Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 02 2008,11:52) | DaveScot has his finger on the banninator.
Quote | DaveScot: Q
ID makes no claims about a designers means, motive, or opportunity beyond the fact that means and opportunity must have been available in some way.
If you make one more strawman regarding the claims of ID itll be your last comment here. Im putting you on moderation in the meantime. |
The term "ID" (Intelligent Design) is rather interesting.
Quote |
Dembski: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? ... Intelligent design is controversial because it purports to find signs of intelligence in nature, and specifically in biological systems. |
So, ID does make a claim. Assuming ID's methodology is valid and the claim is supported, then we do know something about the Designer. The Designer is intelligent. The question then becomes what is the design inference when applied to intelligence generally. Does intelligence exhibit CSI (complex specified information) or IRC (irreducible complexity)? It is a reasonable question. |
Of course they have never defined intelligence. More like 'You know it when you see it' kinda thing that many of the inmates over there have aped in various other contexts.
I don't think they CAN define intelligence, for it would put their religious beliefs hypothesis at risk. Remember, this is (as Wes just noted) a verificationist program.
-------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|