Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,16:09)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:46)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)|
|Actually you had me at|
|From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework |
as of course there has never been such a thing.
|not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm. |
This is all fine. Convince me.
To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:
There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so. It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums. Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to. I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.
Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it. In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing. Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all. In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable. Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.
Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:
|Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs. |
The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.
So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".
The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.
As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...
Did you even study the theory yet?
Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.
That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.
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.