Quote:

---

blewmeanie said:

---

Quote:

---

I take it you have neither read books on ID or studied it.

If you have links or quotes to IDers or their websites that back up your  claim(s), I would like to see them.

Produce the evidence, other than your opinion, or, as they say around here, it didn't happen.

---

was directed to the OP.  It's easy to take strawmen to task.  A real counterargument would be to show statements from the claimants themselves that back up the assertions of the OP.  This has not been done and cannot be done.

A little reading from the claimants of ID themselves is vastly informative and educational.  Misstating what they didn't say and arguing against it may be entertaining, but it sure isn't cogent.

Dembski and Behe have both stated they have no problem with natural selection or even common descent.  Both ideas are inextricably connected to, if not the cornerstone of, evolution.

Note that science, as well, has philosophical suppositions that cannot be proven or disproven by science.

I'm not sure what "claims" you were asking for evidence of, hence my

Quote:

---

Note that science, as well, has philosophical suppositions that cannot be proven or disproven by science

---

Quote:

---

Science rests on the philosophical assumption that virtually all events of the universe can be described by physical theories and laws.

---

Quote:

---

blewmeanie said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just went through, and read the entire thread again to be sure, I'm not seeing that argument being made anywhere by anyone. Its not that ID is in opposition to evolution, (IMO) they just simply are not related. They aren't even in the same field, one is science, and the other is religion. If you believe that the universe was created, or formed in some intelligent way then more power to you, but it has nothing to do with science.

---

Quote:

---

The books on ID basically argue against evolution....

---

Quote:

---

Intelligent Design: An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to
Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such, Intelligent Design is the scientific
disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution
that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. Intelligent design can also be
viewed as the Science of design detection applied to natural phenomena

---

Quote:

---

The elite in our culture are materialistic and atheistic. Intelligent design challenges their materialistic science and materialistic evolutionary theory. If you look at discipline after discipline, it's been evolutionized — medicine, business, religion, literature. [...] If we are right, all these superstructures built on evolution need to be questioned. [...] Intelligent design is the only view opposed to the reductionist materialism that prevails in the academy and in the scientific view the elites of the culture. Most of the unwashed masses, and I count myself among them, believe there's a sense of purpose. We're giving a voice to those people, saying: 'The science backs you up

...

I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it.

---

Quote:

---

Can you spot the logical fallacy?

---

Quote:

---

Veritas said:

Both Dembski AND Behe have made it clear in their assertions that they dispute Evolutionary Theory.

---

Quote:

---

Upon what evidence do you base your claim that ID does not attempt to dispute Evolution? 

---

Quote:

---

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.

---

Quote:

---

[I]ntelligent design makes no claims about the origin or duration of the universe, is not committed to flood geology, can accommodate any degree of evolutionary change, does not prejudge how human beings arose and does not specify in advance how a designing intelligence brought the first organisms into being.

---

Quote:

---

Circularity as a strawman sport.

The philosophical materialist, or metaphysical naturalist, asserts that the universe is all there ever was, is, or will be.  When questioned as to the evidence for this postulate he proclaims," science demonstrates it."  When asked for the evidence that science is the only method for arriving at that conclusion he proclaims, "because the universe is all there ever was, is, or will be."  Such circularity might satisfy those who believe in science, but it is particularly unsatisfying for those with an appetite for tight logic.  Misguided science, under the direction of naturalism, assumes what it hopes to prove and in doing so proves nothing.

Strawmen are such fun. 

---

Other than the one that I specified every single one of those was 100 percent in context. I even provided you with sources.

However.....if you want to talk about out of context quotes, consider this one I wasnt going to bring it up but.........

From a april 26 2005 essay by William Dembski published on his webpage.

• 
  The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in whats called the Cambrian Explosion. In a very brief window of time during the geological period known as the Cambrian, virtually all the basic animal types appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no trace of evolutionary ancestors. The Cambrian explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.
  

That seems really interesting right? Of course its not his work or evidence it someone elses that he is referencing, but interesting none the less. He is quoting paleontologist Peter Ward from his book On Methuselahs trail, and that would be just fine and dandy except for one thing. ITS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, AND LEAVES OUT THE REST OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.

• On page 35 Ward writes this:
  
      Until almost 1950 the absence of metazoan fossils older than Cambrian age continued to puzzle evolutionists and earth historians alike. Other than the remains of single-celled creatures and the matlike stromatolites, it did indeed look as if larger creatures had arisen with a swiftness that made a mockery of Darwins theory of evolution. This notion was finally put to rest, however, by the discovery of the Ediacarian and Vendian fossil faunas of latest Precambrian age.
  
  On page 36 we find:
  
      Intensive searching of strata immediately underlying the well-known basal Cambrian deposits in the years between 1950 and 1980 showed that the larger skeletonized fossils (such as the trilobites and brachiopods) that supposedly appeared so suddenly were in fact preceded by skeletonized forms so small as to be easily overlooked by the pioneering geologists.
  
  And just in case there is still any doubt, Ward closes the section with the following statement:
  
      The long-accepted theory of the sudden appearance of skeletal metazoans at the base of the Cambrian was incorrect: the basal Cambrian boundary marked only the first appearance of relatively large skeleton-bearing forms, such as the brachipods and trilobites, rather than the first appearance of skeletonized metazoans. Darwin would have been satisfied. The fossil record bore out his conviction that the trilobites and brachipods appeared only after a long period of evolution of ancestral forms. (pages 36-37)
  
  
  

Oops


Its ok though I didnt even notice how you side stepped every relevant point I made. Claiming my googled source work quotes are what, unreliable? I even pulled some of them off creationist, and intelligent design webpages.

Quote:

---

Moreover, sadly, none of the quote-mined quotes evince either Dembski nor Behe have a problem with common descent

---

It seems we've gone from "arguing against evolution" to "having a problem with common descent". Continually moving the boundary when the evidence is inconsistent with your statement seems to be a common trait among creationists.

This is what you originally quoted, and irrefutable evidence has been provided to you. Changing the point of conjecture as a tactic of debate is poor form.

• The books on ID basically argue against evolution
  
  

If your up to it, Im not only willing but quite able to discuss the science behind any particular ideas you have pertaining to ID, or any evidence that may suggest it. I have no particular view on them at all, I've yet to see anything that would lead me to consider it a topic of scientific inquiry rather than religious faith so I simply dont worry myself with it. I have no "belief" against it though so feel free to discuss any actuall thoughts you may have.

Or would you rather keep debating the semantics of someone elses faith?

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
low odds that a protein will form

After a few days they analyzed the contents of the experiment and found that amino acids, the critical organic molecules essential to life out of which proteins are made, had appeared by themselves. The four carbon chemical bonds in the methane had broken free and rearranged themselves into the building blocks of life.

This happened without the benefit of a designer, alien, creator, or anything else besides water, methane, hydrogen, ammonia and a spark.

Although it is now believed that the Earth's atmosphere at the time of abiogenesis did not contain enough carbon or free nitrogen for this to have been the synthetic route to the first organism, it nevertheless clearly established that a natural processes COULD have produced the first life on Earth and more modern experiments confirm this.
.

---

Quote:

---

This idea that abiogenesis is highly unlikely is made up by religious people who don't understand simple chemistry and sadly never try to educate themselves

---

Quote:

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

---

Your looking at odds of 1 that the deck will be dealt vs low odds that a protein will form

---

.
The odds of a protein forming are 100%.

You argue one way to support a point, then use the same argument to dismiss a contrary point. This is not congruous.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Amino acids are one thing, but code sequences of amino acids have never been replicated.

Mystic-heads are notorious for moving the goal-line when it suits them.

Before the Miller-Urey experiment, it was said that, sure, simple molecules like methane can self-assemble sans a creator, but "complex" molecules like amino acids never could.

Along came Miller and Urey and suddenly it's, sure, simple building blocks of life like amino acids can self-assemble sans a creator, but "complex" molecules like DNA never could.

And so on, and so on...

No amount of evidence is ever enough to convince someone who has invested themselves psychologically in an idea instead of rejecting attachment and allowing for ANY truth when the evidence points that way, even when it's uncomfortable.

---

Quote:

---

I suggest that you, or anyone really interested in this subject, do some reading on it.  There are plenty of webpages that Dembski, and Behe for that matter, have authored.

---

When I investigated said websites, as well as many others in which reputable scientists presented evidence which exposed ID "theories" as the laughable conjecture they are, and quoted Dembski as disputing evolution, you implied that I had no understanding of the subject, as I had "merely" Googled the topic. 

All proponents of ID dispute that life originated via the evolutionary process.  They also dispute the idea that complex forms of life could evolve, as opposed to being "designed" by what some of them call an "intelligent agent," and others blatantly call "God." (The latter include Dembski and Behe, as evidenced in the quotes I provided.)

This stance is evident in every bit of information provided by them.  If you now wish to support the claim that their own websites, as well as interviews with the authors themselves, does not accurately portray the TRUE assertions of these authors, please do so. 

Additionally, if you wish to provide some support for the assertion that ID is a scientific theory, I would be quite interested to read it.  It seems quite evident to me that the claims of the popular ID authors have been exposed as non-scientific, yet you appear quite convinced  of their merit and basis.  Are you aware that these authors decline to present their research for peer-review, opting instead to publish books within their own circle?  Are you further aware that actual peer-reviewed research has found their "irreducible complexity" hypothesis (and other central ideas to ID) utterly worthless?