Joined: Oct. 2005
And you got your backside handed to you again, by a whole bunch of new people raising familiar old issues.
(And you are still sticking with the dog's breakfast that you made of your misguided "four requirements" approach.)
A scientific theory does not just explain how something works. A scientific theory explains how something works and has very strong evidence supporting it's accuracy. If you don't have such strong evidence, you have, at best, a hypothesis.
No. You don't just get to define reality as "whatever I think is real." Your "hypothesis" is not "scientifically acceptable." Your "hypothesis" is not worth the bytes used to store it.
Gaulin's not-particularly-a-theory is… not even wrong. Extremely confused, at best. According to Gaulin's not-a-theory, a Roomba vacuum cleaner qualifies as "intelligent".
Don't worry, everyone has that reaction to Gary at first. He supports his own brand of intelligent design. It's natural to be confused about what he's saying - he is too.
The thing is, he has always talked gibberish, wordsalad and woowoo. Many creationists do, when they try to appear scientific. But at some point, he split from mainstream Intelligent Design, when it became obvious that even they rejected the 50-page-pdf full of nonsense he called a theory. He decided to disavow the mainstream intelligent design movement completely, but couldn't bring himself to abandon his nonsense "theory" in the process, despite the fact that it was born entirely out of creationism in the first place.
It was completely unintelligible to begin with, but now that there's a dissonance between the core of his "theory" and his expressed beliefs, not even he himself can decipher what he wants to say.
The whole thing would be funny, if he hadn't sacrificed literal decades to this delusion by now.
If you want some insights into his mind, read his pdf. It is almost entirely word salad, factual mistakes and unsourced woowoo.
Are you really this dense?
There's one problem with all of this: there has never been a single instance where the supernatural has proven to be an acceptable, or valid answer for any scientific question. Not one. Also, the supernatural by its nature cannot necessarily be verified, or falsified. That's why it's not used in science. If you can come up with a good way of falsifying the supernatural, let me know. Until then, it's not science.
|Right, but intelligence is a matter of opinion. Sea urchin sperm cells 'smell' their environment similar to how we do with receptors to catch particles, which induces a signal cascade that which then evokes a response from the organism (we just have a series of neurons between sensing and an whole-organism response). You could easily argue that their sense of 'smell' is better for that particular element, because they don't even have to move to determine directctionality.|
This is all without any special field. This is straight molecular biology. You could say that's intelligence, sure. To be able to integrate signals isn't anything special though. Literally every modern cell does that (EDIT: except maybe RBCs).
Again though, while you might be able to call cells intelligent, and use whatever tools you like to be able to make that distinction (since again, where you draw the line between intelligent and unintelligent is opinion), you can't draw the conclusion that things were made by an intelligent being - which is what ID actually proposes.
Now, onto your post.
|who (to fully model complex neural behaviors) have to model cellular and the molecular level processes that are at least as complicated a system to figure out as our brain and body.|
No. Our brain is 100 billion cells interacting with each other in a complex network, each with around 20,000 genes and however many functional RNAs that themselves function in a complex network (though not all will be expressed). Compare that with a sperm cell, which under the same metric as Dr. Albrecht-Buehler on centromeres (he doesn't actually state his model organism on the website where he makes his case, which is annoying) could be considered intelligent, you don't have that interaction of 100 billion cells. Unless you use a strange definition of complexity, I would objectively say no.
|What gets favored in a given environment over another is something that gets watched, after it's working and time to relax and admire the new creation(s).|
Here's your thesis, right? Lets see if you demonstrate it.
|The stuff of life that fills the universe|
Are you talking stardust or aliens?
| Having to study "natural selection" related theory on top of all the theory needed for modern cognitive science is something best avoided, anyway.|
What you're saying is that the theory that is generally considered the best description for the mechanism that causes the diversity in life is to be ignored. You need to demonstrate this. You should also keep in mind that natural selection works between generations, not intra-generation. Studying the 'intelligence' of an organism irrespective to fitness probably wont elucidate much about future generations.
Where all in "science" is in proper balance those who were sincere about scientific development of a new theory that somehow gives the Darwinian theory in its place (by via cognitive science being where the latest science fun's at for origins theory development) already has one, through my explaining what to look for and easiest way to begin in neuroscience related forms. No protest necessary, already done. Proves that the power of science
This is completely incomprehensible.
I'm not downloading a PDF from a random religion-related google site. PDFs can contain malware, and religious websites are three times more likely to infect your computer than porn sites.
| Even the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design has been put into scientific context. It's so powerful that for those like you who wanted to put the DI in their place it's the same thing as already "beating them at their own game" strong. There's actually no greater science fun for you than that.|
You keep saying that ID is a holy grail theory but you haven't demonstrated at all how it is even a supported hypothesis. I don't think you've gone back to your thesis once in this post.
You could start with presenting evidence for ID.
|This sounds like pure unscientific word-salad. Bonus points for sneaking in a Trinity in there, so you get to say later that life exists because Jesus. Sorry, but no.|
Well, fine, you can define the chemotaxic behaviour of a cell as intelligent, but that still doesn't get you one iota closer to proving that the explanation for that phenomena is that an intelligent designer conceived of this is a better explanation that everything we already know about how that cell came about through natural selection.
I don't care if you define rocks as intelligent, the critical missing step is where you give evidence and a mechanism for how an intelligent designer is a better explanation.
We don't need that, that just happens to be exactly what ID preaches. If you don't accept that, then maybe you should stop using the ID label, as somebody who came before you already gave it a meaning that is widely accepted.
Okay. lets entertain your idea that all life is objectively intelligent (which imo makes intelligence meaningless, but whatever). It really doesn't matter, because you're missing the crux of the issue, how you get from "everything biological is intelligent" to
| certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause|
Your concept of "prevailed" is truly bizarre, but that is line with your concepts of so much else.