GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2013,11:49) | | Quote | | that ID must be a religion and what I explain must be illegal to teach in the US public school classrooms |
You continue to pretend that Intelligent Design belongs to you. It doesn't. The basic form of what we call ID is a set of somewhat coherent but vague and erroneous pseudoscientific statements invented or refined around the late 1980's and 90's when it was clear that straight-up creationism wouldn't be allowed in schools. It was a political and propaganda technique for circumventing church/state separation.
You don't have a theory, let alone an ID theory, despite your attempt to steal others' work and call it yours. ID theory, being a trojan horse for creationism, isn't allowed in science classes. Your 50 pages of gibberish is not, best I can tell, illegal to teach in science classes. It just won't ever be taught in science classes, because it's incoherent gibberish. Your mental problems aren't getting you anywhere in science. |
And you apparently have a problem with the concept called "big tent" where all were invited to help write the theory.
It’s not my fault y’all ran-off right after the show just got going. I spent years at ARN arguing that the theory I saw there was just enough to get in trouble with and they needed more than that. I was putting together origin of life experiments and before any of us knew of “chromosome speciation” research that was going on we had an excellent thread we all had fun, when for the very first time I wondered whether a Chromosomal Adam and Eve was possible. Mike Gene and others inspired what I was working on, by compiling all the latest diagrams and information on cellular metabolic circuits, and I linked to what I found that needed mentioning there. In time the competition of the same ideas between the same people in a forum that was not getting the hits/interest it hoped for led to frustration that and I was made gone but that didn’t help then others went to other forums too.
If nothing ever comes from all our work then the ARN forum failed its mission. But as it now stands, it was an excellent incubator. It’s just that after hatching we had to get out into the world. So here I am, in your forum, while others who now have many years of experience with me are carrying on elsewhere. After Dover it became easier for them to see what I saw coming, from what they had way back then like feedback circuit based theory that turned out to be one of the pieces in the Intelligence Design Lab puzzle but all alone that piece is not a viable Theory of Intelligent Design that also need Mike Gene’s circuit mindedness. In fact I recently had to show a couple more I found at Kegg, worth mentioning. Science sure didn’t have anything like that back in the ARN days.
In my opinion none of us from the ARN forum could not ask for better in showing that cells are intelligent, in an intelligent cause way. That’s why the concept is able to stand so well online at PSC, where it’s now science fun for those unafraid to go where none have ever gone before, in science. Connecting that theory into where consciousness comes from adds to that, to keep the search for our Creator going on through time without science ever being a problem. And there is the “culture war” aspect that where that mission actually succeeds what ends up in culture after musicians and other artists express their thoughts on things results in Alice In Chains checking in with their thoughts on "The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here" hypothesis. After hearing their sampler Wesley ends up the one needing to buy a CD, for blasting from their van wherever they go. All win some, lose some, but in the end something prevails to be proud of, for a lasting Theory of Intelligent Design.
I email the Discovery Institute when something new happens like the Intelligence Design Lab being published at PSC or I have a question such as pertaining to how to properly cite the source of the premise, that ended up being footnote #1 in the Preface/Premise explaining where this Theory of Intelligent Design came from.
| Quote | 1 Premise of this theory was proposed by the Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
Link |
The Discovery Institute is happily credited. All who were there in the early days of ID theory trying to put something together are already used to my ways, and have to be thankful for being past the Faith No More - Falling To Pieces oxymoron for the ARN forum to like, even though their group name sounds religiously awful without other puzzling metaphor(s) with it.
I have all along taken time to better credit ones I know from the ARN forum and elsewhere. It’s another good time for that. If I was stealing credit then I would have to do the opposite. And none who I most tested at ARN (Wesley can sympathize with) have to worry about how things are turning out in this forum, where I’m now your problem to deal with. The ID movement can just enjoy the big tent attraction now here, brought to you by this Theory of Intelligent Design that for sure puzzles the heck out of you. This only further complements all who were with me in the ID incubator doing the science gathering needed for something to hatch.
Kegg info of interest and other things that may seem trivial to you, is keeping things the same as always for developing something science will accept, that started at the ARN forum, where at least the ID movement leadership/regulars stayed current and entertained by what was happening there. What was there that was of actual value to a theory is in this forum, right now. It’s in your face, but you can’t see it. And in it are the most scientifically driven of the movement, with genuine interest in what I showed from Kegg where two circuits with one shown as a block inside the other shows sensory to DNA connection/addressing, where one fits into a block of another. This might not interest you, but there are some in the ID movement who search in this detail for any sign that our genome and lineage has unexplained intelligence in it, that this theory finds has a molecular level in our lineage that was for billions of years striving to become a human, therefore we’re here one of them.
The Chromosomal Adam and Eve working out, adds to the new way of explaining the evidence, that is credit ARN forum, where that was first thought of but not in theory that required later found references to show “chromosome speciation” is real-science. And in a science class anywhere there is no need to teach the whole theory, just what they first found out about from it that deserves mention that’s published at PNAS and more that’s worth mentioning along with all else on human origin, along with good answer for a student who wants to know Adam and Eve is at, in the DNA evidence, that next has them at NCBI and beyond, without needing to teach the “Theory of Intelligent Design” just what is in the literature, that scientists have been working on, that shows we are chromosomally unique that eventually leads to a single couple that established our typical 46 chromosome design where Eve works in Genesis as a 47 which is not a 48 so she is expressing human traits that Adam fell in love with that were none the less in her, from having half the count of something. Scripture does not go into detail in regards to genetics that makes sense of that relationship, but finding it where Chromosomal Adam and Eve are at only helps keep them in spirit with what is in culture about their design that is said to have suddenly appeared, in a way that Darwinian theory was said to conclusively show could not be there. What can now be explained in any science class is what matters, in making some problems gone, on their own, without needing to teach the Theory of Intelligent Design just know about it being there, by enough science teachers for it not to be much of an issue just an interesting theory writing idea to learn from too.
All that I saw happen with scientific merit (regardless of some being religiously motivated towards a new paradigm) in metaphor has us this forum dancing with pandas and all that as in The Grates - Rock Boys Film Clip video, where it has to be all (included) or nothing. It might seem like Creed and overdone drama, but where I’m honest and pick the one song to show my feelings in regards to what was going on at the ARN forum and elsewhere where we were argumentative but still friends who had many good times together, even though at times annoyed each other.
My having long been where the theory was in development (and KCFS forum where university professor type audience was collected to debate the same thing there) already made me one of the memorable ID movement regulars, under the big-tent and were regularly overshadowed by usual names like William Dembski where you dwell on every word they say. What was happening at the ARN forum and elsewhere did not get much attention, which lead to not (yet) achieving their mission to soon have scientists flocking there in droves wanting more. The forum(s) eventually lost its novelty to become a place where we just talked to each other, with none else listening. But until the end I was where all else happening in ID was at, very much there.
As always, there is a side of me that would rather see their (within limits of science) dreams come true, than not. Already proved I was serious about rather seeing something scientific come from what they had, by not being afraid of what I found that works. I have to be a sucker for punishment to be in this forum with it, which at least certainly proves I was sincere about that. I don’t mind in the name of science giving it my all, where I can, for the ones who were admirably science gathering and coming up with new ideas, from routine science. It’s hard for you to see their influence in the how the theory turned out, but they’re there, and they know it.
Your effort to make it seem I’m from nowhere with something that the ID movement has never seen before, does not work in the big-tent, where all know better than that. And they have little reason to worry about my help, getting something paradigm changing forever into science, that you are completely powerless against, because of it being real science that is already where it needs to be to go on forever from there, without ever forgetting where it came from...
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 17 2013,06:20
--------------
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.
|
