Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)|
Okay let me give a try:
| 1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.|
No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.
2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.
No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!
3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?
That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?
Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.
4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.
You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.
5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.
Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.
| Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?|
ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin