Intelligent Design continued

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Feb 11, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOE MEERT

    What good is ID?

    I went to a talk here yesterday by Carl Zimmer. For those
    who don't know, Zimmer is an award winning science journalist who
    authored the book "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea". The book served as a
    companion to the PBS series on evolution. Zimmer's talk was average,
    but he made a number of good points that resonated with the audience.
    He asked the rhetorical question; "What good are the pretenders to the
    throne-namely ID and young earth creation". He noted that most ID'ers
    (Discovery Institute ilk) hold a position that is anathema to
    ye-creationism (namely old earth) but that they are both religious
    movements. In fact, one need only look at the Discovery Institute's
    logo to see who they think the ID'er is! The second point he made, that
    has been made (and ignored here and on other boards) is that ID has
    produced no science at all. There are no scientific publications on ID.
    Scientists are not using ID in their research. In fact, the point was
    made that not even Behe uses ID in his scientific publications. It's a
    religiously based socio-political agenda or Paley in a new coat and
    tophat. The ID bunch spend their time criticizing evolution rather than
    publishing the basics of their 'alleged' better alternative. In short,
    there is no scientific basis for ID, it is all politically driven.
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    With all due respect to Zimmer, he is badly mistaken on several counts
    where ID is concerned.

    1. It is NOT the same as YEC, as has already been stated here. In the
    sense that a designer of some kind seems to be the only rational
    conclusion, YEC becomes a subset of ID. However in the way the data is
    approached, YEC is the opposite of ID. Zimmer perhaps needs to read a
    little more about this subject before making such statements.

    2. ID is at heart a system of tests predicated on the theory that
    perhaps not ALL phenomena are the results of time, chance, mutation, and
    natural selection. This has nothing at all to do with religion, but
    with using the same tests that are part of fields such as archaeology
    and forensics and applying them to a different area of science. Now it
    can be legitimate to say these tests are not valid in that particular
    area, and there are some well-thought-out arguments in that area which
    ID needs to address, but to say ID is religious is either ignorance or a
    deliberate falsehood.

    3. ID is not in the business of producing science via research, but of
    testing the published conclusions to the research as well as applying the tests to natural phenomena themselves.

    4. There are a multitude of publications regarding ID from books to
    articles. The fact that mainstream science peer-reviewed journals
    refuse anything to do with ID is not evidence against ID but evidence
    against the impartiality of the journals. In the meantime, ID has been
    gaining attention in the press and the public mind, and that is what it
    set out to do in the first place: wake people up.

    5. Bringing Paley’s argument back is not a bad thing. Some things are
    recognized as designed. Why?
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PATRICK PARSON

    The Discovery Institute was, not too long ago, embarassed by an internal
    memo from the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture which overtly
    described the objective as promoting Christianity.
    http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/wedge_document.html


    Here's a sample:

    "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. "

    The Discovery Institute vigorously denies that the agenda is to promote
    theism, but their internal memo clearly shows that is precisely what it is.

    It doesn't seem like a goal one should be ashamed of. I don't agree with
    the way they are going about it, but I'm interested in promoting Christian
    values, too. I don't happen to think science will be able to help, since it
    can't address the supernatural. But the intent is fine. I wish they
    weren't embarassed about it.

    I think they should be willing to say so directly. The "Oh, you weren't
    supposed to see that." reaction isn't a step in the right direction.
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    Do scientists use ID in their research? Helen has done
    a very good job showing that some sciences use ID-
    forensics and archaeology. I would add anthropology
    and arson investigation as two more fields that would
    also use ID. Can it be applied to biology? Mike Gene
    thinks so:
    http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm

    (Using ID to Understand the Living World);
    http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm

    (ID
    friendly evolution);
    http://www.idthink.net/arn/dif/index.htm

    (THE CELL:
    REDUCTIONISM FALLS WHERE ID STANDS)


    Also as has been pointed out before, IDists (or
    anyone) can infer the Lord our God is the designer but
    the point is that life on Earth could have been
    designed by some other ‘intelligent’ agent. The
    identity of the designer is irrelevant as to whether
    or not something is designed. To further the point of
    biological design, today we observe scientists
    designing biochemical systems and we have never
    observed biochemical systems originate via purely
    natural processes.

    To Joe: Why is it OK to infer
    biochemical systems are the result of purely natural
    processes when we don’t have any evidence to
    substantiate that claim, but it is not OK to infer
    design even though we can observe biochemical systems
    being designed?

    I guess Joe doesn’t think that materialistic
    naturalism has no political, or other, agenda. That's
    hardly the case. The point being is that if
    materialistic naturalism isn’t indicative of reality,
    what good is it? Further, do whale researchers have a
    better handle on their research by the alleged
    ‘knowledge’ of the alleged cetacean evolution? Does
    the ‘knowledge’ that all of life owes it common
    ancestry to an as yet unknown population of organisms
    (or populations) that just happened to have the
    ability to self replicate, aid us in any way in the
    research to cure cancer or any disease?

    In conclusion, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a
    duck, waddles like a duck- we can infer that it is
    indeed, a duck. With design, if something looks
    designed, acts designed, has been observed being
    designed, and has no substantiating evidence for
    arising without a designer - it is safe to infer it
    was designed.

    John Paul
     
  5. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PATRICK PARSON

    Do scientists use ID in their research? Helen has done a very good job
    showing that some sciences use ID-
    forensics and archaeology. I would add anthropology and arson
    investigation as two more fields that would
    also use ID.


    Actually, Helen merely asserted that ID is used in forensics and
    archaeology. I have a friend who is the forensics expert for a large
    city police department. He thought her assertion was funny. I also
    gave Helen a cite for a book about the interpretaton of artifacts, so
    she could learn how they actually do determine what artifacts are, and
    how they were made and used. ID had nothing to do with it. I had to
    learn arson investigation for a project in my former company. Had to
    go back to college to learn about it. There was no ID in any of it.

    It appears that you and Helen are trying to tell us that the procedures
    scientists have always used are actually ID. If so, what is to be
    gained by adding "Godmustadunnit"? Since science has been
    spectacularly successful without that assumption, it appears to be
    foolish to add it.

    ------------

    JP:
    Can it be applied to biology? Mike Gene thinks so:
    http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm


    If it works, why haven't we seen any results? You would think that
    such a marvelous new tool would be good for something. Yet we see no
    breakthroughs or benefits at all. What scientist has used Dembski's
    filter to come up with a great discovery?

    -------------

    JP:
    (ID friendly evolution);
    (THE CELL: REDUCTIONISM FALLS WHERE ID STANDS)


    If folks think that
    physical causes are in adequate to describe physcical processes, I'd
    sure like to have them show me one thing in biology that can be shown to
    have a non-physical explaination. I'm very serious, JP. Show me
    one. Anecdotes and "well we don't understand it yet, so it has to be
    what I want it to be" stuff doesn't count.

    --------

    Also as has been pointed out before, IDists (or anyone) can infer the
    Lord our God is the designer but the point is that life on Earth could
    have been designed by some other ‘intelligent’ agent.


    The recently-revealed "wedge" document from the Discovery Institute
    pretty much spilled the beans for IDers. Yep, they're basically trying
    to promote their version of Christianity, after all. I got a lot of
    outraged protest from creationists when opined that was what they were
    really up to. But I was right. Their tent is big enough to let the
    Moonies in, but it's still some kind of version of Christianity.

    ----------------

    JP:
    The identity of the designer is irrelevant as to whether or not
    something is designed. To further the point of
    biological design, today we observe scientists designing biochemical
    systems and we have never observed biochemical systems originate via
    purely natural processes.



    Sure we have. We have, for example, seen an irreducibly complex
    metabolic pathway evolve by purely natural processes.

    -----------

    JP:
    Further, do whale researchers have a better handle on their research by
    the alleged ‘knowledge’ of the alleged cetacean evolution?


    Yep, they do. Having found all sorts of intermediates between ungulates
    and modern whales, that pretty much did the trick. Having found that
    cetaceans are genetically most similar to ungulates was just one more
    confirmation. Even creationists are beginning to suggest that the
    evolution of whales from ungulates is "not really macroevolution".

    ------------

    JP:
    Does the ‘knowledge’ that all of life owes it common ancestry to an as
    yet unknown population of organisms
    (or populations) that just happened to have the ability to self
    replicate, aid us in any way in the research to cure cancer or any
    disease?


    The truth is not false, even if it has no practical uses. However, you
    might remember that all sorts of apparently useless knowledge have
    turned out to have practical applications. For scientists, knowledge
    is a worthy goal in iteself.

    --------------

    JP:
    With design, if something looks designed, acts designed, has been
    observed being designed, and has no substantiating evidence for
    arising without a designer - it is safe to infer it was designed.


    One of the things humans can do really well, is tell the difference
    between designed things and natural things. Even stone age tribesmen
    will tell you that a watch is designed, but a carrot is not.
     
  6. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    John Paul:
    Do scientists use ID in their research? Helen has done
    a very good job showing that some sciences use ID-
    forensics and archaeology. I would add anthropology
    and arson investigation as two more fields that would
    also use ID.

    Pat:
    Actually, Helen merely asserted that ID is used in
    forensics and archaeology. I have a friend who is the
    forensics expert for a large city police department.
    He thought her assertion was funny.


    John Paul:
    Objection. Hearsay is not evidence.

    [Administrator: the following question has been rephrased to avoid inflammatory implications:]
    Is it possible you misrepresented ID to your friend?


    Pat:
    I also gave Helen a cite for a book about the
    interpretaton of artifacts, so she could learn how
    they actually do determine what artifacts are, and how
    they were made and used. ID had nothing to do with it.


    John Paul:
    From Britannica: “A general term for any one of the
    things made by a human being is artifact.”

    Let’s see- archaeologists try to differentiate natural
    objects from designed objects. ID tries to
    differentiate natural objects from designed objects.
    Seem pretty similar to me.


    Pat:
    I had to learn arson investigation for a project in my
    former company. Had to go back to college to learn
    about it. There was no ID in any of it.


    John Paul:
    I believe that you think that is so. Tell
    us, how would you differentiate between arson, an
    accident or natural causes, of a fire? Can you also
    tell the difference between an accidental fire and
    arson made to appear as an accident? (I guess that
    would depend on how clever the arsonist is)


    Pat:
    It appears that you and Helen are trying to tell us
    that the procedures scientists have always used are
    actually ID.


    John Paul:
    Not all scientists and not all procedures.


    Pat:
    If so, what is to be gained by adding
    "Godmustadunnit"?


    John Paul:
    That is not what ID is about Pat. This is a
    misrepresentation. God did it. Get
    over it. Now let’s find out how things function. Maybe
    that will help us figure out our purpose. Perhaps then
    we will better understand the function and how to
    maintain it. It’s a nice cycle.

    Why don’t you ask yourself- what is to be gained by
    saying purely natural processes can account for life
    and its subsequent diversity from some unknown
    population(s?) of unknown organisms? Even Dennett
    admits there is no way to predict what would be
    selected for at any point in time. Perhaps if we
    understood the design of life we would be able to
    predict what environments (natural or artificial)
    would do to what organisms and ecosystems. In that way
    we could better prepare to intervene if something goes
    awry.


    Pat:
    Since science has been spectacularly successful
    without that assumption, it appears to be
    foolish to add it.


    John Paul:
    Newton attributed what he observed to the Lord our
    God, as did Kepler and many other scientists. The
    issue only arose when people started taking God out of
    the equation. What did that accomplish? Now we are
    free to explain away everything as a result of purely
    natural processes because there will be no call for us
    to verify those explanations? What good is an
    explanation without verification? I wish I had
    teachers like you when I was in junior high. I had an
    explanation for most anything.

    ------------
    JP:
    Can it be applied to biology? Mike Gene thinks so: http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm

    Pat:
    If it works, why haven't we seen any results? You
    would think that such a marvelous new tool would be
    good for something. Yet we see no breakthroughs or
    benefits at all. What scientist has used Dembski's
    filter to come up with a great discovery?


    John Paul:
    A little patience Pat. Believing that all of life owes
    its common ancestry to some as yet unknown population
    of organisms hasn’t exactly added much to the
    advancement of science.
    -------------


    JP:
    (ID friendly evolution);
    (THE CELL: REDUCTIONISM FALLS WHERE ID STANDS)

    Pat:
    If folks think that physical causes are in adequate to
    describe physcical processes, I'd sure like to have
    them show me one thing in biology that can be shown to
    have a non-physical explaination. I'm very serious,
    JP. Show me one. Anecdotes and "well we don't
    understand it yet, so it has to be what I want it to
    be" stuff doesn't count.


    John Paul:
    Pat, that is exactly the anecdote that evolutionists
    use all the time. Explanations don’t wash (see above
    comment on explanations), empirical evidence does. Can
    we go to a lab, take the hypothesis of eucaryotic
    origins (bacterial endosymbiosis) and verify it?
    Understand the difference? The same goes for the
    'explanation' on how life started.

    --------

    John Paul:
    Also as has been pointed out before, IDists (or
    anyone) can infer the Lord our God is the designer but
    the point is that life on Earth could have been
    designed by some other ‘intelligent’ agent.

    Pat:
    The recently-revealed "wedge" document from the
    Discovery Institute pretty much spilled the beans for
    IDers.


    John Paul:
    Did it state that God was the designer of life on
    Earth?
    Wm. Dembski states,
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Even if a theory of
    intelligent design should ultimately prove successful
    and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the
    designer posited by this theory would have to be the
    Christian God or for that matter be real in some
    ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about
    science and simply regard the designer as a regulative
    principle--a conceptually useful device for making
    sense out of certain facts of biology--without
    assigning the designer any weight in reality.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In an article found here:
    http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=584


    Pat:
    Yep, they're basically trying to promote their version
    of Christianity, after all. I got a lot of
    outraged protest from creationists when opined that
    was what they were really up to. But I was right.
    Their tent is big enough to let the Moonies in, but
    it's still some kind of version of Christianity.


    John Paul:
    Well the Christianity tent is allegedly big enough for
    evolutionists. Or is it that allegedly Christians can
    also believe in the common descent diatribe of the
    ToE? It appears that there are many versions of
    “Christianity”, but in reality, only one True Path.
    What maze are you stuck in?

    BTW, what some proponents do and what ID is can be two
    different things. Also you don't have to be a
    Christian to be an IDist or a Creationist- in case any
    lurkers were wondering.

    ----------------

    JP:
    The identity of the designer is irrelevant as to
    whether or not something is designed. To further the
    point of biological design, today we observe
    scientists designing biochemical systems and we have
    never observed biochemical systems originate via
    purely natural processes.

    Pat:
    Sure we have. We have, for example, seen an
    irreducibly complex metabolic pathway evolve by purely
    natural processes.


    John Paul:
    You posted what you thought was one example on another
    board. However that example, like the others, was
    refuted (ie, the experiment did NOT show Darwinian
    mechanisms could produce IC).

    -----------

    JP:
    Further, do whale researchers have a better handle on
    their research by the alleged ‘knowledge’ of the
    alleged cetacean evolution?

    Pat:
    Yep, they do.


    John Paul:
    Living in New England I have had the pleasure to visit
    many cetacean institutes. Also because of modern
    technology, I can contact others. The scientists who
    study whales apparently could care less about their
    alleged origins as it matters not to their research.
    Some found it interesting and yes some scoffed at the
    idea that whales ‘evolved’ from a land mammal.


    Pat:
    Having found all sorts of intermediates between
    ungulates and modern whales, that pretty much did the
    trick.


    John Paul:
    Alleged fossil ‘intermediates’ are just an
    evolutionist’s way of saying, “I wouldn’t have seen it
    if I didn’t believe it.”


    Pat:
    Having found that cetaceans are genetically most
    similar to ungulates was just one more
    confirmation.


    John Paul:
    For Creationists it confirms a Common Creator.


    Pat:
    Even creationists are beginning to suggest that the
    evolution of whales from ungulates is "not really
    macroevolution".


    John Paul:
    Reference please.

    ------------

    JP:
    Does the ‘knowledge’ that all of life owes it common
    ancestry to an as yet unknown population of organisms
    (or populations) that just happened to have the
    ability to self replicate, aid us in any way in the
    research to cure cancer or any
    disease?

    Pat:
    The truth is not false, even if it has no practical
    uses.


    John Paul:
    Exactly. Also, the truth is not false even if it
    doesn’t fit evolutionist’s mundane definition of
    science.


    Pat:
    However, you might remember that all sorts of
    apparently useless knowledge have turned out to have
    practical applications. For scientists, knowledge
    is a worthy goal in iteself.


    John Paul:
    But is it knowledge if it can’t be verified?

    --------------

    JP:
    With design, if something looks designed, acts
    designed, has been observed being designed, and has no
    substantiating evidence for arising without a designer
    - it is safe to infer it was designed.

    Pat:
    One of the things humans can do really well, is tell
    the difference between designed things and natural
    things.


    John Paul:
    And that is why design is so obvious in biochemical
    systems.


    Pat:
    Even stone age tribesmen will tell you that a watch is
    designed, but a carrot is not.


    John Paul:
    Give that tribesman modern technology so he can see
    what the carrot really is and he will tell us it was
    designed. The black box has been opened. Design can no
    longer be ignored.


    God Bless,

    John Paul
     
  7. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOE MEERT

    Let me address several points made by Helen and others:
    (1) Neither I nor Zimmer misunderstand ID. I realize the small differences
    between ID and young earth creationism and have written about them at
    http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htm.

    ID, as formulated by Behe and
    others at DI should be anathema to young earth creationism, but it is not.
    Helen and others embrace it simply because it argues against evolution and
    we all know who the 'intelligent designer' really is.
    Masquerading behind a cloud of 'it could be anything or anyone' is nothing
    more than wishful thinking. ID won't mention the G-D word because then it
    would be exposed for the religious movement it is.

    (2) ID is simply an old argument wrapped in new clothing. Zimmer's point,
    and mine as well, is that ID has produced NO useful science. ID is not
    being used in everyday research and ID's scientific champion (Michael Behe)
    is an evolutionist who thinks that the ID is a God of the gaps and nothing
    more. Behe (other than his book) has not published a single peer-reviewed
    article using ID. No one else has either. This, more than any rhetoric
    from either side, speaks to the overall bankruptcy of ID as science. It
    doesn't work and it doesn't contribute anything useful to science. To say
    that ID is not about doing research (as Helen did) also speaks volumes about
    the scientific bankruptcy of the idea.

    (3)The notion that scientific journals are biased against new ideas is
    patently false, but this claim is made by Helen and other creationists on a
    nearly constant basis. So far, there is no proof of this bias. You made
    this claim about Setterfield (turns out to be false). Others have made
    similar claims, but there is no supporting documentation. Papers get
    rejected all the time. As an editor, I can tell you that in the top
    journals, very few papers submitted are ever published. It's not about
    censorship. It's about quality science and writing convincing data-laden
    papers supporting your position. I am getting tired of this baseless
    accusation. I know how things work and there is no bias against good
    science. I can give you a good example of a creationist writing about
    biblical geology. Steve Austin wrote an article (accepted by Intl Geology
    Review) about the earthquake of Amos. It was biblical history supported by
    good data. The journal did not censor the article because it was about the
    bible or written by a creationist. It was accepted on the face value of the
    data. The sooner creationists realize this is all that science asks, the
    sooner they will stop making baseless claims.
     
  8. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
    Let me address several points made by Helen and
    others:
    (1) Neither I nor Zimmer misunderstand ID. I realize
    the small differences between ID and young earth
    creationism and have written about them at
    http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    As you have been told before, YEC is a subset of ID.
    No one said they were the same, ever.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
    ID, as formulated by Behe and others at DI should be
    anathema to young earth creationism, but it is not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Why should ID be anathema to YEC? As you have just
    been told (again), YEC is a subset of ID. They are not
    the same. Do you understand what a subset is?
    I happen to agree with Behe in that the only way
    common descent would be possible is if the original
    population(s) of organisms were ‘front-end’ loaded.
    That is, they already had the genetic information
    necessary to get past the IC road blocks. However
    there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
    Helen and others embrace it simply because it argues
    against evolution and
    we all know who the 'intelligent designer' really is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    ID argues against evolution? It would be more correct
    to state that ID argues against the Darwinian
    mechanism accounting for life’s diversity owing its
    common ancestry to some unknown population of
    single-celled organisms that just happened to have the
    ability to self-replicate. ID also postulates the
    origins of life, which evolutionists try to distance
    themselves from. Methinks you are confused as to what
    ID is and what ID isn’t.

    If something looks designed, functions as if it were
    designed and has no substantiating evidence that it
    wasn’t designed, why is ‘wrong’ to infer design?

    Also please keep your assertion that ‘we all
    know who the intelligent designer’ is to yourself. I
    see you can accuse others of doing that but here you are…

    Again- Wm. Dembski states,
    :“Even if a theory of
    intelligent design should ultimately prove successful
    and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the
    designer posited by this theory would have to be the
    Christian God or for that matter be real in some
    ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about
    science and simply regard the designer as a regulative
    principle--a conceptually useful device for making
    sense out of certain facts of biology--without
    assigning the designer any weight in reality.”


    In an article found here:
    http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=584


    Who should we believe? Someone who is very much
    involved with ID or someone who is dead set against
    ID?


    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
    Masquerading behind a cloud of 'it could be anything
    or anyone' is nothing
    more than wishful thinking. ID won't mention the G-D
    word because then it
    would be exposed for the religious movement it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    ID is no more religious than is materialistic
    naturalism, which is the prevailing worldview in
    science these days. Science should be the pursuit of
    truth, regardless where it leads us.

    What’s the difference if we attribute something to
    God, and Intelligent Designer or Mother Nature acting
    with Father Time on some unknown natural process?

    Please answer that question.

    None one in the ID or Creation camp suggests shrugging
    our shoulders and saying God/ Intelligent Designer
    must have done it that way and leave it at that. This
    appears to be the evolutionists’ view of IDists and
    Creationists, which would be, and is, a blatant
    misrepresentation of reality.


    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
    (2) ID is simply an old argument wrapped in new
    clothing. Zimmer's point,
    and mine as well, is that ID has produced NO useful
    science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Did you even read the links I provided in my earlier
    post?
    Please tell us what useful science materialistic
    naturalism has produced? What have we gained by
    postulating a purely natural origin for life? What
    have we gained by postulating that the original
    life-form could evolve into the diversity we observe
    today? What have we gained by postulating only purely
    natural processes have led to all we observe?
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Joe Meert:
    ID is not being used in everyday research and ID's
    scientific champion (Michael Behe)
    is an evolutionist who thinks that the ID is a God of
    the gaps and nothing more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Reference please (on Behe thinking that ID is a God of
    the gaps and nothing more) or else it is a baseless
    assertion.

    Modern ID is relatively new. Give it some time. What’s
    the hurry? Also how would you know what molecular
    biologists use in their research? Did you ever think
    that what they use and what they publish are not one
    in the same?

    I am sure you won’t like this article but here it is
    anyway:

    The Biologist
    http://www.creationequation.com/Archives/TheBiologist.htm

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Joe Meert:
    Behe (other than his book) has not published a single
    peer-reviewed
    article using ID. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    According to Behe, he has been censored. Has anyone
    published a single peer-reviewed paper that shows that
    life is the product of purely natural processes? Is
    there a peer-reviewed paper(s) that show what Behe
    calls irreducible complexity can arise by the standard
    Darwinian step-by-step processes?
    Did you know there is now an International Society for
    Complexity, Design and Information, that has been set
    up for an ID peer-reviewed process?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
    No one else has either. This, more than any rhetoric
    from either side, speaks to the overall bankruptcy of
    ID as science. It
    doesn't work and it doesn't contribute anything useful
    to science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Until you can tell us what believing that the origins
    of life are due to purely natural processes has added
    to science it is clear you are applying the typical
    double-standards that evolutionists always fall back
    on.
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Joe Meert:
    To say that ID is not about doing research (as Helen
    did) also speaks volumes about
    the scientific bankruptcy of the idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Perhaps Helen can clarify that for us. I understand
    that it is virtually no way to predict what a designer
    will design, but I feel (as does at least one other
    person- Mike Gene of IDThink.net) that ID can be a
    valuable tool for doing biological research. It’s
    there on his website. All you have to do is go there
    and read it.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Joe Meert:
    (3)The notion that scientific journals are biased
    against new ideas is
    patently false, but this claim is made by Helen and
    other creationists on a
    nearly constant basis. So far, there is no proof of
    this bias. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Actually there is evidence and it has been presented.
    Both Behe and Humphreys have provided that evidence.
    That was why Creationists now have their own
    peer-review process and IDists are doing the same.
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Joe Meert:
    You made this claim about Setterfield (turns out to be
    false). Others have made
    similar claims, but there is no supporting
    documentation. Papers get
    rejected all the time. As an editor, I can tell you
    that in the top
    journals, very few papers submitted are ever
    published. It's not about
    censorship. It's about quality science and writing
    convincing data-laden
    papers supporting your position. I am getting tired of
    this baseless
    accusation. I know how things work and there is no
    bias against good
    science. I can give you a good example of a
    creationist writing about
    biblical geology. Steve Austin wrote an article
    (accepted by Intl Geology
    Review) about the earthquake of Amos. It was biblical
    history supported by
    good data. The journal did not censor the article
    because it was about the
    bible or written by a creationist. It was accepted on
    the face value of the
    data. The sooner creationists realize this is all that
    science asks, the
    sooner they will stop making baseless claims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    John Paul:
    Just so we get this straight- No one said ALL
    Creationists’ or IDists’ submissions get rejected
    outright. Unless you are calling Behe and Humphreys
    liars, I don’t see the evidence to support your
    position.

    So if you would, please tell us what the alternatives,
    IYO, if life’s origins could not have arisen via
    purely natural processes?


    God Bless,

    John Paul
     

Share This Page

Loading...