With all due respect, Jetson, these comments point to severe willful ignorance on your part. Probability is a branch of mathematics that you have just trivialized into a meaningless form of stupidity….. and I’m sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well educated people who would serve you up a good verbal lashing for your comments. Cripes, probability theory is even used in theoretical biology.
Except Jetson didn't trivialize probability. It's a known fact that the probability of an event becomes unity when it happens, regardless of whatever its probability was before it happened, and that's what he said. You cannot determine what its probability was before unless you can replicate the conditions of the event. So the guessing games creationists play with probability when it comes to evolution come much closer to trivializing probability than anything Jetson has said in this thread.
You really have not given much effort to examining ID science, have you. If you had, you would not be making comments like this. Furthermore, you are trashing a branch of mathematics for no reason other than to further your own personal agenda.
When ID advocates have actual science that they can publish which can withstand the scrutiny of the existing scientific community, then this might have merit. And you have no room to talk about someone "trashing a branch of mathematics" when you ignore the ridiculousness of ID probability "calculations" which are based on imaginary conditions developed through patently ridiculous assumptions.
It means that attempts to use the Human Genome project as a means of furthering the ToE have failed.
It means nothing of the sort. The Human Genome Project was never intended as a means of furthering the theory of evolution, or anything else along those lines. Like all science, it was an effort to further our knowledge, and like many discoveries, it requires us to reconsider our previous conclusions in the light of that new knowledge. However, that does not mean we throw everything we've concluded previously out and start from scratch, as you seem to think from this line ("attempts"..."have failed"). It means we modify those conclusions to account for the new information in order to come up with better conclusions.
So what it really means is that the Human Genome Project will increase our knowledge of human genetics and thus enhance our conclusions about the theory of evolution.
No one is saying the ToE has no validity. The dispute arises when proponents of evolution starting stretching what we know and have observed into things like micro=macro. That’s where things start getting tangled up.
No, the "dispute" arose when proponents of intelligent design/creationism tried to force evolution into artificial "micro" and "macro" distinctions. In reality, there is no dispute except that wholly artificial one. The fact is that enough "micro" changes will add up to a "macro" one, and no amount of razor-thin lines in the sand will change that.
Is it necessary that ID “works in application?” Here, again, we have the assertion that science is the supreme ruler and that no other discipline known to man is capable of providing legitimate hypotheses for the origin of life.
Yes, it certainly is necessary, otherwise you have a thought experiment which is practically useless. If you cannot demonstrate a hypothesis through its applications, it is useless for any practical purpose. Also, science isn't some "supreme ruler", it's just that there are no other disciplines that can reliably falsify a hypothetical conclusion.
Why does hypothesizing about the origin of life have to contribute to cures for disease or the growing of crops?
Same as above. Are you seriously suggesting that because ID science does not provide things like a cure for eye diseases that it should be summarily dismissed?
Unless you can show that intelligent design contributes something
to the furtherance of human knowledge, then it's little more than useless philosophy.
Young minds form worthwhile skepticisms even in the biology classroom….particularly since, in my opinion, the ToE is not well supported by an ‘origin of life’ theory and, frankly, probably never will be. They know that the possibility of a Supreme Being (Creator) is real and deserve to know what thoughtful, educated minds can offer to support alternative views. In the end, they should be free to form their own personal conclusions based on what they deem to be valid arguments.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but you shouldn't promote completely non-scientific ideas as science. If you can demonstrate the relevance of those ideas to actual science, then it's a different story, but until then, there's no point in pushing it.
Does this mean the observations and commentaries offered are incorrect, innaccurate, and formed strictly from presuppositions? If you find fault with the observations and arguments being made, then so be it….but to summarily dismiss them because they are not “original research” is being prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased.
You mean like all of the things you've summarily dismissed in this topic? Are you willing to admit that your attitude is prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased here? If you're not, then you are a hypocrite; if you are, then you should change it.
Yes, the ‘scientific method’….the supreme ruler of all there is to know about everything and anything. So sad.
There you go with this "supreme ruler" business again. Things like this are a perfect example of what I just mentioned about your attitude. Or do you think that saying such things does not indicate a prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased attitude on your part?
You should really spend more time examining ID science because you are asking questions that you wouldn’t be asking. Only you can decide if ID science is a valid alternative and make a personal decision on how these questions can be answered.
You can't claim intelligent design is science unless it meets the criteria to be called science. No amount of talk about "valid alternatives" or "personal decisions" can change that. That means you, or other intelligent design advocates, have to demonstrate that it's science to begin with, and you won't accomplish that with mocking comments or trying to claim that you shouldn't have to play by the same rules that other scientific theories do.
You can't have it both ways. If you want intelligent design to be treated as science, then you have to show that it's scientific. If you aren't willing or able to show that it's scientific, then you cannot call it science.