N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | in the UK culture it's taken a whole other way. |
And yet chain wanking is so apropos of your modelling efforts.
| Quote | Since you seem to be looking for an official Intelligent Design answer it is perhaps best that I quote the official Discovery Institute premise, which already defines what's most different about the theory (such as main illustration having to show multilevel intelligent cause/causation, not natural selection).
| Quote |
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. |
|
As already explained, the problem with that statement is that it is vapid. No one doubts that certain features of the universe are designed (the Mona Lisa, the Eifel Tower, and Beethoven's Ninth), but without some specificity it is a meaningless and trivial statement.
| Quote | | The religious implications that are in the above statement are a religious matter, not scientific. Therefore your religion based objections that seem to prove the statement to be false are out of bounds of science, to begin with. |
It is an almost meaningless statement with no implications of any sort. Objections to it are not a matter of religion or science, just simple logic.
| Quote | | I keep the science and religion very well separated. The result is my having no difficulty staying within the framework of the ID movement. |
No you don't. You play around with coy religious-dog-whistle language (references to a trinity of things, Adam, etc.), and your biggest dog-whistle is calling your not-a-theory intelligent design, which is purely religious (and bad religion at that). Worse, your not-a-theory does not actually address or call on intelligent design, as you claim intelligence is an emergent phenomena. With no actual "intelligent design" involved, the implications of your language are clearly solely religious, because they surely evade both science and logic.
| Quote | | From what I have so far we are from intelligence that's a few billions of years old today. The now better understood ability of place cell networks in our brain to cause NDE's and such only made the mystery even more exciting, from a religious perspective too. There is then a trinity of interacting intelligence levels causing consciousness. Even where we know what in our multicellular brain causes this consciousness there is still plenty of explaining left to do. This keeps the ID science discovery fun going, for decades to come. |
So that's a No. You have nothing but hollow and unsupported assertions.
And there you go again with "trinity", which you get to by unjustifiably skipping and clumping levels of organization until you can reduce it to three.
|
