Author Topic: If Intelligent Design was really science, what could you write a PhD thesis on?  (Read 4068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Howdy all, long time lurker, occasional contributor. The recent Indiana lawmakers efforts to reinsert creationism brought me back here. It bugs me and I feel like I should be in a position to push back against the stupid.

I'm a medical doctor and I do some research, mostly translational research in medical imaging. So my research tends to be questions like "Can new test X detect pathology Z?" then moving on to "How does new test X, compare to gold standard test Y in the detection of pathology Z". These studies tend to be prospective, randomized and with controls to compare results against. It's the scientific method testing new medical tech against what came before. So I'm in part a scientist. The part of me that is doing science is always asking, "How do we test that?" type of questions. As a scientist, I recognize that ID and creation science are not actually doing science.

May threads here have been devoted to why ID and creation science are not valid fields of scientific study. The people who do ID "research" are not really researching anything. They aren't asking questions and testing their hypotheses. They are mostly just attacking biology, cosmology, paleontology and any other field of science that doesn't jive with their world view.

But what if it were...

Lately the "How do we test that?" scientist in me has been playing with ID. What if it were really an emerging field of scientific study? What if the the "Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc" was not just some veterinarian's suburban house in Maryland, but an actual research facility or university. What if the "Discovery Institute" was really a place for, well you know, scientific discoveries?

What questions would we, the faculty, research? How would we test them? What predictions could we make based on what we know? How could we test those predictions? If you wanted a PhD in intelligent design what would you do your thesis on? Heck maybe there's a Nobel waiting for you. Think big!

Here's some of mine, unrefined but hopefully you'll get my idea.

1. What do elements of the detected designs in nature tell us about the designer?
     a. Is there a distinct signature in form or function?
     b. Is there evidence of multiple designers with distinct "styles".
     c. Are designs ever changed or redesigned, or is design a one time event.
              i. What triggered a redesign?
              ii. Can we duplicate those conditions?
              iii. Can we observe redesign in process?
2. Can we duplicate the design process on any level?
     a. If not, why? What do we need.
     b. If yes, can we tell the difference between what we designed and the original?
3. What is the ultimate level of irreducibility? Are organisms irreducible? are organs? cells? proteins? molecules? atoms? subatomic particles? At what level does the "natural world" stop being natural and start being designed? How do we tell?

Here's another possible starting point from the Discovery Institute's own website. "Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."  (Strike - sorry the scientist in me is compelled to remove the fallacious appeal to authority from the hypothesis.)

So..."How do we test that?"

« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 11:51:25 AM by Brad the Bold »

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
very nice, Brad.  I like the bit about duplicating the process. 

Creatonists are such bad liars as your quote from the Disco'tute shows. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
How does merely pointing out the gaps in the various fields of science provide any empirical evidence for anything? I understand the process of peer review but what the ID guys are doing can't even be justified as a part of that process, not in spirit anyway. The irony is that they are in fact helping to advance scientific progress while trying to derail it. They are the vaccine to the scientific body.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6629
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Very nice OP. Sadly, ID types have no idea how to respond.. At least not coherently.

Gaps in science exist only because 7 billion people can discover just so much. Especially when over half of them refuse to allow us to look. To use the inevitable ignorance of science (we can't possibly discover everything unless someone hands us infinity to work with) as a point of attack is like complaining that you lost the football game because you kept tripping over the chalk lines on the field. Excuses that make no sense do not an argument make.

I would love to have some ID proponent come here and discuss their side of the story without relying on the old "its the only thing that makes sense" excuse. I would love for an ID proponent to come here and discuss their side of the story while exhibiting an actual understanding of science. I would love for an ID proponent to come here aware that they have a tough row to hoe and take the time needed to clarify each claim they make. And it would be super nice if they would admit they know how to cut and paste but don't do it much.

Sometimes we go after chinks in other peoples armor. As of now, we have yet to have an ID'er show up wearing any armor at all. Having arguments with a succession of similar and like-unminded people gets way too repetitive. Lets hope someone evolved enough to argue well against evolution shows up. Otherwise, I ask that they change the subject.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1943
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Lately the "How do we test that?" scientist in me has been playing with ID. What if it were really an emerging field of scientific study? What if the the "Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc" was not just some veterinarian's suburban house in Maryland, but an actual research facility or university. What if the "Discovery Institute" was really a place for, well you know, scientific discoveries?

What questions would we, the faculty, research? How would we test them? What predictions could we make based on what we know? How could we test those predictions? If you wanted a PhD in intelligent design what would you do your thesis on? Heck maybe there's a Nobel waiting for you. Think big!

Here's some of mine, unrefined but hopefully you'll get my idea.

1. What do elements of the detected designs in nature tell us about the designer?
     a. Is there a distinct signature in form or function?
     b. Is there evidence of multiple designers with distinct "styles".
     c. Are designs ever changed or redesigned, or is design a one time event.
              i. What triggered a redesign?
              ii. Can we duplicate those conditions?
              iii. Can we observe redesign in process?
2. Can we duplicate the design process on any level?
     a. If not, why? What do we need.
     b. If yes, can we tell the difference between what we designed and the original?
3. What is the ultimate level of irreducibility? Are organisms irreducible? are organs? cells? proteins? molecules? atoms? subatomic particles? At what level does the "natural world" stop being natural and start being designed? How do we tell?

Here's another possible starting point from the Discovery Institute's own website. "Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."  (Strike - sorry the scientist in me is compelled to remove the fallacious appeal to authority from the hypothesis.)

So..."How do we test that?"



Welcome, Brad! The research process you outline is indeed what the ID folks should be aggressively pursuing- if they were actually sincere in their claims that ID is a legitimate hypothesis that could give the ToE serious competition.

Some folks on YouTube, Thunderfoot among them, suggested something similar; here's a video link...

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Gaps in science exist only because 7 billion people can discover just so much.
There are other reasons, tho.

Did you know there has been a human skeleton found in a so-called Mesozoic layer along with dinosaur bones.  Take that, evilutionists!

It's true.  It was found out west in the Montana or somewhere like that.

Because humans often bury their dead 6 feet under.

So every piece of contaminated evidence is also a gap.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
just was reading how the Disco'tute is condemning the Indiana law that wants to allow "creationism" in the classroom.  They are all up in arms on how it really should be "intelligent design" since that's "scientific".   :P  always good to know that they'll keep lying to the end.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
just was reading how the Disco'tute is condemning the Indiana law that wants to allow "creationism" in the classroom.  They are all up in arms on how it really should be "intelligent design" since that's "scientific".   :P  always good to know that they'll keep lying to the end.

When I was a boy I used to pretend I was an electrician and take electronic toys and radio's etc. apart. I never was never able to put them back together and make them work. I never read or studied anything about electronics I just used the power of imagination. I see similarities in the ID movement, except they haven't figured out it's not play time anymore.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
When I was a boy I used to pretend I was an electrician and take electronic toys and radio's etc. apart. I never was never able to put them back together and make them work. I never read or studied anything about electronics I just used the power of imagination. I see similarities in the ID movement, except they haven't figured out it's not play time anymore.

nice analogy  :)
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
How does merely pointing out the gaps in the various fields of science provide any empirical evidence for anything? I understand the process of peer review but what the ID guys are doing can't even be justified as a part of that process, not in spirit anyway. The irony is that they are in fact helping to advance scientific progress while trying to derail it. They are the vaccine to the scientific body.

Exactly, an argument in favor of ID should not consist of "here's the problem with evolution", full stop. That's not science.

If you think the ToE is weakened by gaps in the fossil record fine, then show me how ID theory explains those gaps better. That would be science.

Show how ID theory explains something about the world/universe we live in. That would be science. That would have huge implications. If they could do it, even a little bit, they would draw in many more inqusitive minds to continue making observations, testing predictions and asking more questions.

But they cant, so they don't, full stop.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Intelligent Design, the Biblical account. Begins with the statement "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
In here I (a born again christian) find all i need to know about the origin of life. Why would I write a thesis regarding something that I could never possibly explain? My basis for my faith is not dependent on it.
I would rather focus on a thesis regarding the Biblical accuracy in regards to human relationships.
But for the sake of the integrity of this thread I would like to re post the thesis as listed earlier

1. What do elements of the detected designs in nature tell us about the designer?
     a. Is there a distinct signature in form or function?
     b. Is there evidence of multiple designers with distinct "styles".
     c. Are designs ever changed or redesigned, or is design a one time event.
              i. What triggered a redesign?
              ii. Can we duplicate those conditions?
              iii. Can we observe redesign in process?
2. Can we duplicate the design process on any level?
     a. If not, why? What do we need.
     b. If yes, can we tell the difference between what we designed and the original?
3. What is the ultimate level of irreducibility? Are organisms irreducible? are organs? cells? proteins? molecules? atoms? subatomic particles? At what level does the "natural world" stop being natural and start being designed? How do we tell?

I think that this is an excellent thesis, from what I can discern with my "ignorant" mind.
If I may I would like to address these statements in point form.

1.  What do elements of the detected designs in nature tell us about the designer?

-The designs found in nature reflect a very thourough designer.
-Nothing is overlooked.
-The complete ecosystem is intertwined.
-From birth to death to life anew,
-Procreation,
-The ability to find and convert food energies.
-There is no niche unfilled, no system unaccounted for.

A. Is there a distinct signature in form or function?

-Molecular theory demonstrates continuity thought all matter
-the essential building blocks are all the same IE. protons neutrons electrons.
 
B. Is there evidence of multiple designers with distinct "styles".

-Evidence points to one designer, one style.
-Carbon as the basis of all life.
-All life dies

C. Are designs ever changed or redesigned, or is design a one time event.
              i. What triggered a redesign?
              ii. Can we duplicate those conditions?
              iii. Can we observe redesign in process?

-Designs are unchanging.
-Gravity has always worked, consistently.
-The laws of the natural world which we have discovered are unchanging, only our understanding of them changes.

2. Can we duplicate the design process on any level?

-outside of creating electrons protons and neutrons, we can design molecules.
-We are unable to create life

     a. If not, why? What do we need.

-We understand what alive means
-We do not understand what Life is
-We are unable to create something without destroying something else

     b. If yes, can we tell the difference between what we designed and the original?

-The designed is always made of pieces of leftover or broken original
-We are only able to work withing the designs already created
-Speculative or "created" designs fail in the "real" world

3. What is the ultimate level of irreducibility? Are organisms irreducible? are organs? cells? proteins? molecules? atoms? subatomic particles? At what level does the "natural world" stop being natural and start being designed? How do we tell?

-The predictability of the "natural world" demonstrates design
-Scientific observation is only possible through the predictability of the design
-Scientific observation confirms a designer

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Hi Rhocam.

It will help you make your points if you learn to quote other posts in sections, rather than copy/paste.

This should tell you all you need:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16778.0.html

Have fun!
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I apologize for my lack of experience posting. Again it points out my "ignorance"

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6629
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted

1.  What do elements of the detected designs in nature tell us about the designer?

-The designs found in nature reflect a very thourough designer.
-Nothing is overlooked.
-The complete ecosystem is intertwined.
-From birth to death to life anew,
-Procreation,
-The ability to find and convert food energies.
-There is no niche unfilled, no system unaccounted for.

Welcome rhocam. On the scale that we living out west use, we're practically neighbors. You live in Saskatchewan, and I live in Montana. As the crow flies, you live about 400 miles away. Philosophically, we're much further apart.

You put a lot of energy into your post and I am hoping that others respond too. I chose the above to respond to first because it would be hard to hold anyone's attention by responding to all of it in one fell swoop. If nothing else, I want to find out how serious you are before I respond at length.

First you say "-The designs found in nature reflect a very thourough designer."

This is an opinion. You're allowed to have it, of course, but you seem to be assuming that it is correct. You're allowed to do that too, but don't assume that we see nature in the same way. I, for instance, see that designed appearance of nature to be a by-product of lot of undesigned events. Whether you're saying "Wow, five fingers on both hands, that can't be a coincidence" or you're staring through a microscope at a chain of DNA and being generally astonished (as we all should be) and seeing it as something "designed", it's an opinion. Neither ID or any other alternative approach to biological questions has come up with anything that qualifies as an alternative explanation (other than "god did it"), and most people who espouse such things seem to be in awe rather than curious.

Not counting abiogenesis, which science admittedly cannot yet explain (something we feel time will fix), a good deal of biology can be explained using non-astonished methods. Biologists can look at the similarities in the DNA of humans and fruit flies and plants and yeast and conclude that there is a connection. They can point to specific DNA sequences that are identical and perform similar tasks in very different organisms. We call this evidence. It's something that biology has a lot of, and yet very few biologists are claiming that there is a designer. Hence that evidence doesn't seem to support such an allegation. A designer is not obvious to those studying life the most intently.

Next you say "-Nothing is overlooked. "

I've no idea what your standards are here but if I were in the mood, I could come up with a lot of things that were overlooked. A designer made human backs inherently defective? Thirty percent or more of all humans will have back problems, most caused by the poorly designed spine. Poorly designed when walking upright. I for one am not impressed. I can add to that poorly designed abdominal muscle walls that allow 25% or so of the population to have to deal with hernias. Appendixes. The female susceptibility to vaginal infections. The need for bacteria to properly digest our food and keep our skin clean. That's just for starters, and just for humans. What's with the deer rack I found in the forest 20 years ago where one point of the antler grew into the skull and, if it didn't kill the poor thing, sure made it painful for awhile. Why do catbirds destroy the eggs of other bird species and lay their own eggs in those nests so that other non-catbird  birds can raise the catbird young? Or is there something else not overlooked that you were thinking of. I find tons of things pointing to a defective system that works despite it's shortcomings. But I don't find perfection.

Next you said, less controversially, that "-The complete ecosystem is intertwined. "

But again it sounds like you see that fact as a planned component of life, not a byproduct. When you're standing by the edge of a pond, fascinated by the interdependencies between fish and birds and frogs and plants and amoeba and fluke worms and mosquito larvae and such, you are not seeing all the efforts of other species to survive in the same environment, the ones that didn't make it. Perhaps a bird that needed more plankton to eat than the pond could provide. Or the fish that needed cooler water than the shallow water could produce. Or the plant with less robust roots that was crowded out by the cattails. Designers with the stature of a god shouldn't need to experiment, for millions and billions of years, to get it right. Especially since you say they weren't overlooking anything.

Next: "-From birth to death to life anew, "

Yes indeed. The various elements and chemicals within each of us are recycled (if given the chance) into other critters. (If we're embalmed and stuck in a metal box, it takes a bit longer. But it presumably still happens). Life is dependent upon the various organic elements and compounds that it is made of, and it has to recycle, because many of those components are unavailable otherwise. Do yo personally know where to get enough carbon to make your next kid if you use any other method then the next item on your list, procreation? Of course not. Nor does anyone else. We have to have ways to get it from living or once living sources, and evolution has made the tools for such recycling available. It gets messy. A dead cow in the desert crawling with millions of larvae is not one of the prettiest sites I've ever seen, but it was memorable. The rotting bodies and bones of deceased critters returns the pieces of their life to the soil and makes it available for later use by other living things. You think that was part of a grand design. I'm thinking it is a rather natural byproduct of a system created ad hoc by life. One that apparently works, or we wouldn't be here.

I already mentioned the next item on your list, "-Procreation". Very nice. Apparently sinful, but very nice. Quite necessary for any species to survive. It doesn't always require human type sex (single celled organisms split in half, flowers at least have the decency to casually distribute pollen rather than get all sweaty, etc) But something has to happen to cause one or more new little critters to be produced by the parent unit, whatever it may be. That ability is one of the basic definitions of life. Something that can move around all day and yet not reproduce isn't alive. By our definition. It may or may not be a sign that there is a designer. I see no reason to think that one is involved.

Then you listed "-The ability to find and convert food energies." The only thing we humans (and other mammals) eat that is not derived from living material is salt. (I'm not counting red dye #7 and other human created additives. I'm sure we all agree those are not necessary.) Now some bacteria can live off of things like sulfur and iron and sunlight. They are the ones that start the food chain. Most of the rest of us are required to eat things that were once alive, be they cows or carrots. This fits in nicely with evolution and life being intertwined, but it doesn't automatically point to a designer. It is easy for me to see this as yet another byproduct of life's little experiment. Something that it is doing on its own quite nicely.

And finally, you said : " -There is no niche unfilled, no system unaccounted for." Hmmm. Why does the species Demodex folliculorum live hamlessly in only about one third of the human population's eyelashes? Why don't all dogs have dog heartworm? Why aren't all ants infected by the fungus Ophiocordyceps? Lots of them are, but by no means are all of them. If no niche is unfilled, why don't I have malaria? How can you extirpate an animal from an area? Isn't that a niche unfilled? Amazing niche's are filled. Black smokers at the bottom of oceans, whatever the heck they find alive in that long buried Antarctic lake. But there is still plenty of room for new niches and new critters to fill them. The bacteria growing in jet fuel tanks, for instance. Where the heck did they live before humans invented jet fuel tanks? It is indeed amazing the types of niche's and the critters that live in them, but a guy big on creating the heavens and the earth and then taking the time to create the polio virus. What a sweetheart.

And what does "no system unaccounted for" mean? I haven't the slightest idea, so I can't respond.

You've come up with a nice list, but I've no idea how some of it applies to science as we know it. And I can't figure out how or why a designer is considered necessary. Like the christian god, it sounds like you have to have faith, because there is nothing to show otherwise.

And I have to ask. A god that's big on being anonymous and who requires faith and belief as proof of subservience, etc. isn't going to use some system or method of creating life that leaves tell-tales clues behind. If DNA were shown to be absolute proof that he exists, that little requirement of his would be thrown right out the window.

And please don't' be one of those guys that says ID has nothing to do with gods. I hate it when that happens. You're born again. So that's probably not one of your issues.  But correct me if I'm wrong.

Note: I did not get into the issue of abiogenesis, though you discussed it. And of course there were other parts of your post I did not respond to here. But the fact that we don't know how life happened does not mean that there are not facts that can explain it. Facts that we don't have yet. I'd rather give science more time than roll over and play dead. No, we don't know how. But no, that doesn't mean we have to give props to a sky daddy either.

Again, welcome. And you don't need to apologize for the improper quoting problem as long as you take earnest steps to do it right and hence keep the rest of your posts clearer. Magicmiles gave you the right link to learn how to do it right, and when you next post, notice that you have a "Preview" button available to look at your post before it goes live. Very handy, especially when you want to be sure you are quoting clearly.





Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline rickymooston

Off the top of my head, I'd guess one would have to classify irreducible complex constructs in the same way that people classified atoms before discovering that atoms were not atomic.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
people classified atoms before discovering that atoms were not atomic.

...What?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12465
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
I think what Ricky means by "atomic" is something more like "basic" or "indivisible".  Following up "atom" by "atomic" when "atomic" means something other than "relating to atoms" is some pretty confusing wording.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Intelligent Design, the Biblical account. Begins with the statement "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
In here I (a born again christian) find all i need to know about the origin of life. Why would I write a thesis regarding something that I could never possibly explain? My basis for my faith is not dependent on it.
I would rather focus on a thesis regarding the Biblical accuracy in regards to human relationships.
But for the sake of the integrity of this thread I would like to re post the thesis as listed earlier


You don't have a single question about the world you'd like to answer?

You've got all the answers to my questions and more so you don't need to study anything?

Great for you, but don't tell me that it's science. Keep it in your church and don't tell me to teach it at a public school.

Science has a several thousand year history of explaining things that someone said we "could never possibly explain". Just sit in the pews and believe that nothing has changed since the Bronze age.

We'll go back to the lab and keep explaining.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I just wanted to leave a quick reply to acknowledge your responses. I will return with some more answers later.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Intelligent Design, the Biblical account. Begins with the statement "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
In here I (a born again christian) find all i need to know about the origin of life. Why would I write a thesis regarding something that I could never possibly explain? My basis for my faith is not dependent on it.
  But oh you run to ID as “evidence”.  So much for your protestations of “faith”.

And the bible’s accuracy in human relationships?  Like how it’s okay to own another human, that women should be silent and obedient.  Happily, we’ve junked its supposedly divine accuracy in human relationships. 

Quote
-The designs found in nature reflect a very thourough designer.
-Nothing is overlooked.
-The complete ecosystem is intertwined.
-From birth to death to life anew,
-Procreation,
-The ability to find and convert food energies.
-There is no niche unfilled, no system unaccounted for.
and evolutionary theory takes care of this perfectly fine, as well as accounting for the various screw ups in plants and animals.  Or shall I say that Vishnu was responsible for all of this?  Each religion claims that its god is the creator and all have no evidence for such nonsense. 

Quote
-Scientific observation confirms a designer

quite a claim there. Evidence?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Intelligent Design, the Biblical account. Begins with the statement "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
In here I (a born again christian) find all i need DESIRE to know about the origin of life. Why would I write a thesis regarding something that I could never possibly explain? My basis for my faith is not dependent on it.
I would rather focus on a thesis regarding the Biblical accuracy in regards to human relationships.


Welcome.

I'll start with a question. What exactly is your basis of faith for believing that the Bible's god is in fact the intelligent designer responsible for the onset of reality?
Other things to consider would be questions such as:


- Do we have enough information to positively identify said Intelligent Designer?
- Do we have access to enough of that which was designed, meaning, does the Earth, what we know about it, and what we can observe about that which is unEarthly from our vantage point present us with a large enough sample size in relation to creation to make any definitive claims regarding the proposed creator?


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
It has been said before, but, when you consider the vastness of the universe, and I mean the real vastness, it is ludicrous (not impossible, but highly improbable) that there was a creator, and beyond ludicrous that such a being would take any interest in where the hairless monkeys left their keys, parked their cars or put their naughty bits.


Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7300
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
nogods...interesting point, and it triggered a further thought.

How big is God?

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha....

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
There is NO intelligent design theists......Adam was made from mud and Eve from Adam's rib. Where is the intelligent design in that?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3618
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
<clip for brevity>

Welcome Rhocam.
I'm curious to know.. Are you familiar with the idea of 'falsifiability'?[1]

It's pretty important to the scientific process and does wonders to whittle down the size and scope of a hypothesis.
 1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Intelligent Design, the Biblical account. Begins with the statement "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
In here I (a born again christian) find all i need to know about the origin of life. Why would I write a thesis regarding something that I could never possibly explain? My basis for my faith is not dependent on it.
  But oh you run to ID as “evidence”.  So much for your protestations of “faith”.

And the bible’s accuracy in human relationships?  Like how it’s okay to own another human, that women should be silent and obedient.  Happily, we’ve junked its supposedly divine accuracy in human relationships. 

Quote
-The designs found in nature reflect a very thourough designer.
-Nothing is overlooked.
-The complete ecosystem is intertwined.
-From birth to death to life anew,
-Procreation,
-The ability to find and convert food energies.
-There is no niche unfilled, no system unaccounted for.
and evolutionary theory takes care of this perfectly fine, as well as accounting for the various screw ups in plants and animals.  Or shall I say that Vishnu was responsible for all of this?  Each religion claims that its god is the creator and all have no evidence for such nonsense. 

Quote
-Scientific observation confirms a designer

quite a claim there. Evidence?

The reason I turn to ID as evidence is not for me, Its so you will engage me in dialogue.

Biblical slavery was closer to the slavery we know now, people who had no money did jobs for people who had money. American slavery is not found in the Bible, check it.

I find it humerous that this is the sticking point with you. Women are no different than men. the roles and responsibilities are different but not value. Why don't you focus on Husband love your wife? Or treat those working for you fairly. You know nothing of God, only that if He exists you don't like Him.

The biblical account also has an explaination for screw ups, it is called sin.The whole of creation groans as with birth pangs waiting for the reavealing of the son of God

The fact that you try SO hard to deny design shows it.   

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
There is NO intelligent design theists......Adam was made from mud and Eve from Adam's rib. Where is the intelligent design in that?

Then by that arguement where is intelligent design in marking paper with graphite?

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
nogods...interesting point, and it triggered a further thought.

How big is God?

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha....

why would it matter how big He is?