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.
The intersection of making things up as you go along and not being very bright.
Wrong again, Glen. ID is about the detection AND study of intelligent designs in nature. And no ID doesn’t say that it wins if evolution losses. We have made that very, very clear. However you seem to think that evolutionism wins if you attack ID with your willful ignorance. And that is beyond strange
ID’s research is the detection and study of intelligent designs in nature. And unlike your position ID has a methodology. I take it that has my opponents all upset- that the way to refute ID is to actually support the claims of their position but they don’t have a methodology to do such a thing.
Frankie:
“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.”
So ID will spawn research that doesn’t have anything to do with it. Despite having ID in the title “Post-ID research”. And you can’t tell us any details. VOTE TRUMP!
The post-ID research flows from the questions posed by the detection and study of intelligent designs in nature. It is not ID research. ID research pertains to the first, ie the detection and study of intelligent designs in nature.
And it is very telling that my opponents cannot grasp that
Frankie:
“The post-ID research flows from the questions posed by the detection and study of intelligent designs in nature.”
“That’s easy – for starters post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID.”
Derp.
Thank you for proving my point, cupcake. So much for Lizzie’s rules…
Directly quoting you and your obvious contradiction doesn’t break any rules. You did this to yourself. Think more, type less.
What contradiction? Please tell me what answering the follow up questions has to do with detecting and studying designs?
“The post-ID research flows from the questions posed by the detection and study of intelligent designs in nature.”
“That’s easy – for starters post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID.”
😀
Moved a few comments to guano.
Perhaps the questions that Joe is referring to are things like, “what temperature does hell attain on it’s hottest days?” or “does lack of a material body in heaven inhibit the ability to make good margaritas?”
I’ll just note that every time I see a pro-ID individual post something about “CSI”, I’m now convinced that person actually means “CS Lewis”…
From the OP: “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.”
Given the statement above, it is difficult to discern how the Post-ID “flood” of research will differ from the work of every Apologetic for the last 1900 years or so. The nature and methods of the “Designer” have been a central question of theology for all of recorded history. In “Design Revolution”, Dembski specifically directs anyone with questions about the Designer to go to Theology or Philosophy.
Erm. That strikes a little too close to home. Don’t do that.
LoL! Why is it OK for evolutionists to say that origin of life research has nothing to do with evolutionary research given that evolutionary research needs an OoL and how life originated directly impacts any subsequent evolution?
But when an IDists says that questions that are separate from ID (Dembski 2002) have nothing to do with ID evos throw a hissy-fit. Talk about hypocrisy.
RoyLT,
Well now those would be science questions. Also theology and philosophy have not been able to answer them.
I have 2 problems with that assertion. Firstly, in ‘The Design Revolution’ Dembski repeatedly states that ID makes no claims as to the nature of the ‘disembodied intelligence’ responsible for the design. He explicitly directs anyone seeking answers to those questions to Philosophy or Theology. You are disputing that. On what grounds?
Secondly, and more importantly, theology and philosophy have not been studying those questions in a vacuum. There have been countless Biblically-inspired scientists over the last 2 millennia attempting to prove various aspects of the historicity of Biblical claims. I agree that they have been utterly unsuccessful, but we differ starkly on the reason for that. It is because attempting to conduct scientific analysis on a supposedly supernatural entity which cannot be said to exist in any useful sense of the word is a fruitless endeavor.
Is the flagellum designed?
You demand to know what mechanisms allow evolution to function. Which is a valid question. ID claims to be a competing explanation to evolution. How can it be a competing explanation when it refuses to explain anything?
LoL! @ Acartia- Yes, given all of the evidence it is safe to say that flagella were intelligently designed. But if you think you can demonstrate otherwise the entire world will be listening. We await your testable hypotheses and experimentation.
And AGAIN, your position claims to have a step-by-step gradual process to produce biological structures, systems and sub-systems. We are merely asking you to support that claim. We don’t understand why that causes you such pain. ID has a step-by-step methodology to determine if ID is present or not.
As far as mechanisms go design is a mechanism in the same sense as natural selection, drift and neutral construction. It is just that we don’t have to know the specific design process used in order to determine ID exists and then study it. With yours the mechanisms are front and center. Without them you have nothing- and even with them you still have nothing. 😛
RoyLT,
1- We don’t know if it was disembodied or not. That would be assuming your conclusion
2- Forensics, SETI and archaeology don’t need theology or philosophy
3- No one has been trying to figure out how God created living organisms. But given God they have already settled on the who
Frankie,
1) An embodied Designer begs the question as in Crick’s Panspermia theory. How did he come to be and where is he?
2) How many scientific questions has SETI answered to date? As for forensics and archaeology, they have no need of theology because the objects of their study were all created by observable processes.
Given the site’s rules, I have to assume that you are being serious with this statement.
Someone, in fact many someones, have been trying to figure out how God created living organisms for the entire history of the religion. The commentaries on Genesis Chapter 1 alone could fill several libraries.
As for the second sentence, your hypocrisy is astounding. “But given God…” is as bald an example of “assuming your conclusion” as one normally sees in serious discourse.
1- So a disembodied designer doesn’t beg the same questions? Really? We take it one step at a time.
2- ID posits observable processes, namely intentional agencies using knowledge to manipulating nature for their purpose
I would need a reference for people trying to figure out how God created living organisms.
And my point was that they aren’t looking for the who as they have already decided Goddidit.
Deciding that God did it is not taking it one step at a time. And if your concept of God is not disembodied, then you have made a radical departure from Orthodox Christian beliefs.
ID, as you have presented it thus far in this thread concerns itself with the evidence of design, not with the processes by which it came about. Can you give me some examples of the observable processes which ID posits?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-21
Your point does not justify “assuming the conclusion”. It is an assertion of naked faith with no scientific support.
I am not a christian
namely intentional agencies using knowledge to manipulating nature for their purpose
Then which God do you pre-suppose as the source of design? You have clearly stated an a priori commitment to God as the ‘Who’ (see below in case you have forgotten).
RoyLT,
ID doesn’t require God and I was talking about those religious people YOU mentioned
Yet one of the things you claim ID has proven is that the universe is designed.
Did your God sub-contract that task to your non-God Intelligent Designer then?
Neither is WJM. Nor Erik (iirc).
Its’ amazing, really, how many times people here make the assumption.
For a bit of clarity, let’s go back to the a couple of the 3 points you posted earlier:
All of the ID literature I am familiar with clearly suggests a disembodied, un-evolved intelligence. Do you agree or not?
Blatantly false, whether you identify yourself as a Christian or not. Theologians and Biblically-inspired scientists have been attempting to understand “the what, how, when, where and why” of the origin of living organisms as well as everything else in the universe for all of recorded history. I will grant that the “who” is pre-supposed by each person’s faith, but your statement makes no sense.
RoyLT,
ID doesn’t say anything about the designer and there could be more than one.
And your link didn’t support your claim about trying to figure out how God Created living organisms
I will concede that after looking over the chapter of Dembski’s book that addresses embodied vs. un-embodied, you are correct and he explicitly states that ID makes no assertion either way:
“The designer is not an event, object, or structure. Consequently, the designer, though capable of producing phenomena that exhibit empirical marks of intelligence, cannot as such exhibit empirical marks of intelligence.” (2004, pg. 199)
However, in light of this assertion, how will the post-ID research address the questions arising about the designer if he/she/it is not an event, object or structure?
I’ll play along in good faith. Here are a couple of other links. The 3rd one is probably the most relevant to this discussion.
http://www.gotquestions.org/dust-of-the-earth.html
http://creation.com/did-the-creator-use-evolution
http://embracedbytruth.com/Man/Crown%20of%20Creation/From%20the%20Dust.htm
RoyLT,
So you really think those links support your claim? Really??
Yes. “Dust of the Earth + God’s Breath”, “Hypernaturalism”, Guided-Evolution, are just a few of the countless theories set up to explain how God created life. There are a ton of articles on ICR, AiG, and Creation.com about this specific topic.
I am glad that you think those address the “how”, I disagree
You are free to disagree with that assertion. But if they do not attempt to answer “how”, then which of the “questions for science” do they attempt to answer? Even given the Who, that still leaves What, When, Where, and Why from your list above of questions which follow from a design inference.
Getting back to the point of the discussion:
How will the Post-ID flood of research differ from the last 2 millennia of theological speculation?
We have gone off into the weeds with the last few comments, but at the end of the day we ID-critics have no reason to believe that accepting ID (even if it had the slightest shred of explanatory power) would lead to anything other than more religious interference in scientific study.