Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.
UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.
ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.
There is the small matter that, until someone can formulate some sort of testable hypothesis, “Intelligent Design” will remain a broken-down vehicle for promoting religious ideas as scientific.
I would like to know what religious ideas folks here think ID is trying to promote as science. Meanwhile, it’s far from dead.
And Alan Fox is no better at prognostication than Elizabeth.
🙂
Mung writes:
Yes, I see. Two papers this year. The latest, by Doug Axe and Ann Gauger, appears to be attempting to use computer models to show biological evolution is impossible. This Sherlock Holmes approach isn’t an argument for “Intelligent Design” and using a dodgy map will get you lost in the real territory.
Rather it’s stillborn as science. That hypothesis?
Is that the same Doug Axe and Ann Gauger who are on the editorial board?
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeam
Mung, you should get Joe G to peer review your stuff. Because you are peers!
Undead. Eating children’s brains.
And Bernie is alive, too!
See, he’s moving–when we jiggle him.
Yeah, I don’t think the point was that ID can’t be poked and prodded so that it moves a bit. It lacks any vitality, any life force, any capability of driving science or of stirring interest in anything but apologetics. In the matter of science it was stillborn, to be sure, but as the appearance of science it had a brief life, if hardly a healthy one.
What is more, Mung needs to learn that telling what the state of a movement is at the present time is not prognostication.
Glen Davidson
If it were alive it would be evolving, and not repeating arguments originated by Paley in 1803.
Of course, advancement is considered a weakness by creationists. Look at how they sneer at all the corrections and modifications to Darwin’s hypotheses.
Mung on the triangle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_of_the_RMS_Titanic
BIO-Complexity continues to publish.
Yup, two whole papers in 2015! One of which has both authors on the editorial board (often considered a no-no)! Gee, those 29 members of the editorial board must be really burdened with all that editorial work! What a terrific success!
Geez, Louise, if any field of science boasted that their flagship journal “continue[d] to publish” and by “continue[d] to publish” they meant that they published .07 papers per member of the editorial board per year, they’d be laughed out of the pool. But not in ID. In ID the ID proponents take this as a mark of success.
May you have continued success like that.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22intelligent%20design%22&cmpt=q
If “not dead” means merely there are still people who cling to it, then yeah, ID is alive. Like flat-earthism, astrology, crystal-healers and so on. How proud you must be!
In the Wedge Document, ID proponents kindly provided some benchmarks against which we can judge their progress. How would you say they’ve done, Mung?
FIVE YEAR GOALS
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
TWENTY YEAR GOALS
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES
A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)
Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)
One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows
Significant coverage in national media:
Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
Spiritual & cultural renewal:
Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism
Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
Scientific achievements:
An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences
Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
Well, they got that.
They just didn’t like it.
Glen Davidson
keiths quotes the Wedge Document:
But intelligent design creationism has nothing to do with religion. It’s all science.
That has already been provided, Alan, and it beats what your position has to offer. So I can see why you would want to act as if it doesn’t exist.
What religion, Patrick? ID doesn’t require a belief in God. It doesn’t say anything about worship or service. There aren’t any prayers.
So please tell us what ID has to do with religion
shallit,
And yet evolutionism doesn’t have any papers published, ever!
Go ahead and look. There isn’t any way to test the claim that natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes can produce any protein complex. There aren’t any papers that support the idea.
Yes, evolutionism is stillborn and we have been waiting for that hypothesis for over 150 years
Darwin’s hypotheses? He didn’t have any
ID will be dead if evolutionists finally find some way to support their claims and actually support them. However to date they still don’t have a way to test those claims and their falsification requires one to demonstrate a negative. So they have a long, long way to go and ID isn’t going away any time soon. 😎
This is arrant nonsense, Frankie. There is no testable ID hypothesis. You haven’t provided one and neither has anyone else, neither here nor in any other location, in any book or paper or on a website.
There is NO testable scientific hypothesis for “Intelligent Design”.
That there is a designer god who created the universe and life on earth for a purpose and that this god has managed to intervene in the development of life on earth countless times over billions of years despite having no body, no technology – no means of interacting with the world.
ID will never die. YEC will never die. But ID has had several decades to make a reasonable case for itself and its failed utterly to do that.
Frankie,
Cdesign proponentsists
FFS
Origin of Species
It is even available on line.
And? Darwin used the word “Creator” in his book when referring to the OoL. By your “logic” evolution is creationism
I read it- no testable hypotheses were provided.
ID does not require God. ID will never die because you cannot find anything to refute it! You can’t even support the claims of your position!
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
That is the ID hypothesis regardless of how you feel about it and it beats anything that you can muster for evolutionism. That means your whining about it doesn’t matter as you cannot do any better.
But I make no claims for OoL hypotheses. There are no well-supported OoL hypotheses because there is no remaining direct evidence of how life got started on Earth. Creation of the first life by some god is almost as well supported as any other theory. But Darwin’s theory kicks in when the first life on Earth appears. It is a theory of how life diversified from the first life. Darwin may have believed in a creator god for OoL for all I know and for all you know. Has nothing to do with the fact that his theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by evidence from a wide range of sources and disciplines.
Frankie,
We’ve already dismissed this nonsense. It’s Sherlock Holmes argumentation.
This is such a ridiculously inane and idiotic statement that I’m struggling to reply within the rules of this site. Common Descent is an entailment of the theory of evolution. The nested hierarchies that result from common descent are found always in the right chronological strata and always confirmed by molecular phylogenetics. Stupid remarks like yours take seconds to bang out on a keyboard but a full reply takes time and effort which, I suspect, will be wasted.
I know you dismissed it but it is still better than anything evolutionism can muster. And on an open and honest forum you would lose
Alan Fox,
DARWIN MADE THE CLAIM, Alan. You cannot chide ID and not see the same logic applies to Darwin
One person manages to come up with one statement in defense of the claim that “Intelligent Design” is a broken-down vehicle for promoting religious ideas as scientific.
And it wasn’t even Alan Fox, who made the initial claim.
That’s it?
Maybe it’s anti-ID that is dead.
Alan Fox,
And yet no one can find this “theory of evolution” so we can all read what it really says. And you have proven that there aren’t any positive cases to be made so how can there be a theory?
Alan, common descent is itself an evolutionary theory, not an entailment of the theory of evolution. And Darwin didn’t even get there first.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurscommdesc.html
Darwin didn’t say anything about nested hierarchies and Mayr said they are the antithesis of evolutionism. You don’t know what a nested hierarchy entails. Transitional forms would ruin any attempt at forming a nested hierarchy. Common Descent cannot be tested, Alan. There aren’t any hypotheses for NS producing Common Descent.
Issues of science are unlikely to be settled by a couple of random commenters to-and-fro’ing on a website. It is not a matter of winning and losing, it is a matter of evidence. I admire your ability to continue to maintain the line you do in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
There isn’t any evidence to the contrary, Alan. Your say-so is definitely meaningless. And yes it is a matter of evidence and there isn’t any evidence for natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes creating protein complexes or regulatory networks.
Mung: Maybe it’s anti-ID that is dead.
As ID sinks from view, so will ID skeptics be able to develop new hobbies.
Why would ID sink from view? It has all the evidence and a means to be tested.
One hobby won’t be to actually find support for the claims of their position.
I’ve no doubt other people had inklings before Darwin advanced his theory of natural selection. The history is interesting but what is important is the reality of the theory. And evidence refuting common descent would certainly falsify evolutionary theory so I disagree that common descent is not an entailment of the theory.
Yet a decade of no ID tests or experiments.
Common Descent cannot be tested. All alleged positive claims come from its assumption. So how can an untestable concept be a theory or even part of a theory?
The religious approach to truth is well displayed in this thread. You simply SAY that you’re right. This is how all religions start (and splinter), since physical evidence has no bearing on whatever you declare.
So here we read a stirring defense of ID (and really, the only one possible):
Evolutionism has no evidence
There is no theory of evolution
ID is real science
Darwin was wrong
Darwin didn’t say what he said, he said what I SAID he said
ID has all the evidence
ID can be tested and falsified, but hasn’t been because it’s true
ID scientists are doing real research
and so on.
LoL! Just link to the theory and be done with it, then. Or admit you can’t and we will know why.
Oh, how quickly they forget we actually have evidence against such silly claims from the religionists…
Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible (Maynard 2001)
Several books on intelligent design are published by InterVarsity Press, which says of itself:
Care to revise your statement there Joe?
Robin,
You are conflating what some people want to use ID for with ID itself.
In his book “Signature in the Cell” Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
“The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:
and