Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[POI]

When Behe first defined irreducible complexity as "needs all its parts to function", scientists quickly showed that evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of generating IC structures and systems, which meant IC couldn't be used as an argument against evolution. So in 2000, Behe redefined ID to mean something produced by an evolutionary pathway that had any unselected steps.

But then scientists pointed out that "unselected steps" just means genetic drift, which happens all the time and therefore the new definition of IC isn't anti-evolution and is instead just theistic evolution (it's still an evolutionary pathway, but just with God tinkering with it).

Then in 2002 Dembski redefined IC yet again, and said it refers to a system of "well-matched, mutually interacting" parts that are essential to the system's original function. Of course scientists pointed out that he was arbitrarily ruling out exaptation, which is a known process.

So before folks start discussing or debating IC, the ID creationist first needs to decide which version of IC they're advocating and explain why they're not using the other ones.

Thanks for the updates. If ID-ers wish to argue for a differing version of IC, versus the one given in red - (top of post 78), they can specify what this would instead be, and they can also clarify as to why it's better than the one argued in red. As it stands, my point is predicated upon the version in which the ID-ers, which included Mr. Behe, used in the Dover trial <after> your given sightings. Which means they must think this is the best one to run with... Maybe they revamped it, yet again, after their dismal failure in court in the mid 2000's?

[benchwarmer]

When Behe first defined irreducible complexity as "needs all its parts to function", scientists quickly showed that evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of generating IC structures and systems, which meant IC couldn't be used as an argument against evolution. So in 2000, Behe redefined ID to mean something produced by an evolutionary pathway that had any unselected steps.

But then scientists pointed out that "unselected steps" just means genetic drift, which happens all the time and therefore the new definition of IC isn't anti-evolution and is instead just theistic evolution (it's still an evolutionary pathway, but just with God tinkering with it).

Then in 2002 Dembski redefined IC yet again, and said it refers to a system of "well-matched, mutually interacting" parts that are essential to the system's original function. Of course scientists pointed out that he was arbitrarily ruling out exaptation, which is a known process.

So before folks start discussing or debating IC, the ID creationist first needs to decide which version of IC they're advocating and explain why they're not using the other ones.

Thanks for the updates. If ID-ers wish to argue for a differing version of IC, versus the one given in red - (top of post 78), they can specify what this would instead be, and they can also clarify as to why it's better than the one argued in red. As it stands, my point is predicated upon the version in which the ID-ers, which included Mr. Behe, used in the Dover trial <after> your given sightings. Which means they must think this is the best one to run with... Maybe they revamped it, yet again, after their dismal failure in court in the mid 2000's?

It's all standard apologetics. Every time a glaring issue is shown, the 'wise' apologists pick up the goal posts and move them somewhere else and hope the new misunderstanding of science will escape notice. It never does for long, but bless them for at least trying something new.

[POI]

When Behe first defined irreducible complexity as "needs all its parts to function", scientists quickly showed that evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of generating IC structures and systems, which meant IC couldn't be used as an argument against evolution. So in 2000, Behe redefined ID to mean something produced by an evolutionary pathway that had any unselected steps.

But then scientists pointed out that "unselected steps" just means genetic drift, which happens all the time and therefore the new definition of IC isn't anti-evolution and is instead just theistic evolution (it's still an evolutionary pathway, but just with God tinkering with it).

Then in 2002 Dembski redefined IC yet again, and said it refers to a system of "well-matched, mutually interacting" parts that are essential to the system's original function. Of course scientists pointed out that he was arbitrarily ruling out exaptation, which is a known process.

So before folks start discussing or debating IC, the ID creationist first needs to decide which version of IC they're advocating and explain why they're not using the other ones.

Thanks for the updates. If ID-ers wish to argue for a differing version of IC, versus the one given in red - (top of post 78), they can specify what this would instead be, and they can also clarify as to why it's better than the one argued in red. As it stands, my point is predicated upon the version in which the ID-ers, which included Mr. Behe, used in the Dover trial <after> your given sightings. Which means they must think this is the best one to run with... Maybe they revamped it, yet again, after their dismal failure in court in the mid 2000's?

It's all standard apologetics. Every time a glaring issue is shown, the 'wise' apologists pick up the goal posts and move them somewhere else and hope the new misunderstanding of science will escape notice. It never does for long, but bless them for at least trying something new.

Great point. And if another Christian can think of a newer version, above and beyond the one fought and royally lost in the Dover trial, I'm all ears to hear it?

[Jose Fly]

When Behe first defined irreducible complexity as "needs all its parts to function", scientists quickly showed that evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of generating IC structures and systems, which meant IC couldn't be used as an argument against evolution. So in 2000, Behe redefined ID to mean something produced by an evolutionary pathway that had any unselected steps.

But then scientists pointed out that "unselected steps" just means genetic drift, which happens all the time and therefore the new definition of IC isn't anti-evolution and is instead just theistic evolution (it's still an evolutionary pathway, but just with God tinkering with it).

Then in 2002 Dembski redefined IC yet again, and said it refers to a system of "well-matched, mutually interacting" parts that are essential to the system's original function. Of course scientists pointed out that he was arbitrarily ruling out exaptation, which is a known process.

So before folks start discussing or debating IC, the ID creationist first needs to decide which version of IC they're advocating and explain why they're not using the other ones.

Thanks for the updates. If ID-ers wish to argue for a differing version of IC, versus the one given in red - (top of post 78), they can specify what this would instead be, and they can also clarify as to why it's better than the one argued in red. As it stands, my point is predicated upon the version in which the ID-ers, which included Mr. Behe, used in the Dover trial <after> your given sightings. Which means they must think this is the best one to run with... Maybe they revamped it, yet again, after their dismal failure in court in the mid 2000's?

Glad to help.

It's important to keep in mind that there's a reason why the ID creationists abandoned the "needs all its parts to function" definition of IC, namely it was because that original definition was both fundamentally flawed (e.g., didn't allow for change in function) and demonstrably wrong (evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of producing systems and structures that need all their parts).

So if they want to defend the old definition, someone should ask them why they are defending a definition of IC that prominent creationists themselves abandoned. I mean, if Behe and Dembski moved away from it decades ago, why is anyone else still sticking with it? It'd be like an evolutionary biologist still trying to defend the great chain of being or something.

[Clownboat]

The above explanation is just a theory, which is no better than my theory of "We believe in agency because that is simply where the evidence takes us".

That's my theory, and it is just as valid.

And again, the theory in your little article, even if the theory of how people come to believe is true, that says nothing about whether their belief itself is true, or false.

Your debating will continue to suffer if you keep making this about your preferred beliefs being true or not. What I offered was a valid explanation for how humans gained the characteristic you display here (assigning agency). True nor false has entered the equation, but you just can't help yourself because you seem obsessed with a belief you hold.

Again, compare this with someone that currently accepts evolution. Show that evolution is wrong and nothing is lost. If you truly have new information that goes against evolution, most of us would be eager to hear it, but again you seem too focused on the truth of what you currently believe.

<snipped your comment on rape for finding it vile. I believe (and society agrees with me), rape is in fact not good)>
Numbers 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Something about a plank in the eye comes to mind...

You see agency everywhere you look and you doubled down by saying that everyone should.

Yeah, they should.

This is just a triple down. You don't seem to care about showing that your claims are true. Why is that?

When I see a combination of order, function, and complexity, I infer intelligent design.

Like I have already demonstrated, more agency. You are such a kind debate opponent the way you continue to show that I am correct. Much appreciated!

Logical reasoning is the mechanism that drives me.

I have noticed a denial of evidence and an unwillingness to learn new information. The readers will decide for themselves.

Not everyone likes the idea of a cosmic creator who gives commands and holds each person accountable for their wrong behaviors.

Why do you say things like this? It's nonsensical. Why for example do you believe that if there was a cosmic creator that I wouldn't want to learn about it? I would in fact want to learn everything about it that I could which makes me just shake my head at your words for being complete nonsense.

You infer intelligent design as you see fit, in every other scenario besides the scenario that points the direction of a cosmic creator.

You can't help yourself can you? I am open to the idea of a cosmic creator. You got one worth considering? If so, inform us of what you have, please!

Socrates would know better than to commit the Genetic Fallacy.

Which would have nothing to do with your slander.

And, when it comes to origins, science/natural law is just simply not the best explanation.

I don't believe you nor trust you. This is a debate site. You must do better than to claim to have unknown answers, yet that is all you offer. No 4 minute video to try to educate us, just religiously motivate claims. If I am to give yours credit, I would have to do the same for the Muslim, Hindu and on and on. I predict that you will continue to believe that I'm against the idea of a cosmic creator or whatever it is you must tell yourself in order to protect your preconceived beliefs.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your debating will continue to suffer if you keep making this about your preferred beliefs being true or not.

Your fallacious reasoning applies to any belief, not just mines.

What I offered was a valid explanation for how humans gained the characteristic you display here (assigning agency). True nor false has entered the equation, but you just can't help yourself because you seem obsessed with a belief you hold.

And what I exposed is your fallacious reasoning.

Again, compare this with someone that currently accepts evolution. Show that evolution is wrong and nothing is lost. If you truly have new information that goes against evolution, most of us would be eager to hear it, but again you seem too focused on the truth of what you currently believe.

I don't believe what you believe, and you can't make me.

<snipped your comment on rape for finding it vile. I believe (and society agrees with me), rape is in fact not good)>
Numbers 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Something about a plank in the eye comes to mind...

Take the good of the spoils.

This is just a triple down. You don't seem to care about showing that your claims are true. Why is that?

This isn't about convincing. You guys ain't here to be convinced... you're here to keep your skeptic sword sharp.

And I'm here to keep my apologetic sword sharp.

So, let's dance.

Like I have already demonstrated, more agency. You are such a kind debate opponent the way you continue to show that I am correct. Much appreciated!

I am?

I have noticed a denial of evidence and an unwillingness to learn new information. The readers will decide for themselves.

I am a reader and that's not what I decided for myself.

Why do you say things like this? It's nonsensical. Why for example do you believe that if there was a cosmic creator that I wouldn't want to learn about it? I would in fact want to learn everything about it that I could which makes me just shake my head at your words for being complete nonsense.

Then wipe the dust off your Bible and read a page or two.

You might learn something.

You can't help yourself can you? I am open to the idea of a cosmic creator. You got one worth considering? If so, inform us of what you have, please!

The Creator of the world loves you, and created you in his image.

This creator would love to have a relationship with you, if you are willing.

I don't believe you nor trust you. This is a debate site. You must do better than to claim to have unknown answers, yet that is all you offer. No 4 minute video to try to educate us, just religiously motivate claims. If I am to give yours credit, I would have to do the same for the Muslim, Hindu and on and on. I predict that you will continue to believe that I'm against the idea of a cosmic creator or whatever it is you must tell yourself in order to protect your preconceived beliefs.

PM me.

All jokes aside, I love you..and with that love comes a desire for you to be in a loving relationship with a God who purposely created you.

You aren't here by accident.

Let's talk.

[Clownboat]

Your debating will continue to suffer if you keep making this about your preferred beliefs being true or not.

Your fallacious reasoning applies to any belief, not just mines.

This doesn't come close to addressing what I typed.

What I offered was a valid explanation for how humans gained the characteristic you display here (assigning agency). True nor false has entered the equation, but you just can't help yourself because you seem obsessed with a belief you hold.

And what I exposed is your fallacious reasoning.

Once again, not even close to addressing what I typed.

Again, compare this with someone that currently accepts evolution. Show that evolution is wrong and nothing is lost. If you truly have new information that goes against evolution, most of us would be eager to hear it, but again you seem too focused on the truth of what you currently believe.

I don't believe what you believe, and you can't make me.

Once again... It's like you are not replying to the things I am actually typing.

<snipped your comment on rape for finding it vile. I believe (and society agrees with me), rape is in fact not good)>
Numbers 31:18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Something about a plank in the eye comes to mind...

Take the good of the spoils.

I was referring to the taking of the young virgin girls (only because you brought up rape). That they also took spoils of war I do not contest.

This isn't about convincing. You guys ain't here to be convinced... you're here to keep your skeptic sword sharp.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am open to being convinced about things that can be shown to be true. I'm not aware of any skeptic sword that you lay at me. Perhaps this is a defense mechanism, convincing yourself that I'm just some skeptic and not a person that is willing to amend their thinking?

And I'm here to keep my apologetic sword sharp.

So you were just projecting your agenda on to me. You shouldn't do that.

Like I have already demonstrated, more agency. You are such a kind debate opponent the way you continue to show that I am correct. Much appreciated!

I am?

When you show that my words are true, yes, I find that very kind in debate.

I have noticed a denial of evidence and an unwillingness to learn new information. The readers will decide for themselves.

I am a reader and that's not what I decided for myself.

I could explain the difference between a reader compared to one that posts, but I trust the readers already understand this.

Why do you say things like this? It's nonsensical. Why for example do you believe that if there was a cosmic creator that I wouldn't want to learn about it? I would in fact want to learn everything about it that I could which makes me just shake my head at your words for being complete nonsense.

Then wipe the dust off your Bible and read a page or two.

Again, again... Not even close to addressing what I typed.
"Why for example do you believe that if there was a cosmic creator that I wouldn't want to learn about it?"

I have read the book by the way, but I don't expect you to acknowledge this because you have already perceived me as some skeptical atheist that is out to protect their beliefs and seemingly not as someone with a differing view that is willing to amend their thinking if shown it should be amended.

You can't help yourself can you? I am open to the idea of a cosmic creator. You got one worth considering? If so, inform us of what you have, please!

The Creator of the world loves you, and created you in his image.

You are not a very convincing debater. Can you ask this Creator to help improve your replies? Perhaps readers will even notice the improvements and then have to consider why. Not me though right? I'm just a skeptical atheist that will live and die by my beliefs in place of ever changing them?

This creator would love to have a relationship with you, if you are willing.

This is embarrassing. It's as if you aren't even trying.

All jokes aside, I love you..and with that love comes a desire for you to be in a loving relationship with a God who purposely created you.

I care about you as a fellow human, but you are not very convincing and this faith base reasoning you offer may be good enough for you, but I will need more then empty religious platitudes.