Life with Intelligent Design

Posted on by

People want to know what happens if ID wins. What scientific research will ID spawn?

That’s easy- for starters there are all of those questions that get asked by any design inference- the who, what, how, when, where and why- all valid research venues given ID. There’s plenty there to keep scientists busy for decades, if not longer.

With respect to biology we would set out to find that something else, the something else besides chemistry and physics that makes living organisms what they are.

With respect to SETI we would use the findings from “The Privileged Planet” to find any other technologically capable civilizations and habitable planets.

So far from being a scientific dead-end ID would spawn new research that will keep us busy for some time.

 

142 thoughts on “Life with Intelligent Design”

  1. GlenDavidson:
    If the martyr fantasies of IDists were actually true, one might then see why non-IDists aren’t doing ID science.

    What they’ve never explained is why IDists and corporations (only the bottom line is holy) never do ID science either.Are they being prevented from doing it?By TSZ, or what?They can’t do ID science in some dungeon somewhere that “Darwinists” can’t find, preparing to show up all of those atheistic ideologues?

    You’d think the fierce and proud IDists would be seriously doing in secret all of the science that is purportedly persecuted in the open.And yet, they seem to believe in the value of ID about like we do, and do no design science at all.A paltry and misinterpreted form of actual evolutionary science is the best that they can muster.

    Unless there’s some hidden lab bursting with discoveries just about to announce the downfall of atheistic materialistic science.I’m not betting the farm on it.

    Glen Davidson

    LoL! Lead by example- where is all of the unguided evolutionary research? What marvels has natural selection unlocked?

    Hell you can’t even answer basic questions and you want to flail away at ID? Really?

  2. Frankie: “The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:

    Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

    He goes on to say:

    Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn’t even require there be a God.

    You forgot Dembski’s more recent comment.

    “Do you want fries with that?”

  3. Acartia: You forgot Dembski’s more recent comment.

    “Do you want fries with that?”

    I take that to mean, all of the ID supporters with almost no exceptions are religious creationists, and when they are collecting funds for their PR efforts (which is all they do with that money), they identify the Designer with the creationist god, and do their collecting in churches.

    And their arguments “in favor of” intelligent design are without any exceptions attacks on some caricature of the theory of evolution, because the creationist god “didn’t do it that way”. And they know this because they prayed, and their god TOLD them so.

    Is it any wonder Dembski got laughed out of the discussion?

  4. FrankenJoe, why did not a single one of your brilliant ID researchers apply for the Templeton Foundation’s grant money to study ID? Why could the collective lot of them not come up with a single testable ID hypothesis?

  5. Wow – Frankie thinks ID is so fertile. What active, positive (not evolution bashing) programes are under way?

  8. Richardthughes:
    Wow – Frankie thinks ID is so fertile. What active, positive (not evolution bashing) programes are under way?

    A field covered with manure is also fertile.

  9. Acartia,

    I’d like Frankie to take any of the examples in his post (that could keep scientists busy for decades) and give us details. Not Trumptails like ‘I’d get the best people, build a lab that Mexico would pay for’ but research specifics

  10. Richardthughes:
    Acartia,

    I’d like Frankie to take any of the examples in his post (that could keep scientists busy for decades) and give us details. Not Trumptails like ‘I’d get the best people, build a lab that Mexico would pay for’ but research specifics

    We all have our unachievable dreams.

  11. With respect to biology we would set out to find that something else, the something else besides chemistry and physics that makes living organisms what they are.

    What, you atheist materialists need more than that?

    You get a bunch of money, use that to discover what besides chemistry and physics makes living organisms what they are, and produce marvelous cures and technology from that.

    Much like this.

    Funny how much like a parody ID is. What’s amazing is that anyone thinks that it’s perfectly wonderful science.

    Glen Davidson

  13. RoyLT: It would appear that you are affirming the obvious correlation between the doctrines of ID and YEC.While most skeptics would suggest this being the case, it typically not openly asserted by proponents of ID.

    Perhaps if ID proponents were to discover any useful concepts such as cures for diseases and new testable theories, others would become interested in the research.To date, this has not happened and it makes the plea for equal consideration of ID (what I call ‘No Theory Left Behind’) sound hollow and meaningless.

    Likewise for YEC.If a coherent set of radiometric decay constants could be shown to converge on 4004 BCE, many scientists would get interested real fast.As it stands, all that YEC’ers have is an oft-repeated talking point about the unreliability of decay rates and a couple examples of wood chunks interred in anachronistic geological contexts.

    You didn’t understand my point.
    By the way ONLY BC should be used. BCE is not the term of the people but a invasive term by those who want a change. its not moral or legal because the people decide their nations weights and measures.

    I mean if the error of evolution and any opposition to a created system in biology or anything is corrected. THEN the whole herd of people who apply themselves to these subjects would have intellectual freedom and/or insight and bring about great advancement.
    Newton did more then trivial physics but stirred everyone up about the laws of nature and how we can figure them out.
    Likewise the overthrow of crazy ideas of bugs becoming buffaloes by small steps.
    Likewise the crazy idea that the glory of everything we see is not obviously from a thinking being.

  15. Mung: I just want to know if ID is a female.

    You should know, you are the expert here as you are an ID supporter.

  16. Robert Byers:
    You didn’t understand my point.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure that I did understand. I just completely disagree with it on the basis of all logic and reason.

    Newton did more then trivial physics but stirred everyone up about the laws of nature and how we can figure them out.

    Agreed, as did Galileo and Einstein. But they did it by formulating useful mathematical and scientific concepts on their own which could be demonstrated to others. As opposed to demanding that all of academia simply accept their assertions without evidence in order to begin the research.

    By the way ONLY BC should be used. BCE is not the term of the people but a invasive term by those who want a change.

    Thanks, but change is good. Morals must evolve with time and context. David collected 200 Philistine foreskins as a present for Saul in order to marry his daughter. My father-in-law would not have been particularly pleased with such a gift in the 21st century. I’ll stick with the newfangled BCE and CE.

  19. Flint: I take that to mean, all of the ID supporters with almost no exceptions are religious creationists, and when they are collecting funds for their PR efforts (which is all they do with that money), they identify the Designer with the creationist god, and do their collecting in churches.

    And their arguments “in favor of” intelligent design are without any exceptions attacks on some caricature of the theory of evolution, because the creationist god “didn’t do it that way”. And they know this because they prayed, and their god TOLD them so.

    Is it any wonder Dembski got laughed out of the discussion?

    What a load of crap. Too bad you can’t support your claim that we attack a caricature of the alleged ToE. And too bad ID doesn’t require one to be religious- an atheist can be an IDist.

    Talk about not posting in good faith- Flint wins that prize

  20. Richardthughes:
    Acartia,

    I’d like Frankie to take any of the examples in his post (that could keep scientists busy for decades) and give us details. Not Trumptails like ‘I’d get the best people, build a lab that Mexico would pay for’ but research specifics

    Bump!

  21. Details for something that doesn’t yet exist? Really? Evos who hide from details prove their hypocrisy once again.

  22. Frankie:
    Details for something that doesn’t yet exist? Really? Evos who hide from details prove their hypocrisy once again.

    Thanks for admitting what we already know. ID does no research and can’t even think of any to do.

  23. Frankie:
    Details for something that doesn’t yet exist? Really? Evos who hide from details prove their hypocrisy once again.

    Yes. A Plan. A Roadmap. A Design. or can’t you do it? Isn’t it possible? Better change your post then!

  24. I’ll help:

    With respect to biology we would set out to find that something else, the something else besides chemistry and physics that makes living organisms what they are by..[Joe fills in details here]

    With respect to SETI we would use the findings from “The Privileged Planet” to find any other technologically capable civilizations and habitable planets by..[Joe fills in details here]

  25. LoL! ID research pertains to the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. And that has been going on for decades. And unlike your position ID has a methodology.

    But I digress- the OP pertains to what happens after ID is the accepted paradigm. And seeing the current paradigm is devoid of details and a research program the precedent has been set.

  26. Frankie: But I digress- the OP pertains to what happens after ID is the accepted paradigm

    Absolutely false, and an obvious red herring. There is nothing stopping the research now (other than you can’t generate it) and historically research has happened in different paradigms repeatedly. The ICR are still looking for the ark – That may count as ID research. 😀

  27. Richardthughes: I’ll help:

    With respect to biology we would set out to find that something else, the something else besides chemistry and physics that makes living organisms what they are by..[Joe fills in details here]

    With respect to SETI we would use the findings from “The Privileged Planet” to find any other technologically capable civilizations and habitable planets by..[Joe fills in details here]

    Fill in the missing details. Or are you bluffing?

  28. Tell me why details are required at this time. I dare you to try to make a case especially given the fact that your position is devoid of details.

  29. Frankie: Tell me why details are required at this time.

    To show its possible. Obviously. You’ve asserted it is, so you must have details?

    And then another negative argument. Tragically predictable.

  30. Richie, your posts are absolutely false and red herrings. We are not on your asinine agenda. ID research is ongoing. The research in the OP is post-ID research.

  31. Frankie: The research in the OP is post-ID research.

    Great. Give us DETAILS. fill in the blanks. You must know, you’re telling us all it’s possible.

  32. OK Richie cannot make his case. Simply spewing his scientific misconceptions is not making a case.

  33. Frankie: OK Richie cannot make his case.

    Wrong. Your post – your case. Assertion without support. NO DETAILS. Why can’t you give us the details, Joe? You said, “So far from being a scientific dead-end ID would spawn new research that will keep us busy for some time.” Yet you are unable to give ANY details. It’s pathetic, and transparent.

  34. Details are not required at this time. General research programs are more than enough to make my case. And all you are doing is proving that you don’t understand science. But we already knew that.

  35. Frankie: Details are not required at this time.

    Why? They’d be really useful for the ID cause – you’d get grants written. Do you have the details, Joe?

  36. The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID, so how can providing details for it help ID? Also you aren’t anyone to demand details or demand that details exist now.

  37. Frankie: The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID,

    Signature for sale.

    Possibly the most stupid thing you’ve written, and you’ve dropped some classics.

    Joe’s had ample opportunities to come up with some, and like those before him who could not take the templeton money, can’t generate any. Because ID is a dead end*

    *falsify this with details at any point, Joe.

  38. Richardthughes:

    Frankie: The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID,

    Signature for sale.

    Possibly the most stupid thing you’ve written, and you’ve dropped some classics.

    Wait…whaaa…? So…let me see if I’ve got this right: when ID wins, there will be no more ID?

  39. Frankie:
    The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID, so how can providing details for it help ID?

    This is correct. The Intelligent Design movement has nothing to do with scientific research.

  40. Robin,

    Well, to try to understand the “logic,” FrankenJoe swallows the ID statement that ID is about design detection, and that’s it. Nothing about the designer, nothing about the design (sometimes it’s about “design” if they think they can score points about “junk DNA” not being junk, or such, but mostly it’s an amorphous “just detecting design”), but once it’s finally accepted that not only is design obvious but also firmly established there will be glorious research into the causes and effects of design (which they don’t presently know in the slightest, which seems less like science than religion/apologetics) that will usher in the golden age.

    It’s a kind of tacit admission that ID has nothing, really, that ID is really just anti-evolutionism, coupled to the assumption that ID wins if evolution loses. If those were legitimate science there might be a case for it, but it’s not.

    Glen Davidson

  41. GlenDavidson:
    Robin,

    It’s a kind of tacit admission that ID has nothing, really, that ID is really just anti-evolutionism, coupled to the assumption that ID wins if evolution loses.If those were legitimate science there might be a case for it, but it’s not.

    Glen Davidson

    Yeah, I know…just trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek about Joe’s consistent inconsistency. “Oh…if ID wins, there will be no more reason for ID because evolution won’t exist! Oh…but ID isn’t anti-evolution or anything!”

    Joe is nothing if not…uh…nope…Joe is just nothing.

  42. People want to know what happens if ID wins. What scientific research will ID spawn?

    That’s easy – for starters post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID.

    Everytime I read Joe’s ‘thoughts’ I can faintly hear the Laurel & Hardy theme.

  43. Woodbine,

    The hits just keep coming. That and “Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis”. He must be the bottom rung of the ID ladder (just below Mapou and Phoodoo).

  44. Frankie:
    The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID, so how can providing details for it help ID?

    Gold. Absolute comedy gold. 😀

  47. Mung: I also support an open mind. silly me.

    Yeah. Let’s see how we get to that I insulted you, or I don’t have an open mind or whatever you meant by that specifically.

    Richardthughes: Wow – Frankie thinks ID is so fertile. What active, positive (not evolution bashing) programes are under way?

    You only quoted the bolded part in the next comment where you say:

    Mung: I just want to know if ID is a female.

    Then I ask:

    OMagain: You should know, you are the expert here as you are an ID supporter.

    So you start of cutting off “What active, positive (not evolution bashing) programes are under way?” from Richards quote, I guess turning it into a “joke”. You just quote “Wow – Frankie thinks ID is so fertile.” instead of the whole thing. Then you add your joke.

    Richardthughes:
    Wow – Frankie thinks ID is so fertile. What active, positive (not evolution bashing) programes are under way?

    He obviously meant fertile in a different sense.

    I respond to your “joke” by pointing out that if anyone should know it’s likely you.

    And somehow at end of all that I don’t support open minds, or something, silly me.

    What a trainwreck.

  48. Frankie: The following explain the EF

    Would we use that in conjunction with the Privileged Planet to decode the signals from the Alien Civilisations?

  49. Mung: I also support an open mind. silly me.

    “The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.”
    ― Terry Pratchett, Diggers

  50. Robin: Signature for sale.

    Possibly the most stupid thing you’ve written, and you’ve dropped some classics.

    Wait…whaaa…? So…let me see if I’ve got this right: when ID wins, there will be no more ID?

    ID is about the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. Post-ID research is not about that. It is about trying to answer all of the questions that follow from it.

Leave a Reply