respond to this point because it has been adressed often enough by other people in this forum. And yet you seem to ignore their explanations or remarks.

Again -- 'this is the part" where you SHOW reading ability and understanding by SHOWING IN that short little letter HOW your point is made rather than merely assuming your point not present IN the letter.

It's a very small letter -- IF you HAVE a point to make from it -- it should be easy enough to do --- "so do it" or continue to gloss-over the details as a failing form of argument.

Hint:

BobRyan
There are THREE events.

A letter from Patterson to Sunderland - from 1979
A speach given by Patterson in 1981
A CONFIRMING letter (regarding the 1979 position) from Patterson in 1993 given to Theunissen.

Patterson never argues that he was misquoted -- rather he argues that conclusions/summations about his remarks made by Sunderland were not in agreement with his own views. However Sunderlands conclusions HAVE NEVER BEEN QUOTED in this discussion!!

Hint: so we don't HAVE the problem of "Quoting Sunderland's comments ABOUT Patterson only to find that Patterson does not agree with them" -- Because there are NO QUOTES of Sunderland's comments ABOUT PAtterson in the discussion.

Devotees to darwinism like VZ4M (and apparently GETH)-- struggle with these details in their efforts to "make stuff up".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&start=255#p390173

If you need "help" I will post the entire letter to which you refer -- here.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:
On a serious note - it is always the case that after a serious problem is presented a new poster will reveal whether they "would never allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of a good story" or whether they have the objective ability to enter into the discussion and confront "the details".

After all - everyone knows that literally "anyone" can show up here and repeatedly "gloss over inconvenient details" as some darwinists here have demonstrated time after time.

But it helps to have each new contributor register on one side or the other of that line as early as possible.

Thank you so much for being transparent about it.

Geth
Well I adressed the "inconvinient facts" of freeway01 and DavidLee because they made new statements. Since your statements have already been adressed multiple times with you rejecting the given information (which sounded plauseble to me btw) I have seen no need to adress them again.

Now I would like you to adress to some inconvinient facts of evolution. Here's a link to a video

And "again" you simply gloss over the point and avoid the argument -- with the twist that NOW you pull the fallacy of bait-and-swicth with your video redirection - rabbit trail.

The TOPIC is "questions about ID" the POSTS I provided were ON the subject of ID -- you have not addressed a single one - with any substance at all and yet having only offerred "handwaiving" you now want to CHANGE the subject?

Hint: Try actually "answering" this post made to you in response to the OP --
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p389955


If that is way too difficult for you -- then try this short post -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p38995

In any case I again thank you for being so transparent.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob is right, all ID is is "that looks designed." Which is untestable, of course, and thus very poor science.

As it "turns out" -- we HAVE AM/FM CDMA - we HAVE the ability to distinguish between ID in EM wave forms vs "background noise" that "Rocks can create given enough time, mass and an energy source" --

You seem to enjoy "denying the obvious" in your solutions.

Must be one of the benefits of what Patterson calls "Antiknowledge".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I care what people think on the same cause you care about our souls. Because I care about humanity itself.
And for that I find it hard to take, that ID is pushed into schools. Because ID would be putting an end to the scientific process.

ID IS science "by definition".

It is simply the "ACADEMIC FREEDOM to FOLLOW THE DATA where it leads EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious DESIGN that is not forced to pander to the dictates of atheist religionists".

As Wernher von Braun head of Nasa's Marshall Space Flight center argued to the California State board of eduction -- ID IS science "By Definition".

Bob

(pointless ranting deleted here)

We're tired of it. I speak for everyone who doesn't already believe what you do.

(obligatory vaccuous ad hominem deleted here)

Jay -- if you actually have a substantive thought for carrying the point -- please share it.



Bob

 

[Guest]

ID IS science "by definition".

It is simply the "ACADEMIC FREEDOM to FOLLOW THE DATA where it leads EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious DESIGN that is not forced to pander to the dictates of atheist religionists".

Well if Academic Freedom is as you say, freedom to follow the data where it leads and you have any interest in following data, you will have long realised that evolution is under approximately zero threat from Intelligent design, as scientists have been "following the data where it leads" for the past 150 years and so far, it's all led right back to the same place - evolution.

 

[Dunzo]

Jay -- if you actually have a substantive thought for carrying the point -- please share it.
Bob

Could you be more patronising?

 

[DavidLee]

(because it doesn't do anything ) and the public and the judiciary show little interest in forcing it on science. If ID worked, scientists would use it, no matter who didn't like it. And if it doesn't work, they won't touch it, no matter who says they should.

I have already stated that ID doesn't "do anything". It is simply allowing science to follow the evidence where ever it leads. Deciding beforehand is not science.

What is to be gained in any field by the study of evolution?

Lately? In engineering, more efficient diesel engines.

Really? This is an area where I have some measure of expertise.
I would say evolution of design is natural in engineering. I could easily say scrapping an idea is SOP when men make things. I can even point to intermediate models of engine (and components) over a period of months. That does not lend any support to evolution of species.
The cast iron, aluminum, copper wire, and plastic are not assembling themselves into engines (or even piles of material).
If a piece of metal will not fit in place until I reduce it's size, did it evolve? What if I get another piece of metal, did it evolve?

If I change the shape of a combustion chamber, a pre-combustion chamber, or change the spray pattern of an injector, which one evolved? If I change the number of valves, or the function of the valves, which one has evolved?

If I allow a computer program to decide for itself what the most efficient whatzit should look like, what exactly has evolved? The computer I built, the program I wrote, or the shape according to my design parameters? After all, I have to impose limits on the design in some manner.

I don't think a belief in evolution has driven the pursuit of knowledge.

Belief, no. Understanding, yes. The two things I mentioned above are just recent ones. Look up "genetic algorithms" and "antibiotic protocols" to learn more.

I think you confuse evolution of species with evolution of design. They are not alike despite the word evolution being used in both instances.

I think that is largely motivated by the common response of evolutionists to IDers.

.
.
.
So it's an intellectually bankrupt program, that is motivated by the desire to establish their rather unorthodox ideas about God.

See what I mean, Geth?

 

[Jayls5]

Jay -- if you actually have a substantive thought for carrying the point -- please share it.
Bob

Could you be more patronising?

Nope. He's never going to show how his "theory" is scientific.

My favorite part is how he asked for something of substance from me, and the whole point I was making is that after ALL this time, he's the one who is lacking it. Hilarious.

In case you missed it bob, SHOW HOW ID IS SCIENCE. POINT OUT THE BASIC QUALIFICATIONS.

 

[BobRyan]

ID IS science "by definition".

It is simply the "ACADEMIC FREEDOM to FOLLOW THE DATA where it leads EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious DESIGN that is not forced to pander to the dictates of atheist religionists".

As Wernher von Braun head of Nasa's Marshall Space Flight center argued to the California State board of eduction -- ID IS science "By Definition".

(pointless ranting deleted here)

We're tired of it. I speak for everyone who doesn't already believe what you do.

(obligatory vaccuous ad hominem deleted here)

Bob replies

Jay -- if you actually have a substantive thought for carrying the point -- please share it.

Could you be more patronising?

I am always open to someone capably forming a cogent compelling thought and then expressing themsevles as an adult. Are you suggesting I ask for "too much" ;-)

Are you suggesting that this section of the board needs a sign as you come in saying
"you have to be an adult to post here". :D

Or you "you have to be THIS old ... to post here" ;-)

obviously - having to clean up the "obligatory ranting" section of "some posters" just to reply -- get's kind of old.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

ID IS science "by definition".

It is simply the "ACADEMIC FREEDOM to FOLLOW THE DATA where it leads EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious DESIGN that is not forced to pander to the dictates of atheist religionists".

Well if Academic Freedom is as you say, freedom to follow the data where it leads and you have any interest in following data, you will have long realised that evolution is under approximately zero threat from Intelligent design,

1. you wouldn't know it by the way darwinists resort to gross dark-ages style censorship to try and shut it down.

2. Interesting that to devotees to atheis darwinism a topic stated as "questions about ID" where the generally enlightened concept of "Academic freedom" is brought up - the darwinist religionist's anxiety is quickly expressed in the form of asking if "atheist darwinism is being threatened" and then trying to reasssure himself with "no I think we still have a stranglehold on some key academic institutions"


certainly a good foxhole darwinist religionist approach to the concepts - but as Patterson observes about "stories easy enough to make up about how one thing came from another" -- "NOT science"!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting that the "most substantive" reply we get to this recent post

The TOPIC is "questions about ID" the POSTS I provided were ON the subject of ID -- you have not addressed a single one - with any substance at all and yet having only offerred "handwaiving" you now want to CHANGE the subject?

Hint: Try actually "answering" this post made to you in response to the OP --
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p389955


If that is way too difficult for you -- then try this short post -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p38995

In any case I again thank you for being so transparent.

Bob

Is the pablum seen in the intervening posts authored by our various darwinist contributors.

"Instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

I have already stated that ID doesn't "do anything". It is simply allowing science to follow the evidence where ever it leads. Deciding beforehand is not science.

That's what it does. It starts with the assumption of creationism, and any evidence that leads elsewhere must be denied.

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Wedge Document, accidentally made public by the Discovery Institute

So as you see, the Goal of ID is to deny truth wherever it conflicts with their religious notions.

What is to be gained in any field by the study of evolution?

Barbarian observes:
Lately? In engineering, more efficient diesel engines.

Really? This is an area where I have some measure of expertise.

Not every day I get to talk to someone else familiar with genetic algorithms.

I would say evolution of design is natural in engineering. I could easily say scrapping an idea is SOP when men make things. I can even point to intermediate models of engine (and components) over a period of months. That does not lend any support to evolution of species.
The cast iron, aluminum, copper wire, and plastic are not assembling themselves into engines (or even piles of material).

Ah, so you're not familiar with them. Here's where you can learn about it:

Convergent Thinking Applies Darwinism
to Develop Better Diesel Engines
by Erin Hatfield
Computer-aided testing in engine research is nothing new. But how about using Darwinism to improve diesel engine design? Using a combination of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), genetic algorithms and advanced visualization, scientists at Convergent Thinking, an engineering firm in Madison, Wis., have furthered their quest for a better diesel engine.

Genetic algorithms are mathematical operations most commonly used in biological studies to
explain and predict the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest for a particular gene in a
group of organisms. Convergent Thinking has adapted this practice for diesel engines, substituting physical parameters within an engine for genes...

After running the genetic algorithm scenarios, the computer selects the best performer from a group of trials, much like natural selection in biological evolution, and combine characteristics from that engine with those of other high performers. The engines with these "genes" are simulated using the same CFD and visualization process as in past studies. Senecal then rates the engines on their fuel efficiency and the amount of soot and nitrate wastes they generate.

Convergent Thinking's findings have helped optimize engine design for increased efficiency and lower emissions - two things of great importance to engine manufacturers and environmentalists.
"We can now indicate to designers the variables that are most important or ones that might have been overlooked had the computer not identified them," says Senecal. The computational studies, for example, have highlighted the importance of injecting fuel in short bursts instead of a single stream, increasing the surface area of the fuel and leading to a cleaner and more efficient burning.
http://www.ensight.com/images/stories/a ... ergent.pdf

So natural selection works better than design for complex problems. Why do you think God used it?

I don't think a belief in evolution has driven the pursuit of knowledge.

Barbarian observes:
Belief, no. Understanding, yes. The two things I mentioned above are just recent ones. Look up "genetic algorithms" and "antibiotic protocols" to learn more.

I think you confuse evolution of species with evolution of design.

Solutions in genetic algorithms aren't designed at all. Often the researcher doesn't even know why they work. That's why they are more efficient; they are free to vary in any way at all, using natural selection to identify the best solutions.

They are not alike despite the word evolution being used in both instances.

If you don't think so, then you know nothing about evolution.

Geth wrote:And I can't see that beeing done with ID. The only thing that IDers seem to be interested in is pointing out the flaws of the existing scientific theories.

I think that is largely motivated by the common response of evolutionists to IDers.

Barbarian observes:
Remember, ID is just creationism with a new name. "Of Pandas and People" was a creationist tract which cites God and creationism, but then the publisher removed God, and creation and inserted "ID" and "design" and presto! An ID textbook.

So it's an intellectually bankrupt program, that is motivated by the desire to establish their rather unorthodox ideas about God.

See what I mean...

Darn, I presented evidence, again. They hate that.

 

[BobRyan]

ID IS "is SCIENCE" by definition as Wernher von Braun head of NASA's Marshall Space flight center report sent to the California state board of Education - stated.

IT is the "Academic FREEDOM to follow the data where it leads -- EVEN IF it leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious design that does not pander to the religionist needs atheist darwinist doctrine"

That's what it does. It starts with the assumption of creationism, and any evidence that leads elsewhere must be denied.

Wrong... "again".

The YEC argument is distinctly and "specifically" for a 6,000 year origin for all life on earth.

Period.

By contrast -- ID is framed this way --

From “Discovery Instituteâ€Â
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. 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 pablum being feed to darwinists by fearful anxious (dare we say "paranoid") atheist darwinist masters is -- of the form "it is all YEC -- fear it... fear it ... pay no attention to the science ... just live in fear".

I would suggest a more rational approach -- something like an open mind, academic freedom and no fear of "following the data where it leads".

Leave the atheist pablum on the shelf.

Bob