Understanding God

[tek0]

PLease elaborate thomas.'
My mind sees things you could only apparently see since i imagine only those ideas that are quite real to a degree.




Those Aussies I hear are quite in a position in terms of the fight/flight overall asian operative directives facing them in terms of influence in these sectors since they do not posess the correct definitions let alone the real world implications of their bio-diversity aside from traditional outcomes of those existent treatments and what companies like MONSANTO tell them.



Q---- yes we play these cards from your "thinking brain thomas"

We however are surprisingly being led toward those rewards and we could perhaps surprise those particular mental memory goals for advanced implications that are in fact un-provable.



I suspect that the Aboriginals are on the ball with regards to this and that modern warfare will not by stealth means encroach on this eco-system.

Destroying the points of botanical interest are being monitored and I assure you now here that someone will pay for such incroachments due to time lapse eye in the sky enforcement of critical areas.


Breach is a matter of time and yet the official regulations will be known to anyone bothering with such research.

[tek0]

May god smite all of thee and open wormhole contradicting species imperative that is no sustainable. A MOTHER FUCKING MEN WITH AN AK-47

[mikiel]

.


The Mystic Doctrines of Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Secrets of Enoch.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/citsym/u ... ng-God.htm


.

From the intro paragraph of the link I shared above:

Not only do they (the six major Traditions) have different rites, rituals, prayers and precepts, but in many cases their most fundamental doctrines about the nature of Reality appear to contradict each other.

Tomas,
Do you know the difference between doctrine as used in the quote above (with all its cross-traditional contradictions) and the common Truth known by mystics of all traditions, as shared in my link. I think not.
And, no, "The Secrets of Enoch" are not a seventh major tradition, tho I think the indigenous shamanism of all cultures would so qualify.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So what I mean to say is that many scientists just don't want reality to turn out to be much different than they already think it is, and they don't want it to include subtle realms that have been called spiritual - a confusion that arises in mankind because of its invisibility.

A strange remark considering much of science is actually revolving around invisible or imaginary realms. Why would they have a problem with 'subtle' realms as they're already dabbling with geometric mathematical worlds, Hilbert spaces, hyper-dimensional string-based universa, etc?

But the whole inquiry is that things are intelligently designed, and that this can be detected. How in the hell does this subvert the scientific method?

Think about it: to detect design it has to happen against a backdrop of something that's not designed. Otherwise one would never know, everything could be designed, even chaos, randomness, pink noise. Why not?

Meanwhile, you can read in many places in the evolution texts, that life is a random process without goal or purpose. Now, what about that conclusion?

It's just an observation that it appears random, that is: unpredictable or a pattern contained by limits of probability perhaps. For science, that is enough to work with. Anything else bolted on would not help, or at least this has not been demonstrated.

1. The theory of evolution, as promoted by its mainstays, also holds a priori beliefs.

Not as specific or fixed as you might think.

2. Scientific theories sometimes come under disagreement, which is what this is.

No, what you describe is merely bolting on of beliefs on top of a dominant theory. There's nothing fundamentally being challenged, no real alternative being proposed. Therefore no reason to not participate in mainstream scientific processes and peer reviewing.

But the entire world weather system could not be compared in complexity to a single living cell.

There's no fundamental difference in complexity and dynamics. Actually the weather is a bit tougher even, I'd suggest. Therefore it's a good way of comparing how science treats it and how 'intelligence' might relate to it.

What in the world do you think science is? It is inquiry into nature, reality, how it works. Some have proposed the life forms can just get together and morph one into another, getting better and better. Others have said, wait a minute, that doesn't look plausible to me, and here is why.

It's not part of evolution theory to say that things get 'better and better'. Or bigger, or more efficient, or whatever. For every species that might succeed in surviving on the long run many others fade away. What is exactly 'good' about that?

Inquiry into nature and reality is one thing, the scientific method is defined to help us how it might work best as it comes to the complexity of the details.

The Intelligent Design proponents use arguments from the fields of mathematics, probability, information theory, logic and reason, and the Darwinists use ad hominem and bluster.

It quickly turns to being ad hominem if one has to explain the benefits of the scientific method to otherwise capable and intelligent folks. It means questioning someone's blind spots and, I suppose, always provokes defensiveness and playing victim or suppressed minority. And I'm sure some Darwinists are very mean and shortsighted, too.

But of course we can figure out how a cell would look if designed or undesigned. That is, we can figure out whether the cells that we have could plausibly have arisen without mind.

It seems you haven't thought this through. One needs way more information on the supposed designer, the when and where and information on a guaranteed 'undesigned' item to start doing some science. In other words: limits have to be defined to be able to measure.

No, I just think that God is all of reality. Everyone worships. Dawkins no less than anyone else. There isn't anything else. Just reality. Just God. Dawkins is a fervently religious man. Science might study, for example, whether consciousness survives bodily death, and you might call that metaphysics, but I just call it reality.

If God is all then he can easily be removed from any equation designed to describe some part of him. It wouldn't matter much apart from preventing some muddying.

[Ataraxia]

But the whole inquiry is that things are intelligently designed, and that this can be detected. How in the hell does this subvert the scientific method?

Think about it: to detect design it has to happen against a backdrop of something that's not designed. Otherwise one would never know, everything could be designed, even chaos, randomness, pink noise. Why not?

Indeed.

It has always intrigued me how any scientist could go about his work while also still believing in a creator/designer Being.There has to either be some serious cognitive dissonance going on,or he is able to really compartmentalize his thinking.

Unless one is a literal Deist(which is a rarity) then if it could be 'designed' in the first place then presumably a Being that powerful could re-design it at whim--with designer God,"Shit can just happen" .The scientists whole pursuit is trying to discern laws and 'order' out of the seeming chaos that is Universe,yet this same diviner can believe in a designer?It's totally bizzare to me.

I don't really see why anyone would have a problem with evolutionary theory.It's really just a practical expansion on the idea that "Everything is caused"

[Ryan Sepulvado]

I have an excellent solution for the problem of religion existing within our species.
Really, humans do speak of it too often. And it's an awful detriment.

Truly... it's a wonderful solution.

[Ryan Sepulvado]

Ataraxia was more fun on the shadowbox.

[Iolaus]

Well, well, Diebert,

A strange remark considering much of science is actually revolving around invisible or imaginary realms. Why would they have a problem with 'subtle' realms as they're already dabbling with geometric mathematical worlds, Hilbert spaces, hyper-dimensional string-based universe, etc?

It's a good point and one that I have often made. Why the difficulty with the idea that there are subtle realms of interconnection in the universe when we have already discovered so many invisible things, such as one celled organisms, and the electromagnetic spectrum. It's emotional, no doubt. For example, no evidence of ESP is ever good enough for QRS to even begin to think in terms of probability. Their credulity for the abilities of coincidence are boundless.

Think about it: to detect design it has to happen against a backdrop of something that's not designed. Otherwise one would never know, everything could be designed, even chaos, randomness, pink noise. Why not?

First of all, let us remember that my question was as to whether such an inquiry, all by itself, subverts the scientific method. That is a very strong and unfounded accusation. Now, it may be true that our entire universe is designed, and I think it is, and it may be that we can only imagine the undesigned to exist. Nonetheless, within our scope here on earth, we can say that when someone writes a novel, it was most certainly designed, and that if we toss letters in the air for a trillion years, or have those 100 monkeys typing away, they will never compose the works of Shakespeare, or any other novelist. We can watch the waves wash the sands on the shores of all the beaches in the world, and a random sand castle will never appear. We are talking about complex, specified information, such as DNA and novels. The randomness that we see in nature, perhaps cloud formations, may be occurring within a designed system, but it is random in the appearance. You could have a game of dice. The game is designed, you are designed, and the dice are machine tooled for accuracy. But the toss results are random. You need to read a little bit about information as it relates to ID.

Me: Meanwhile, you can read in many places in the evolution texts, that life is a random process without goal or purpose. Now, what about that conclusion?

You: It's just an observation that it appears random, that is: unpredictable or a pattern contained by limits of probability perhaps. For science, that is enough to work with. Anything else bolted on would not help, or at least this has not been demonstrated.

No, it is not just an observation, it is a tenet of Darwinian understanding, and is taught as fact. Intelligent intention bolted on helps a lot, by making sense of things which aren't making sense and never really have. As to not being demonstrated, there are quite a few people, and they run the propaganda mills that you listen to, who have absolutely no threshold of credulity, and there is nothing which will demonstrate to them the bankruptcy of their theory. Probably, they will just have to die.

No, what you describe is merely bolting on of beliefs on top of a dominant theory. There's nothing fundamentally being challenged, no real alternative being proposed. Therefore no reason to not participate in mainstream scientific processes and peer reviewing.

Bolting on of beliefs? What beliefs? Darwinian books and folk are just constantly full of beliefs and conjecture and runaway fantasy. ID has no beliefs at all that I am aware of, except the sharp suspicion that certain features found in nature must have been designed, and are not the work of random processes.

But the entire world weather system could not be compared in complexity to a single living cell.

There's no fundamental difference in complexity and dynamics. Actually the weather is a bit tougher even, I'd suggest.

Perhaps you know something about weather that no one else does? DNA, now, is a code, a language, and its origin is a complete stumper. It has code that can be read forwards for one thing and backwards for other instructions, and indeed there are a few more embedded codes within codes. And that's just DNA.

Talk about subverting the scientific method! Darwinian theory is full of conundrums, unsupported conjecture, unproven 'facts' and serious infighting - which wouldn't be so bad if only they weren't so arrogant! I mean, I would be willing to cut them a lot of slack for having taken on a project that was way, way over their heads but they didn't know it. But they act like jackasses, and slow the progress of knowledge. Not that that is anything new. Human nature and all that.

It's not part of evolution theory to say that things get 'better and better'. Or bigger, or more efficient, or whatever. For every species that might succeed in surviving on the long run many others fade away. What is exactly 'good' about that?

Well, but they have been getting better and better. Oh, except that the latest thing I read is that 'they' have now found that some very primitive organisms had a lot more complex genomes than they expected...maybe they really had the genetic material early on to morph into other species...well that's called frontloading, and was predicted by ID types long ago.

If species die out it doesn't negate the incredible march toward betterness. It doesn't even mean the species wasn't fit. It just means it gave birth to more fit species. In other words, got better.

Me: The Intelligent Design proponents use arguments from the fields of mathematics, probability, information theory, logic and reason, and the Darwinists use ad hominem and bluster.

You: It quickly turns to being ad hominem if one has to explain the benefits of the scientific method to otherwise capable and intelligent folks. It means questioning someone's blind spots and, I suppose, always provokes defensiveness and playing victim or suppressed minority.

I'm not sure if this was a non sequitur or projection.

You must at last explain in what way ID people are not using the scientific method. In most cases, it is the same data under discussion. How is it that if people bring in mathematics, probability and information theory to interpret data that is controversial, that they are subverting the scientific method? Is this really what you are saying? It is kind of hard for me to believe. I think I might be talking to a parrot, rather than someone who has actually given independent thought to this.
I think that what you are saying is that seriously considering the need for intelligent input just simply cannot happen. Period. End of story.

It seems you haven't thought this through. One needs way more information on the supposed designer, the when and where and information on a guaranteed 'undesigned' item to start doing some science. In other words: limits have to be defined to be able to measure.

We need no information about the designer whatsoever, except that it obviously possesses intelligence.
We have many, many examples of undesigned results in nature. Clouds, sand formation on beaches, rocks on hillsides. If you make comments like this, you have simply shown me that, as I suspected, you have not enough interest in this topic to have actually read a little about it. There's little point if you don't see the difference between rotting limbs in a forest and a treehouse.

If God is all then he can easily be removed from any equation designed to describe some part of him. It wouldn't matter much apart from preventing some muddying.

But God may have a transcendent mind, and also, while being all is also the many. The unity of God has components within. I suppose we could say that QRS are scientific pantheists. I'm not.

[mikiel]

For anyone here actually interested in "understanding God", here are some quotes from my teacher, Joel Morwood from the link above.
(I often skip links, so this is just for those of you like me.)

If his words spark your interest, go to the link and read the quotes from enlightened ones from all six major Traditions. The same Truth is expressed in them all. And cross-cultural validation is worth a lot to those seeking the Wisdom-in-common of all Paths.
It far surpasses the myopic vision of "the QRS Philosophy" as a mental substitute for enlightenment.

(This will be my last bump of the linked content. Open of course to discussion on all or any part of it.)

All mystics agree that Ultimate Reality—whether It is called Allah, Brahman, Buddha-nature, En-sof, God, or the Tao—cannot be grasped by thought or expressed in words.

The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

The fact that distinctions are not ultimately real means that we are not truly separate selves. In Reality, all mystics declare, our True Nature is God, Brahman, Buddha-Nature, the Tao, or Consciousness Itself.

Although the Truth of one's identity with Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought, all mystics testify that It can be Realized or Recognized through a Gnostic Awakening (Enlightenment) which by-passes the thinking mind altogether.

All mystics agree that Realizing our Identity with this Ultimate Reality brings freedom from suffering and death.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Nonetheless, within our scope here on earth, we can say that when someone writes a novel, it was most certainly designed, and that if we toss letters in the air for a trillion years, or have those 100 monkeys typing away, they will never compose the works of Shakespeare, or any other novelist.

Don't forget that such novel only becomes meaningful in the context of a well known designer or at least a defined language, meaning and intent when it comes to the audience. In the same way a spider could be said to design a web or a plant could be said to design a flower. It's only 'design' because we see its function and can talk about how it originates, or at least pinpoint a few causes of the whole web.

From this point of view you should be able to see how the view on the existence of an ultimate designer doesn't matter for the research into specific causes and effects. Unless it would help to make accurate predictions on why certain organisms are as they are. Are there predictions like that in the ID camp?

The randomness that we see in nature, perhaps cloud formations, may be occurring within a designed system, but it is random in the appearance. You could have a game of dice. The game is designed, you are designed, and the dice are machine tooled for accuracy. But the toss results are random. You need to read a little bit about information as it relates to ID.

The point is of course that the appearance is subject of scientific inquiry - by definition: a methodical study of observable or natural phenomena. Observable to the human eye or the analytic eye.

Here again you change scientific inquiry to mean something different, as it somehow could or would go beyond appearances. While it actually it just escaped from there: from the vast sea of imagination, opinions, brain farts, intuitions etc. It just washed ashore on solid grounds, a little island. Only solid as far as the eye can see, of course, temporally.

Intelligent intention bolted on helps a lot, by making sense of things which aren't making sense and never really have.

This pretty well describes the reason it's being bolted on: to help people make sense as they are uncomfortable with the functional 'desert' of the scientific method. But this is exactly why it isn't part of science and the bolting will not do any good to the science being performed. And one can only hope nothing bad either though there's reason to suspect such bias is too strong to remain innocent.

ID has no beliefs at all that I am aware of, except the sharp suspicion that certain features found in nature must have been designed, and are not the work of random processes.

Which is a rather large set of beliefs to state so boldly. It's almost like a certain theology you earlier mentioned Galileo had to cope with. Could you give an example of such belief expressed so strongly in scientific articles by what you call 'Darwinists'?

How is it that if people bring in mathematics, probability and information theory to interpret data that is controversial, that they are subverting the scientific method?

Since they feel the need to classify themselves as 'ID' people in the first place while this 'intelligence' is not phrased as a testable or well defined hypothesis in itself, so it becomes an extraneous axiom. And then publishing before an 'ID' oriented readership in many cases. And in all cases they do participate in the usual processes there's no reason to speak of 'ID' scientists of course.

We need no information about the designer whatsoever, except that it obviously possesses intelligence.

There is where you wrong. It's bad science to assert the existence of something without being able to define or describe any properties, nothing to be tested. It therefore becomes meaningless to assert in the context of doing science. It doesn't mean to say anything about its ultimate existence, there's always belief but it should be distrusted when it comes too near to science.

We have many, many examples of undesigned results in nature. Clouds, sand formation on beaches, rocks on hillsides.

But how would you know? The ID people are asserting a pretty mighty creator-intelligence, without having specified what it can or cannot do. So to claim that clouds are 'undesigned' is rather premature.

If you make comments like this, you have simply shown me that, as I suspected, you have not enough interest in this topic to have actually read a little about it. There's little point if you don't see the difference between rotting limbs in a forest and a treehouse.

Perhaps I've read too much! You don't seem to realize where I'm coming from at all but perhaps I've been too antagonistic once again for the sake of creating maximum clarity, to draw out the underlying spirit of your reasoning.

Our discussion will probably seize being fruitful soon but I'd like at least to give you a pointer or two. Please flip through Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Raimund Popper at Google Books, or at least the chapter on The Demarcation between Science and Metaphysics, from where a good excerpt can be found here.

It might surprise you how this classic on scientific principles is actually open-minded and respectful towards metaphysics. And it's better written than I ever could on the subject probably so that's why I refer.

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

Don't forget that such novel only becomes meaningful in the context of a well known designer or at least a defined language, meaning and intent when it comes to the audience. In the same way a spider could be said to design a web or a plant could be said to design a flower. It's only 'design' because we see its function and can talk about how it originates, or at least pinpoint a few causes of the whole web.

The point is, that the information cannot be duplicated by a random process. This is what complex specified information means. You don't go in after the fact and assign meanings to, say, tea leaves, after they have fallen into place. You have a language, and then you have symbols, and then you write a novel within that language. It is precisely the fact that it has meaning only within a language that gives away the novel as having been intentionally created by a mind.

Now, we don't really know much about how spiders design their webs, and as to the flower, well, frankly I am not sure what your point was about it, except that you seem to say the plant designed itself.

From this point of view you should be able to see how the view on the existence of an ultimate designer doesn't matter for the research into specific causes and effects. Unless it would help to make accurate predictions on why certain organisms are as they are. Are there predictions like that in the ID camp?

Again, I don't quite get your question, but we don't use terms like ultimate designer. Who knows who the designer was or what else is out there.

This pretty well describes the reason it's being bolted on: to help people make sense as they are uncomfortable with the functional 'desert' of the scientific method. But this is exactly why it isn't part of science and the bolting will not do any good to the science being performed. And one can only hope nothing bad either though there's reason to suspect such bias is too strong to remain innocent.

This is all rather frustrating. You make vague, poetic statements that say nearly nothing, and you fail to respond to my clear points. You have yet to refute that Intelligent Design is quite obviously a scientific inquiry, and you assume some sort of discomfort. What the hell do you mean by the functional desert of the scientific method?

And besides, there is no argument at all with the scientific method. And bias is on both sides. How can you deny bias in someone like Richard Dawkins? How can you deny bias in the intense effort to find a way to even imagine an accidental cause to the origin of life itself, when all options have become dead ends? The determination is dogged to hold on to that paradigm of life needing no help, and therefore a universe without any mind, a universe in which matter is the ground of being, all without explanation of any sort. And you speak of bias.

Me: ID has no beliefs at all that I am aware of, except the sharp suspicion that certain features found in nature must have been designed, and are not the work of random processes.

YOu: Which is a rather large set of beliefs to state so boldly.

Oh shit. For God's sake, ID has examined the case minutely, written books and blogs for years, and have much to say on the supposition that the life forms cannot have evolved randomly and without mind. And you say that one sentence is a large set of beliefs? Don't you see what a bullshit artist you are? In other words, they simply cannot have the idea that they propose at all!!! The minute they do, they are subverting science, advancing a bold set of ideas, full of bias, and so forth. In other words, they had better just fucking stop it.

Who has bias, when he resorts to such idiotic banter, and doesn't even understand the concept of complex specified information?

It's almost like a certain theology you earlier mentioned Galileo had to cope with. Could you give an example of such belief expressed so strongly in scientific articles by what you call 'Darwinists'

Yes, I'm sure I could. Mainly it is the idea that they understand what they are talking about when they assert that life evolved 'naturally' They evoke large numbers and deep time without actually examining statistics and finding out what the probabilities are. The basic theology is that matter is all there is, and need not be explained, and that any metaphysical ideas are to be defended against and are a danger to science, as if reality could be a danger to science.

Since they feel the need to classify themselves as 'ID' people in the first place while this 'intelligence' is not phrased as a testable or well defined hypothesis in itself, so it becomes an extraneous axiom. And then publishing before an 'ID' oriented readership in many cases. And in all cases they do participate in the usual processes there's no reason to speak of 'ID' scientists of course.

Seems like more meaningless drivel. Who knows where the label comes from; it is a convenience. And you are right, scientists who lean toward ID as a possibility shouldn't need a special label. Especially since it can get them fired. I'm not sure what you mean about the intelligence not being phrased in a well defined way.

There is where you wrong. It's bad science to assert the existence of something without being able to define or describe any properties, nothing to be tested. It therefore becomes meaningless to assert in the context of doing science. It doesn't mean to say anything about its ultimate existence, there's always belief but it should be distrusted when it comes too near to science.

Bullshit again. And a very persistent dodging by many folks, I must say. We can see the evidence of intelligence, certainly if it is a sort of intelligence which has properties similar to our own intelligence, without knowing much about it. As to properties, there would be logic, and the ability to somehow get things done but we don't know how and that is a potency anyway, not the intelligence itself. What are the properties of your intelligence. Nor has the evidence of the work of an intelligence have anything to do with belief. This is so silly, and so persistent, and so obviously refutable. You come to a planet on the Starship Enterprise, you see evidence of a prior civilization but all is dead, maybe like planet Mars. And you can see without resorting to belief systems, that there were intelligences at work, but they are gone and that is that. You need not know much about them or their natures or properties.

Now are you actually going to stand there and tell the Starship travelers that discussing the intelligence that once lived there is meaningless in terms of science?

These are such tired old arguments, and guys like you come onto the blogs and bore the shit out of us with this sort of silliness which seems never to end. Trite, sophomoric arguments.

But how would you know? The ID people are asserting a pretty mighty creator-intelligence, without having specified what it can or cannot do. So to claim that clouds are 'undesigned' is rather premature.

First, the ID people are not asserting anything about the intelligence, although some do believe it is the Christian God, some believe it is the Jewish God, some believe it is Allah, some are pantheists, some are agnostics, some are scratching their heads in wonder, and some believe in an endogenous intelligence.

What they specify is that it can design at least certain aspects of the life forms, and probably the universe as well. That it may have other things it can or cannot do is beyond our ability to examine. So what. There's an awful lot of things that scientists say we don't know or understand yet. Somehow, they don't get raked over the coals for it. It's just the way it is. what you're saying is that we cannot even start an inquiry, unless we know everything there is to know from the start.

Now that's a science stopper!

And lastly, I already said that the clouds appear to arise undesigned but within a designed system. No one is claiming the clouds or their system is undesigned, but we can pinpoint design of the specified and complex information type by comparing it to things like clouds and sand washing up on beaches. It isn't that ID is stating that simple things aren't designed, it's that they are using the most obvious examples of design to say that at least some things cannot have been left to random processes.

If I ever can, I will try to check your references to Popper, about whom I have heard good things. But there is no demarcation between science and metaphysics. There is only reality, and the exploration of reality.

[brokenhead]

This is either for Diebert or Anna:

My idea of what people mean when they speak of "Intelligent Design" is never settled. It seems that proponents of ID and detractors of ID mean different things by the term. Detractors, especially, because without exception, they are evolutionists and appear to think that proponents of ID do not "get," or are somehow not on board with, evolution.

Any one who does not think evolution happened or is happening is denying the scientific record. So any people who cling to ID as an alternative explanation for the way things are are clearly wrong.

But I think that detractors of ID do not have a clear notion of what ID is. Defenders of evolution think that Intelligent Design means that the Designer, presumably of divine status, designs each and every species as it appears. Then, because the majority of species, or mutations within each species, are failures and relatively few survive for any great length of time, detractors of ID say that the Designer makes so many mistakes, he cannot be any kind of Deity or God. And that's the whole point, they insist - is it not? Isn't the point of postulating Intelligent Design in the first place to put God back into the picture?

To my mind, this line of reasoning is not thinking things all the way through. At the very least, it is jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Let us assume that evolution proceeds in an automatic fashion. That is, mutations occur all the time whatever the environment. Unsuitable mutations lead to a genetic dead end, neutral mutations lead to variety. This variety gives a greater chance that either the original genotype or one of the mutations will go on to produce long evolutionary branches, or that both the original and one or more of the mutations succeed.

Upon reflection, there is no reason for one to conclude that such a process precludes an overall direction to evolution, or that design cannot be involved. For such a mightily adaptive and successful mechanism to exist at all it suggests some kind of intervention at the outset. Something is adapting. The process of life is adapting. It somehow knows how to do this. The environment is such that it supports life from the simplest imaginable to the most complex. If it is so favorable for all sorts of life, why is it never observed that life spontaneously begins out of nothing? If there were no intervention, no ID, it would have had to have done this at least once. Those who wish to explain things without resorting to design of any kind point to the vast age of the earth, some 4.5 billion years.

They rely on this almost unimaginably large age to explain too much, to my way of thinking. They say that order spontaneously arises all the time. My response is, it most certainly does not. When order does arise spontaneously, it is always due to a propitious set of circumstances, and it always involves a net loss of order in the its surroundings, that is, in the Universe at large. Formation of stable compounds in an exothermic process are an example, the formation of crystals another.

But only living things get inexorably more complex over time despite local failures and setbacks. Life doesn't rely on propitious circumstances for its increasingly ordered states; rather it signally adapts to unpropitious circumstances to propagate itself. Life has been able to survive everything it has encountered - the very age of the fossil record is a testimony to its prowess to withstand everthing millions of years has thrown at it. And not only to survive, but relentlessly to become more complex, more ordered.

Since the environment still supports primitive forms of life, what made phenotypes grow increasingly complex in the first place, sometimes - often - precariously so?

I think the information necessary for the entire process to occur was present from an initial implantation of a life matrix, much like the overall morphology of a redwood is present in its seed, even if the specific way it turns out depends to an extent on the environment it faces as it matures.

I cannot support ID proponents if they deny the findings of science. Science should not be biased in any way, either for religionists or against them. That is why when Nightline surveyed the heads of Biology departments at 11 major universities and asked if their curricula presented ID claims on a footing comparable to evolutionary theory, the response was a unanimous no.

Science is what it is and what it should always remain. Neutral.

[Iolaus]

Brokenhead,

For the most part I agree with you. However.

ID means nothing more nor less than that random processes and random mutations do not have the power to produce life, and the life forms. It is not creationism, which is the idea of special creation of each species, and does not depend upon any revealed text or inspiration.

ID do believe in evolution. The question is, whose evolution? Again, the neoDarwinian idea that life is absolutely random, unplanned, and without need of any intelligent input is not tenable. It just didn't happen like that.

I disagree with you about the power of random mutations to bring variety and ultimately to be the method of producing new organs or body plans.

I think the information necessary for the entire process to occur was present from an initial implantation of a life matrix,

This is known as frontloading, a very popular idea among the ID crowd.

I cannot support ID proponents if they deny the findings of science. Science should not be biased in any way, either for religionists or against them. That is why when Nightline surveyed the heads of Biology departments at 11 major universities and asked if their curricula presented ID claims on a footing comparable to evolutionary theory, the response was a unanimous no.

But what can you possibly be talking about? The findings of whose science? Couldn't the papal court have said the same to Galileo, Keppler, Copernicus? Who is the entity called "science?" There are data, there are people, and there is the interpretation of said data. And their is disagreement over the interpretation. Of course the heads of biology of 11 major universities unanimously said that. They would not be in their positions if they did not, and if they even allow for the expression of doubt, their days are numbered. I am surprised at you, not realizing this tendency of the majority of people, regardless their IQ and status, to not think for themselves and obey the consensus.

It is precisely because science is now so biased that we have such a high level of contention. There is no such thing as the opinion of science. There are people. Do you not realize that the mainstream media, now called the MSM on the internet, is biased in what they are willing to report?

To say that science is neutral is like saying that matter is neutral. It is people who interpret science who are not neutral. And it has ever been thus.

[brokenhead]

ID do believe in evolution. The question is, whose evolution? Again, the neoDarwinian idea that life is absolutely random, unplanned, and without need of any intelligent input is not tenable. It just didn't happen like that.

But Anna, you and I can agree on this point. It doesn't carry much weight, though, does it?

I disagree with you about the power of random mutations to bring variety and ultimately to be the method of producing new organs or body plans.

I don't think I said that. I'm not sure mutations are random.

Who is the entity called "science?"

Why, so you can have a word or two with him?

By "science," I mean the scientific method.

There are data, there are people, and there is the interpretation of said data. And their is disagreement over the interpretation. Of course the heads of biology of 11 major universities unanimously said that. They would not be in their positions if they did not, and if they even allow for the expression of doubt, their days are numbered. I am surprised at you, not realizing this tendency of the majority of people, regardless their IQ and status, to not think for themselves and obey the consensus.

I just don't agree that you can explain it like that. These people are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. Since science is about discovery and investigation, you can assume that what is being investigated is hitherto unknown. That is precisely why scientists perform experiments. Not all biologists are strictly naturalists by any means. Experimental biology is quite alive and well. You and I both know that ID is a political hot potato, and well it should be. I cannot see how ID could be otherwise in academia, especially in biology departments. How would it serve a university to teach ID, which is what the survey asked? A university setting is exactly where tolerance of other people's views reigns supreme. It is assumed that individual researchers are free to believe anything they wish, to draw any conclusions they so desire, from their research. But the research itself must remain free of conclusions such as ID. The university, after all, likely has a theology department and a philosophy department. ID should be discussed in the proper time and place, or else it will either get lost or destroyed altogether.

It is precisely because science is now so biased that we have such a high level of contention.

I think that true science goes out of its way to be unbiased.

There is no such thing as the opinion of science. There are people.

And some people are scientists, many of whom have opinions. Thankfully, they don't all agree about everything all at once. The back and forth, build it up, tear it down interplay is precisely what keeps science alive. But on many topics in a given field, you will indeed find a consensus among the researchers in that field.

Do you not realize that the mainstream media, now called the MSM on the Internet, is biased in what they are willing to report?

But here you treat the media - people, too - as capable of having a single will and bias. Just like there is no "opinion of science," I believe there is no overall slant of the media. That being said, some media empires like Fox seem to be strikingly uninquisitive about small topics like the war in Iraq.

To say that science is neutral is like saying that matter is neutral. It is people who interpret science who are not neutral. And it has ever been thus.

True science is neutral.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Don't forget that such novel only becomes meaningful in the context of a well known designer or at least a defined language, meaning and intent when it comes to the audience. In the same way a spider could be said to design a web or a plant could be said to design a flower. It's only 'design' because we see its function and can talk about how it originates, or at least pinpoint a few causes of the whole web.

The point is, that the information cannot be duplicated by a random process. This is what complex specified information means. You don't go in after the fact and assign meanings to, say, tea leaves, after they have fallen into place. You have a language, and then you have symbols, and then you write a novel within that language. It is precisely the fact that it has meaning only within a language that gives away the novel as having been intentionally created by a mind.

Within linguistics this is seen quite differently though. The meaning contained in language, exposed by signs and signals, is only relevant because we comprehend the sender and receiver, at least their intentions - connect to their multitude of causes to some extent. Without this, there's no meaning, not to literature, nor to RNA/DNA interactions.

So to infer "intelligent design" or "divine communication" is to claim knowledge of the designer, its intentions, as to create something meaningful to discern for science.

Now, we don't really know much about how spiders design their webs, and as to the flower, well, frankly I am not sure what your point was about it, except that you seem to say the plant designed itself.

The spider's web has its functions and from a certain perspective, its intricate structure can make one wonder about issues like design and beauty. Why do you think a work of literature is any different? Does the author really knows why he's typing away? He could very well be oblivious of the purpose of his novel, or any lack of it even.

Again, I don't quite get your question, but we don't use terms like ultimate designer. Who knows who the designer was or what else is out there.

Well, there you go. You have intelligent design but no clue about any designer...

Perhaps you should think about how to detect 'design' this way. It's the same as with communication, language, signals.... you cannot talk about a message without describing the messenger at the same time. The message doesn't float in a vacuum. Neither does 'design'.

You have yet to refute that Intelligent Design is quite obviously a scientific inquiry, and you assume some sort of discomfort. What the hell do you mean by the functional desert of the scientific method?

"Intelligent Design" is not an inquiry at all when it comes to it. It's at the moment a rather minor uninteresting theory. Uninteresting only because there's no path to falsification to the specific theory that is sought to be proven. Outside this narrow self-imposed straight-jacket science has put on, it can be very relevant as inquiry of course.

The determination is dogged to hold on to that paradigm of life needing no help, and therefore a universe without any mind, a universe in which matter is the ground of being, all without explanation of any sort. And you speak of bias.

The universe is not given any properties like having a mind or an explanation, or 'needing help', until there's a reason to give it as such. There's no intent to deny it these qualities, just the intent not to dress it up without any positive theory in scientific sense. The 'bias' here at work is exactly part of the scientific principle, a bare bones principle in "true science" that is supposed to be neutral. And perhaps more acting like an ideal than something always realized in all scientific publicizing.

It's almost like a certain theology you earlier mentioned Galileo had to cope with. Could you give an example of such belief expressed so strongly in scientific articles by what you call 'Darwinists'

Yes, I'm sure I could. Mainly it is the idea that they understand what they are talking about when they assert that life evolved 'naturally' They evoke large numbers and deep time without actually examining statistics and finding out what the probabilities are.

Their numbers might be wrong, that's not the issue. The issue is that the model they propose is a viable one, it doesn't contradict itself and offers a road toward falsification and improvement.

It's one thing for an ID researcher to question a number or even to prove it to be bogus. But the challenge is to create a positive theory about some influence that could account for different numbers instead. The moment a 'mystery' is created by numbers not adding up, one cannot just default to the "strong suspicion" an intelligent force is involved.

I'm not sure what you mean about the intelligence not being phrased in a well defined way.

There's still a lot of work to be done to understand our own human intelligence and intelligence functioning in other animals. For now it's just a label that covers quite a lot of vague stuff. This is why it's fishy to speak of any "intelligent design" in relation to evolution theory. I'd propose they'd call it "research into new patterns in evolutionary processes" or something like that.

We can see the evidence of intelligence, certainly if it is a sort of intelligence which has properties similar to our own intelligence, without knowing much about it.

Or, we see patterns because we are a pattern seeking and displaying organism. A pattern is not the same as intelligence. Again, it's hard to define intelligence for cosmological purposes. It's possibly very anthropomorphic to see our own traits reflected in the things we observe. Projection occurs easily. Speaking animals, angry gods, man in the moon - can you not see the caution needed here?

You come to a planet on the Starship Enterprise, you see evidence of a prior civilization but all is dead, maybe like planet Mars. And you can see without resorting to belief systems, that there were intelligences at work, but they are gone and that is that. You need not know much about them or their natures or properties.

Again, this prior civilization can only be detected this way if it was sufficiently similar to ourselves. If all constructs would be, for example, highly fractal instead of linear - it would be near to impossible to detect. Perhaps using mathematics, measuring up landmarks and suspect something.

And assuming they were indeed similar enough to detect- that instance we'd know already a lot about them. For example that they needed cities and roads, etc. That's a lot of information right there.

Now are you actually going to stand there and tell the Starship travelers that discussing the intelligence that once lived there is meaningless in terms of science?

A real Trekkie would of course right away suspect a holographic trap set up by Q or the Romulans.

These are such tired old arguments, and guys like you come onto the blogs and bore the shit out of us with this sort of silliness which seems never to end. Trite, sophomoric arguments.

Lets just hope, for my sake, that you're just not willing to understand the arguments for some reason.

First, the ID people are not asserting anything about the intelligence, although some do believe it is the Christian God, some believe it is the Jewish God, some believe it is Allah, some are pantheists, some are agnostics, some are scratching their heads in wonder, and some believe in an endogenous intelligence.

If they do not assert anything, then what is there? They assert a design! A design says a lot about the designer, his technique, possibilities, intentions, moods, skills, whatever.

What they specify is that it can design at least certain aspects of the life forms, and probably the universe as well.

Probably the universe as well! With science comes a certain type of humility, and what you write here implies a type of hubris that gets one kicked out of heaven!

But there is no demarcation between science and metaphysics. There is only reality, and the exploration of reality.

Science starts with proper demarcation, proper meaning having the optimal proportions in a given situation - the most fitting. If you want to explore the one reality, sincerely, you have to carve it up. And you really have to start with separating metaphysics. It's not easy to see why and how it's imperfect and ultimately false to do so - but necessary nevertheless.

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

Within linguistics this is seen quite differently though. The meaning contained in language, exposed by signs and signals, is only relevant because we comprehend the sender and receiver, at least their intentions - connect to their multitude of causes to some extent. Without this, there's no meaning, not to literature, nor to RNA/DNA interactions.

As frequently happens, I don't quite see your point. What argument have you presented?

So to infer "intelligent design" or "divine communication" is to claim knowledge of the designer, its intentions, as to create something meaningful to discern for science.

We infer intelligent design when we can see that there are no patterns in nature which can duplicate those complex and information-specific ones that are the hallmark of deliberate design. This claims a little knowledge of the designer, but not much. It tells us that the designer is intelligent, has will or intention, and has some motivation to create what he created.

The spider's web has its functions and from a certain perspective, its intricate structure can make one wonder about issues like design and beauty. Why do you think a work of literature is any different? Does the author really knows why he's typing away? He could very well be oblivious of the purpose of his novel, or any lack of it even.

But what are we talking about here? This is a comletely different sort of musing. Why does the spider spin its web? Why does it strike us as beautiful? Is a novelist similarly compelled?

Well, there you go. You have intelligent design but no clue about any designer...

Perhaps you should think about how to detect 'design' this way. It's the same as with communication, language, signals.... you cannot talk about a message without describing the messenger at the same time. The message doesn't float in a vacuum. Neither does 'design'.

This is obviously bullshit and I have already answered it. Suppose SETI is successful and receives some sort of coded radio signal. Can we detect while still knowing naught about the senders? Of course we can, and that is its intention.

You must have gone to a good university. Your ability to communicate is impaired. Why don't you just read up on the real arguments of intelligent design, rather than dance around with these philosophic labyrinths?

"Intelligent Design" is not an inquiry at all when it comes to it. It's at the moment a rather minor uninteresting theory. Uninteresting only because there's no path to falsification to the specific theory that is sought to be proven. Outside this narrow self-imposed straight-jacket science has put on, it can be very relevant as inquiry of course.

Intelligent Design is the inquiry into patterns, probability, information, codes, and complexity, and whether with these one can reasonably state whether an item was deliberately assembled, or whether the ordinary forces of nature were a sufficient cause.

Difficult to imagine how one would find it uninteresting. But perhaps that is why you have not looked at it. Why are we discussing something you find uninteresting?
Of course it is falsifiable. And Darwinism should also be falsifiable, but its proponents seem undeterred by absolutely any setbacks, and I have seen some quite good an amusing little essays as to is faith-like resiliance.

And what straightjacket do you mean?

The universe is not given any properties like having a mind or an explanation, or 'needing help', until there's a reason to give it as such.

For some people, that point will never be reached. And that is bias.

Their numbers might be wrong, that's not the issue. The issue is that the model they propose is a viable one, it doesn't contradict itself and offers a road toward falsification and improvement.

Whereas in other points of view, the theory was barely tenable from day one, and there has been no improvement whatsoever. The hard questions which were there from the beginning, have not been solved.

It's one thing for an ID researcher to question a number or even to prove it to be bogus. But the challenge is to create a positive theory about some influence that could account for different numbers instead. The moment a 'mystery' is created by numbers not adding up, one cannot just default to the "strong suspicion" an intelligent force is involved.

Well, it is apparent that whereas ID does not know much about how evolution happened, neither does Darwinism, since their proposed mechanisms are inadequate. But on the other hand, ID is more honest about this, and whereas we can say that there is still hope for some features of nature to be discovered after which Darwinism will all make sense, nonetheless we can also say, logically, that either a things was deliberately designed by a mind, or it wasn't.

There's still a lot of work to be done to understand our own human intelligence and intelligence functioning in other animals.

Definitions and understandings of intelligence and how minds work are indeed sketchy. Nonetheless, we can certainly see the effects of human minds in the world, without doubt.

Or, we see patterns because we are a pattern seeking and displaying organism. A pattern is not the same as intelligence.

No, but it takes intelligence to consciously apprehend patterns, and certainly to deliberately create them.

Again, it's hard to define intelligence for cosmological purposes. It's possibly very anthropomorphic to see our own traits reflected in the things we observe. Projection occurs easily. Speaking animals, angry gods, man in the moon - can you not see the caution needed here?

There you go, waxing overly philosophical again, just to avoid clarity. Sure, anthropomorphising requires caution, but let's not suppose that everything in the cosmos is utterly disconnected from everything else, such that we cannot suppose or learn anything about anything. We do not need to fully define cosmic or divine intellgience to see some manifestation of it.

Again, this prior civilization can only be detected this way if it was sufficiently similar to ourselves. If all constructs would be, for example, highly fractal instead of linear - it would be near to impossible to detect.

Sure, but who cares? Perhaps these other civilizations are all around. What we can do we do.

And assuming they were indeed similar enough to detect- that instance we'd know already a lot about them. For example that they needed cities and roads, etc. That's a lot of information right there.

On one hand, you are upset that we cannot fully define the designer, on the other hand you admit that we can surmise a few things.

A real Trekkie would of course right away suspect a holographic trap set up by Q or the Romulans.

It would explain a lot about this place.

Probably the universe as well! With science comes a certain type of humility, and what you write here implies a type of hubris that gets one kicked out of heaven!

But why? What hubris? I could reccommend Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton. The universe as a whole appears to be designed to support life.

Science starts with proper demarcation, proper meaning having the optimal proportions in a given situation - the most fitting.

OK.

If you want to explore the one reality, sincerely, you have to carve it up.

Probably so.

And you really have to start with separating metaphysics. It's not easy to see why and how it's imperfect and ultimately false to do so - but necessary nevertheless.

I disagree but no doubt in many inquiries metaphysics would take a back seat, studying motion or what have you. But there are no nonoverlapping magisteria. That's a wishful fantasy. Now, tell me why you think it is ultimately false to do so.

[Iolaus]

Hi Brokenhead,

But Anna, you and I can agree on this point. It doesn't carry much weight, though, does it?

Carry weight with whom?

I don't think I said that. I'm not sure mutations are random.

Well, lots are, but not the kind needed to evolve species.

By "science," I mean the scientific method.

Then do not say that it 'should' be neutral. Shoulds are for moral beings.

I just don't agree that you can explain it like that. These people are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.

But they often don't. And when presented with another who does begin to do so, they often fail the test, rally round the status quo and engage in suppression.

I cannot see how ID could be otherwise in academia, especially in biology departments.

Because academia and biology departments have a materialist bias.

How would it serve a university to teach ID, which is what the survey asked?

It's not so much teaching ID alone, but honestly exploring sufficiency of causation, and not firing those who doubt the dogma. You do realize that in ID discussions many in the professional field remain anonymous because there isn't that toleration that you for some reason seem to think exists.

Tolerance of other people's views reigns supreme in a university? On what planet? It's an ideal, adhered to very well so long as no one really strays from the agenda. Little cat fights are fine. There are many within evolutionary theory.

How in the hell does the research need to remain free of conclusions such as ID? Is ID in some unique category in science and human thought? Isn't any theoryt about coming to a (tentative) conclusion and trying to support it? And what about the fucking conclusion taught to kids in high school that evolution was unplanned and without guidance or goal of any sort? Why is it OK to teach that metaphysics to impressionable young minds?

How would it serve a university to teach ID, which is what the survey asked?

Are you actually fucking saying that ID belongs in theology department???

ID isn't about theology. It's about interpreting biological data. You can't tell theology from science?

But here you treat the media - people, too - as capable of having a single will and bias. Just like there is no "opinion of science," I believe there is no overall slant of the media. That being said, some media empires like Fox seem to be strikingly uninquisitive about small topics like the war in Iraq.

No, not a single entity, not completely controlled, not without any exceptions and not without a slight spectrum. But have you never heard about things of great and obvious interest that never get reported in the mainstream press, and have no not ever read about things that were about to be reported except that the highly placed executive got fired the very day before it was to be aired? And who do you think has the power to pull stories and fire executives? The same megarich, corporate movers and shakers who get so much of what they want in our corrupt oligarchy. And don't you know about the increasing consolidation of news sources into fewer and fewer hands in the past few years, against the laws? And how corporate advertisers threaten the funding of the news source if they don't want a particular story or ad aired? And have you not heard how much better coverage people get in other countries?

[brokenhead]

Are you actually fucking saying that ID belongs in theology department???

ID isn't about theology. It's about interpreting biological data. You can't tell theology from science?

Yes. I'm the one who can. I'm the one who understands why there are two departments.

Science isn't about conclusions. It's about tentative hypotheses. It's about mechanisms, It's about saying that we know something, and agreeing on it, only when it can be demonstrated to be factual. It is about building something from the ground up, not from the top down. Or, more accurately, dissecting something from the outside in. If you try to examine the core first, you will lose everything that has led to it. Science itself is evolutionary.

I have no doubt that if ID is correct - and if it is, it would probably be in a way we do not yet fathom - that it eventually will be shown to be so by the methodology of science. But only if science is allowed to progress undisturbed by people who think they have all the answers beforehand.

ID can easily be addressed from a metaphysical standpoint, the the two bodies of ideas be contrasted and compared in colloquia which abound on a university campus.

The very thing that I object to in scientific circles is when biologists begin to proclaim that god is dead, or that true scientists should leave their intellects at the doors if they insist on attending any church services. I object to it because it is jumping to conclusions. Just because a professional researcher says it, does not make it science. And for this same reason, ID proponents are stating personal conclusions which cannot be supported.

In the long run, perhaps it doesn't much matter where the dialog takes place, because the truth will eventually be known. But in the meantime, curricula should be based on what is known. Since ID as opposed to strict evolutionary materialism is not a settled issue in many people's minds, approaching it as such is propaganda, not science. Currently, if you stick to the known facts including the most up-to-date research, the strictly materialist mechanism as a means of producing the known phenotypes has been substantiated, if not proven to be the only overarching factor. This is where the focus of a biology department should be.

As to department heads who were surveyed, they know all too well that research resources are limited. Their job is to ensure they are devoted to science, and that the public at large knows that their department is not on a crusade.

You spoke of the media organizations becoming controlled by fewer and fewer people. These people, like Rupert Murdoch, are usually conservatives, who are usually the ones who would support ID or any other Creationist scenario over strict materialist evolution. If you object to the way the news gets slanted in their hands, you should also be with me in objecting to the way academia would be slanted by them if it were increasingly pro ID.

You cannot be hypocritical about this. If a university were known to have a biology department that treated ID on the same footing with Darwinism - and I'm sure that such places exist - you could expect to trace a large part of their endowment to the Rupert Murdochs of the world, that is, to people and concerns who want us to believe in some status quo ideology that in the long run makes us their sheep and their ideological puppets.

brokenhead: I don't think I said that. I'm not sure mutations are random.

Anna: Well, lots are, but not the kind needed to evolve species.

The most unbiased view of this topic that I have found is Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller. It says a lot of what I believe, only better than I seem to be able to. It defends academic purity while leaving a wide berth for faith to exist.

[Iolaus]

Brokenhead,

I am severely disappointed in your response. Your remarks show over and over that you know nothing of ID, really nothing at all. Your post was just reams of nonsense, and your take on this is surprising in light of the fact that you do not believe in Darwinism, and do believe in ID. I have spent about 5 years reading on this topic because I happen to find it interesting, a kind of hobby. That you consider Miller as someone to recommend shows plenty. I have read his essay about the flagellum, called Still Spinning Just Fine and was astonished at its uselessness and stupidity. Only later did I read the answers of Behe and Dembski to it, and I had already picked out their major points - me with my 8th grade education.

He has deliberately misrepresented ID publicly, despite several times being asked to please stop it.

Again, your post was filled with so much nonsense, that we just have no ground to argue, and would be wasting both our time.

It would be different if you had any actual interest in the topic, but you don't, and most people don't. I accept that, but until you have read the books and arguments, you really should shut up.

[brokenhead]

Thanks very much, Iolaus, but I'm not going to shut up any more than you are. And I frankly do not care whether what I have to say disappoints you or anyone else.

It would be different if you had any actual interest in the topic, but you don't

You mean It would be different if I agreed with you all the time. You have no way of judging how much something interests me.

Personal attacks on me are futile.

Your remarks show over and over that you know nothing of ID, really nothing at all

I sincerely doubt you know much more than I do about ID. What you have is an opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

He [Miller]has deliberately misrepresented ID publicly, despite several times being asked to please stop it.

You mean he has given his opinion about it, despite being asked several times to shut up.

Asked by whom, by the way? Is there an official ID authority that gets to tell certain people they cannot speak publicly about it?

Your post was just reams of nonsense

Reams? Ten or so short paragraphs? Please. And it's only nonsense because you think I am disagreeing with you. And you didn't say whether you have read Miller's book or not. I am not saying that I am wholeheartedly convinced of every single line of his reasoning, or that it is in any way complete. But it is erudite, well-written, and well thought out. IMO, of course. And if you have not read it, I wonder why not, since it is such a hobby for you to read about this topic.

I gotta warn you though, it's more than ten paragraphs long.

[Iolaus]

BH,

You mean It would be different if I agreed with you all the time. You have no way of judging how much something interests me.

No, not at all. That isn't what I mean. What I mean is that I can tell by many of your comments that you have not really learned what ID is about, nor heard their arguments. In other words, you haven't really read much.

You mean he has given his opinion about it, despite being asked several times to shut up.

Asked by whom, by the way? Is there an official ID authority that gets to tell certain people they cannot speak publicly about it?

No, there were specific statements he continued to make that were considered a misrepresentation. I know that this was pointed out to him, more than once, but I do not know how much sleuthing it would take for me to find it. I'm pretty sure on at least one occasion it was by Behe.

I consider him an oily character.

Reams? Ten or so short paragraphs?

You packed them well.

And it's only nonsense because you think I am disagreeing with you.

You know, not everyone works like that. It might be that I actually found them to be nonsense. Like not even in the ballpark.

One reason I haven't read Miller's book is that I read the essay I told you about. That sort of diminished him in my mind as a thinker. And I tried very hard, on an offshoot forum of Panda's Thumb, to discuss it in real detail, get down to brass tacks. Those people were somewhat abusive and often told me how little I knew of biology and how they had advanced degrees and worked in the field - and I was outnumbered to the point where I just couldn't keep up - but I couldn't find one who had really read that essay so as to go over its points - yet they often referred to it as some shining accomplishment that had actually answered Behe's challenge regarding irreducable complexity. And all the brainwashed masses within the Darwin camp think that paper was substantial. But none of them seems to want to actually read it.

There are also essays by an entity known as Mike Gene, which is a pseudonym, about the flagellum, which I highly recommend. I find it fascinating, and way more so than the drivel by Mayr that they told me to read, yet it is rather technical. I couldn't find anyone interested enough to read those essays in detail either.

[mansman]

If ever would happen that god once appear any one of the believers guess what they do- they piss themself terrified and run! screaming that the devil has come especial if acompaqny with miracles. even the pope would shit a brick and doubt his experience, its useless. maybe this why god never show up in our lifes, huh. impossible for him to prove who he is!

[brokenhead]

If ever would happen that god once appear any one of the believers guess what they do- they piss themself terrified and run! screaming that the devil has come especial if acompaqny with miracles. even the pope would shit a brick and doubt his experience, its useless. maybe this why god never show up in our lifes, huh. impossible for him to prove who he is!

If I saw him show up, I know what I'd do: look busy.

[brokenhead]

You know, Anna, in your entire last post you talk about persons and not ideas. You use terms like "drivel" and "utter nonsense" to describe other people's ideas, but don't say why or advance counter arguments, and yet bristle when others do the same and question your own qualifications. You don't seem to be either stating your views or backing them up. And I have no idea if Miller is an "oily character," whaterever that means, but if he is a person of faith who actually works and teaches in the biologycal science field, aren't you curious as to how he reconciles the findings of science with his faith?

[Iolaus]

BH,

It would be worrisome if it were my habit to discuss people and not ideas. Mostly, it's a problem when people use it to avoid answering the actual arguments of the persons.

In this case it is true that I did not engage the many statements of your post, because I considered it futile. In general, I have long seen that discussing evolution for more than a brief period is a waste of time. On the other hand, since people refer to it as though it were true and work it into their comments willy nilly, I think I have the obligation to mention once in a while that I don't go along with the paradigm.

Me and Diebert are mostly talking past each other.

I did find your points pretty far out. Do you want me to explain? You might be slightly less impervious than Diebert, but somehow I don't think so. I have found that your thinking is quite conventional, and I get the feeling, since much of what you said doesn't seem like it ought to belong to you, that you must have a vested interest, such as a relative who is a biology professor or something.

I suppose I would be interested in how Miller does his juggling act, but after all people are often not rational, and intelligence doesn't seem to help much. I doubt I would agree with his position. In general the position of theistic evolutionists is untenable and illogical.

But it bothers me that you even couch the question in the terms of "the findings of science." And for that reason, I am quite sure you know little of ID, or of anti-Darwinian arguments in general. I find it most obnoxious to claim that one's own interpretation of data is "the findings of science" despite the long and venerable history of disagreement about that exact data from such a large number of thoughtful sources.

One cannot simply declare oneself right by fiat, or by numbers. The majority can be wrong.

Of course the real findings of science can not ever disagree with spriritual truth.