RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Design Prediction - Take Two< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2005,04:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 15 2005,09<!--emo&:0)
Basically, I'm pointing out that the claimed analogy between known designers with whom we have experience and unknown designers operating in unknown ways is illegitimate. So, yeah, I dispute Michael's claim above as having any bearing upon my original objection. There is no basis given by Michael (or anyone else from Paley right on down to today) for a claim of "prediction" of what a designer behind aspects of life must have done.

Are there known designers to these artifacts? If you know who is the designer please enlighten us, the world would like to know.

The fact is you don’t know who the designers are for these artifacts and yet I am sure you would agree they are designed. Do you know how they were designed? The answer again is no. There are a lot of speculation and some of them are pretty good but the fact again is that no one knows for sure how they were design, constructed and for what purpose. So again how is it legitimate for you to compare these artifacts to known designers and claim that they are designed?

For someone like you who has studied and written about “intelligent design”, you should know that ID unlike Darwinism does not invent stories of putative mechanisms to explain the biodiversity of life on earth. Intelligent Design works purely on the empirical basis of science to identify if an artifact is a result of design. Certainly ID can speculate how or even why the artifact was design in a particular way, but without direct information from the designers it would be impossible to ascertain the actuality of the events. This is where Darwinism fails as a legitimate science. It moves from empirical evidence onto speculation of some putative process. As Ken Miller said IDist lack imagination, like Nicholas Matzke who imagine his pathway to evolve a flagellum, without any empirical science to back it up. The Darwinists just blindly eat that up as if it was ordained truth. They start quoting him all over the internet as if it was some empirical fact. Ken Miller put it in his book. ID does not deal with fantastic imagination. ID just deals with the facts of empirical science, period. ID knows that the best that we can do is to identify if an artifact is a result of design or natural processes. When you are thinking of ID, you must think outside of imaginary mechanism of Darwinism and think empirical science.

  32 replies since April 14 2005,10:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]