Theory of Intelligent Design

Science isn't based on faith, so that is a false comparison. I am talking about scientific intelligent design (with observation and testing), not religious.

So, nonfaith design, if that term works for you.

 

Well, given the total lack of real evidence, that chance itself creates complexity, like chance creating the first self replicating molecule, which somehow morphed into a single cell self replicating organism what they really need is infinite time, where they say it is possible that chimps can eventually type out the works of Shakespeare. But we are not dealing with infinity here with the rise of life.

 

What would be an example of "specified complex features" for a water course?

What are "CSI levels?" What is an example of that in a land form?

I chose it because it's a relatively simple concept that anyone capable of knowledgeably talking about science should be able to understand.

So you would compare it to another water course that you know was not designed?

 

Perhaps somehow, matter is not really stupid? It has some kind of intelligence? And you can only measure that intelligence, using the complexity of the life form?

 

No: Information: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
It gets much more specific with information theory, but this is a simple definition to go off of.

I already demonstrated previously, you can't just assume I didn't.

I actually did. Which proves you didn't read my posts.

Read the OP (it was in English).
The null hypothesis will depend on the specific experiment done, and what is attempted to be demonstrated to be designed.
For example: Two simultaneous mutations is the upper limit for creating a functional advantage by evolutionary processes.

Why are you stressing "in English"? I haven't once spoke a different language on this thread.

 

Like, recognizable patterns contained in the path of water, ones that may serve a purpose (increases CSI levels). Samples of the course the water follows and the overall path size and direction.

Complex specified information. An example in a land form could be Mt. Rushmore or symbols on cave walls, but landforms don't really contain complex specified information, so its not really focused on by intelligent design theory (no reason to conclude design if CSI levels are low).

You could certainly do that, and derive differences between designed courses and undesigned courses. Then you can possibly develop your method of determining designed courses.

 

sorry, but if everything complex needs a creator, so would a God, as a God is more complex then energy

 

How would you determine if patterns in the path of the water serve a purpose? How do the path size and direction indicate design?

I know what CSI stands for, but what are CSI levels? That implies something that is measurable and quantifiable. How do you quantify CSI?

Okay, I agree comparing something of unknown origin to something similar that is known to either be designed or not is a good method for determining if it is designed.

 

Are you unaware of...

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.[1] In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book.... The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism ...

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.​

 

It has no merits.

 

Please show an ID textbook that makes these assertions.

 

What do you mean by "not what is called ID today"? Are you substituting your own new theory here?

 

Aliens != God

If aliens are involved, then the question IS, who created the aliens? Where did they come from.

Aliens CAN be proven. Why do you think that SETI is trying to find them? Why do you think NASA is searching Mars for life and are talking about searching Jupiter's moons? God cannot be proven. Even if a being came down in a beam of light and claimed to be God, there would still be no way to prove that it was the God of the Bible. If a man who looked like Jesus appeared in the middle of downtown Manhattan, there would be no way to prove it was THE Jesus. This is why ID fails.

 

If it has a pattern that derives a function that requires certain specific parameters that are complex-specified, in that it fulfills a specific goal that requires many intricate parts arranged in a specific pattern to reach it, this would be the level of CSI (more intricate parts to fulfill the goal it fulfills means a higher CSI level). The only explanation we know of that can consistently derive high CSI systems is intelligent phenomena since intelligence (cognitive) operates by principle of pattern recognition arrangements and physical ability to collect and put out the information needed to derive these systems.

They are the arranged parts of a system contributing to a conveyed function, CSI levels would be the number of different arranged parts and sequences needed to get the particular operation of a specific system. Higher levels of CSI means more arranged parts and possibly less possible sequences to complete a function.

That is part of the intelligent design hypothesis, we can observe intelligent phenomena and the result of such a phenomena and see that it contains high levels of CSI and a specified pattern, and we can test systems by reverse engineering the parts to determine the levels of CSI and the parts conducive to the function of the system, and predictions of design.

 

They are wrong (or they are referring to it differently), ID is scientific and unrelated to creationism (just an attempt to discredit ID).
If you want to go by arguments from authority here, then by all means (doesn't demonstrate anything on its own):
Critics of Intelligent Design including Ronald Numbers and Robert Wright realize that ID isn't creationism, Wright says, "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us."*

*Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

Its a simple fact that ID is not connected to religious creationism in any way.

 

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist/

 

Again, ID explains certain features of systems as designed, nothing to do with a designer. It is fallacious to ask for an explanation of my explanation, and I don't need one to conclude design as an explanation of the systems I am examining. This is an attempt to ignore the question of design by trying to ask for an explanation of the phenomena I am using to explain it. It would be nonsensical to attack Darwinian evolution by saying, "What selected natural selection?", but that is exactly what you are doing here.

You said this:

I agree it requires a designer(obviously), I don't agree that I need to explain that designer to explain a feature of life to be designed. This statement here seems to claim that an intelligence besides life as we know it today cannot be demonstrated to exist, so I would assume that would include Extraterrestrial life as well (since that could count as an intelligence).

 

What does "derives a function" mean? And how do you know a goal is being fulfilled in the first place?

Would seemingly superfluous or inefficient parts of the system be evidence against design, then? For instance, imagine the water course goes from point A to B, but has several bends in it that appear to go around some large clumps of trees. There are any number of possibilities for why this is the case. It could have been the natural flow of a river, it could be that designers chose to avoid disrupting the trees, or that some designers had another reason for going around these spaces and the trees grew in afterward.... How do you know that these parts are contributing to a conveyed function versus just naturally occurring diversions in the path?

But there isn't any other universe that you can compare ours to, let alone one that you know to be either designed or not. The same goes for life. So how can you apply that technique of comparison to the universe or life?

 

Are you saying it is impossible for a god to exist?

If you are...I thank you for sharing that blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

 

Once again...the question here is: Are there certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection\?

I say the assertion that there is...is absurd, because it is nothing more than a self-serving comment.

You seem to be confirming what I said (that last sentence) while supposedly challenging me on it.

 

"Intelligent Design" tries to "explain" what we don't know. The more we know the less "Intelligent Design" needs to explain.

But, since you insist. "Intelligent Design" by its nature implies a "Designer." That is, some intelligence behind the designs. Let us assume, strictly for the sake of a pot induced discussion, the "Intelligence" exists. Explain the why of its behaviors. What are its motives? If it is so intelligent as to be able to control the very foundations of what we call quantum physics then...

Why use such a random and inefficient production method as sexual reproduction to move the design forward?
Why use "evolution" intelligently or not, what not just "design" the end product and bring it to life?
What does the "designer" hope to gain from its efforts?

"Intelligent Design" may help you explain what you do not know but it falls apart when you try to explain "Intelligent Design."

 

It does not require "faith" to believe that evolutionary theory explains much of the natural world around us. You can see evolutionary processes in action every day. You can observe it in the differences between animals like the white tailed deer:

"Whitetails tend to be larger in the northern states. An adult white-tail buck (male) from northern states may exceed 136kg (300lbs) and stand 100cm (40in) at the shoulder; a typical adult buck from Florida weighs about 56kg (125lbs) and the average adult female (doe) weighs about 43kg (95 lbs)."

Why? Because speed and strength are the tools for survival in the relatively open spaces up north while being small and quick allows deer to escape into the thick underbrush down south.

 

Love the ten cent words! Maybe you would like a discussion that avoids what I said.

 

If they cannot be tested then they are not theories. They are "conjecture," "fantasy." Both string theory and multiverse theory have soli mathematics behind them.

 

It's really simple. Perhaps too simple. When you take a theory, evolution, and promote it as fact (while looking down your nose at those that don't buy it)......it takes faith to do that. Either faith, because you believe it, or just out and out dishonesty.