"Hahaha .... yes, we do need a little clarity here ... and the first place to start is the blatantly absurd claim that ID is not a scientific theory. The video I posted were scientists supporting intelligent design .... not theologians. "
You seem to mistake the concept of 'there are scientists who support ID' and 'ID is a scientific theory'. Let me give you an example of why this doesn't work. 'there were engineers who said the titanic couldn't sink' is not the same as saying 'the titanic was engineer in a way whereas it couldn't sink'.
"We also need to point out that it is the "evolutionists" who constantly associate ID with religion ... not those within the ID theory group. And though one could argue that ID poses certain religious implications, most of those arguments again come from evolutionists, while the ID scientists decry such associations."
Again not to hark back to the scientific processes. But you start with a hypothesis (evolution vs 'something directed it), and you add a mechanism (random mutation vs ??????). Then you see how well your theory explains the observable evidence , so evolution (fossils yes, moths selection in process yes good, vestigial limbs, yes makes sense)
Evidence of ID, remember this is positive evidence that there was a being that acted to interfere with development....erm...well, I mean there isn't any is there?
"The facts are ... evolution theory has far more in common with religion than does ID theory, and is every bit a "religion" unto itself. It's based on theories which are counter intuitive ... totally intolerant to competing argument ... and relies heavily on dogma. A better description of religion would be hard to find ... yet also defines evolution quite accurately."
As you've said, the glory of science is that there are scientists who believe a whole host of things. But brilliantly the process takes the vast vast evidence of evolution, from thousands of scientists, with a mechanism and high explanatory power, and weights it against a theory with no mechanism, and no positive evidence , and come out with evolution on top, dispute its a system above the individual.
"So, let's be clear ... ID scientists consider themselves and their theories to be scientifically based, and present strong scientific arguments against the more "faith based" theory of evolution, who's proponents are every bit as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist religious fanatic."
Again, the great thing about science is that it goes against the bias science of the few, to the theories which have far better explanatory power.
"Evolutionist - DNA (retroactive explanation, as DNA hadn't been discovered when Darwin formed his theory) but like everything else, it must have formed randomly, out of amino acids that joined to create proteins which then joined to create DNA just as the natural process of joining to create single cell organisms. Where did these amino acids and proteins get there instructions? Evolutionists can't say .. unknown. "
But you don't need instructions do you? You just need a random selection of combination, and then one that works that thus is passed on. RNA is the obvious starting point for looking at this development. Look at prol cells would help you understand.
"Intelligent Design - ID cannot explain the existence of DNA either. Due to it's complexity both in language and storage mechanism, and it's ability to self replicate ... ID suggests that it cannot be explained by means of random or natural processes because of that complexity, and no example of random-natural processes has ever been observed to produce such sophisticated organization. The most reasonable hypothesis is therefore to consider it non-random. That's the true scientific method ... and quite valid ... if you cannot determine what something is ... you can begin the process of elimination by determining what something is not. And by any reasonable measure, DNA appears to contain very specific, intelligent design characteristics, of a level of sophistication that modern science cannot reproduce, even in the laboratory. "
To come to baseless assumptions based on assumptions is nothing to do with science. Where is the observable evidence of an intelligent designer? All you are saying is : 'I don't think this is possible, there I think there must be a designer. That's not positive evidence of ID, its a lack of imagination combined with a random assumption ( by which I mean 'magic' is just as good an assumption here as ID).
"Has ID ever been observed
Evolutionists - No. Never.
Intelligent Design - Yes, inside every human cell, a complex, sophisticated, well organized system is in operation which could be characterized as a self contained, microscopic factory. Many examples of the biological processes conducted by microscopic "machines" are constantly working to construct, maintain and repair cells. Bacteria demonstrates the classic features of intelligent design too ...such as the "flagellum motor" used by certain bacteria for propulsion: "
Lets be clear here, ID has been observed, therefore a designed has been seem to be crafting DNA to new forms in cells?
"This motor is constructed from proteins which form the various components of the motor ... some 40 separate parts which must be manufactured, and then must be assembled in precise order for the motor to function.
To the casual observer who isn't steeped in dogmatic ideological self delusion ... this motor exhibits every reasonable aspect of a mechanism that was "designed" to perform it's intended function, and unlikely to occur by the random mixing of amino acids or protein strands."
Again, your lack of imagination is hardly evidence for ID, its not difficult to see levels of use
Refuted Before it was Written: A Guide to Allen Orr's "Devolution" Article in <I>The New Yorker</I>
"And the answer depends on just how honest .. or how blindly ignorant and self delusional a person is who answers that question."
The question is do you believe in a processes that has positive evidence for it, or one that doesn't?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But let's see if I can straighten you out, and get you up to 2nd gear here.
